The Climate Controversy and Rio Redux
June 29, 2012
Thomas Sieger Derr
Dear Readers,
First Things is a non-profit. For more than twenty years readers have provided donations that have sustained the journal. Now the electronic age presents new challenges. I’ve written to our subscribers, who have responded with generosity. Now I’m writing to you directly on the web. We need our web readers to step up and provide support as well.
Don’t let a secular mentality dominate our culture. More than twenty years ago Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues founded First Things to project a confident, informed, engaged, and religious voice into the Public Square. It was necessary then, and it remains so today. Donate now and help us become even stronger. Your support keeps First Things a vital voice in public debate.
First Things depends on all her supporters, large and small. Over the years countless readers have given, some $50, some $500, and some $1,000 and more. These gifts have made the difference. Yours will as well.
With gratitude for your support,
R. R. Reno
Editor
The second UN Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development—Rio + 20, for short—is underway in Brazil, and the main issue seems little to have changed since the first one twenty years ago.
The principal tension is between environmentalists, mainly from developed nations, who think human activity is leading to climate disaster, and the poorer nations who prize development above any environmental restrictions. So tense is the confrontation that the president of Brazil, the conference host, found it necessary to defend her country’s rapid economic progress by claiming that it was not actually harmful to the environment. The draft document with which the conference started has been so tilted in favor of development that the “green” organizations are already declaring the conference a total failure. The head of Greenpeace has vowed to renew his organization’s practice of civil disobedience in protest, and, in the style of the true fanatic, has declared himself ready to die for his cause.
In truth, Rio + 20 may not accomplish anything of importance. Diplomats will try to paper over the stalemate between opposing views with a lot of words and idyllic aspirations, but no one will really be fooled. Some major heads of state will not attend, including Obama and Cameron, perhaps for domestic political reasons, but also probably because they don’t want to waste their time. Maybe they don’t want to lend the prestige of their office to a flop.
Meanwhile, there have been some major changes in the real world that push hard against environmental orthodoxy. The most important has been the sudden availability of new supplies of gas and oil, two of the three major forms of fossil fuels condemned by the green movement (the other, of course, is coal). The newly employed system of hydraulic fracturing has brought enormous supplies of natural gas to market already, and is about to do the same for oil. The “peak oil” school, which has argued that we have passed the peak of oil discovery and are now in permanent decline, has been proved wrong. There is much more in North America than previously thought, a huge deposit off Brazil’s coast, one to dwarf them all in western Siberia, and likely more to come.
The ripple effects of new, relatively cheap energy are enormous, heralding a period of sustained economic growth worldwide, quite the opposite of the economic shrinking prescribed by the green movement. It has also become painfully apparent that the movement’s commitment to alternative energy—wind, solar, biofuel, and the like—has become economically unsustainable. All of them require government subsidies anyway, and the pressure from cheap, conventional alternatives (even if unconventionally obtained) has made the subsidies politically unpalatable. In the UK, for example, the governing coalition has been split over the issue, with the junior partner, the “greener” Liberal Democrats, shocked at the Tories’ proposal to phase out wind power subsidies, following a successful revolt against the towers by their own back-benchers.
And where stands “science” in all this? It has been the boast of environmental orthodoxy that “science” is a monolith “settled” on the coming crisis if humanity does not change its ways, or in the jargon, “reduce its carbon footprint.” In fact, there are thousands of well-credentialed scientists who dissent in whole or in part from the thesis that human activity is causing disastrous global warming. They note past ages that have been equally warm or warmer without human influence, to say nothing of repeating patterns of climate change like ice ages (though I’ve met one of James Hansen’s computer modelers who told me with sincere conviction that there would not be another ice age).
Dissenters point to many factors, from periodically oscillating ocean currents and varying solar output, to the inconsistency of measuring records and devices, to the lack of correlation between CO2 output and global temperatures (we’ve had a fifteen-year plateau in temperature change in spite of rising CO2 discharge). Whatever the truth of the competing claims, it’s perfectly clear that there is no scientific consensus. And there have been some celebrated deserters from the dominant orthodoxy, like Bjorn Lomborg who favors adaptation over an attempt to change the climate, and most recently James Lovelock, he of the “Gaia” hypothesis, who recanted his past climate pessimism rather dramatically.
The reaction of the environmental establishment to the presence of these dissenters and deserters has been rather nasty. Their papers have been denied publication in some journals, their grants and promotions have dried up, and they have been subjected to such ad hominem attacks as being aging and out-of-touch or worse, lackeys of the energy companies. At the extreme they have been excoriated as heretics, “climate deniers” akin to holocaust deniers and equally deserving of punishment.
It’s impossible to tell how this drama will play out. The energy revolution is a game-changer, surely, and political support for restrictive green policies and wasteful subsidies is declining. But the climate alarmists have not ceased their apocalyptic warnings, and have even stepped them up to meet these new challenge. No resolution of the conflict is in sight. But in spite of Rio + 20’s appearance of déjà vu, there are some major changes happening in the real world.
Thomas Sieger Derr is a member of the editorial board of First Things and the author of Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
6.29.2012 | 11:22am
Karen says:
There have been warmer periods in the past, but no warmer ones since the dawn of agriculture. Our food supply depends on a very narrow range of temperatures and rainfall. We can go on like we are only if we're willing to give up most orchard fruits. That's not even discussing the catastrophe we're inflicting on other species solely for the benefit of ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.
6.29.2012 | 12:04pm
S Trosley says:
The author's conclusion is not a conclusion. Things are not changing but they are?
6.29.2012 | 12:19pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@Thomas Sieger Derr - good article that hits the key points. Thanks!
@Meggie - "Global warming and the resulting climate change and increase in extreme weather events are presenting huge ethical issues in terms of social responsibility."
Not so. The claims of the coldists/warmists/changeists/disruptionists/extreme-weather-eventists have lost all credibility due to their repeatedly disproven claims, their dishonesty, and their active corruption of the scientific method and the peer review process. When the claims of the currently fashionable disruptionists/extreme-weather-eventists fail, they will spawn yet another brand, the stasists--those who say that climate stability is dangerous.
Whenever I hear compound phrases like "social responsibility" and "social justice" and "environmental justice," I put my hand on my wallet and keep my eyes fixed on the speaker, since I know a statist, confiscatory, anti-human movement is coming for me and what I've earned.
The Medieval Warm period is all you need to know that climate oscillations occur naturally, without a human cause. That's why the ideologues have tried to remove it to suppress the truth, just as Romans chapter 1 describes.
In the end, it's all about exerting control of humanity to conform to a Marxist, Gaiaist ideology that demands humanity's worship in the form of great economic sacrifices. In no other way can the ideology be honored in the way its advocates demand. Of course, the sacrifices are always of others; the movement's leaders live high on the hog.
I have a Ph.D. and I contribute to the scientific literature through the peer review process. I revile the tactics of Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others who intentionally lied and conspired to end the livelihood of researchers who are just trying to tell the truth, and so should you! That Jones and Mann continue to practice their chicanery unfettered merely confirms the wider blindness of their field, the irresponsibility of their peers, and the moral and spiritual confusion of their followers.
@Meggie - "Global warming and the resulting climate change and increase in extreme weather events are presenting huge ethical issues in terms of social responsibility."
Not so. The claims of the coldists/warmists/changeists/disruptionists/extreme-weather-eventists have lost all credibility due to their repeatedly disproven claims, their dishonesty, and their active corruption of the scientific method and the peer review process. When the claims of the currently fashionable disruptionists/extreme-weather-eventists fail, they will spawn yet another brand, the stasists--those who say that climate stability is dangerous.
Whenever I hear compound phrases like "social responsibility" and "social justice" and "environmental justice," I put my hand on my wallet and keep my eyes fixed on the speaker, since I know a statist, confiscatory, anti-human movement is coming for me and what I've earned.
The Medieval Warm period is all you need to know that climate oscillations occur naturally, without a human cause. That's why the ideologues have tried to remove it to suppress the truth, just as Romans chapter 1 describes.
In the end, it's all about exerting control of humanity to conform to a Marxist, Gaiaist ideology that demands humanity's worship in the form of great economic sacrifices. In no other way can the ideology be honored in the way its advocates demand. Of course, the sacrifices are always of others; the movement's leaders live high on the hog.
I have a Ph.D. and I contribute to the scientific literature through the peer review process. I revile the tactics of Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others who intentionally lied and conspired to end the livelihood of researchers who are just trying to tell the truth, and so should you! That Jones and Mann continue to practice their chicanery unfettered merely confirms the wider blindness of their field, the irresponsibility of their peers, and the moral and spiritual confusion of their followers.
6.29.2012 | 2:16pm
Meggie says:
Dean, your comments make it clear that you are led by ideology, not science. Thomas Sieger Derr's false assertion that "we’ve had a fifteen-year plateau in temperature change" is easily disproven by multiple sources. Instead of trying to cast aspersions on the integrity of the 97% of the scientific community, perhaps you could try to provide proof that shows temperature has "plateaued" in the past 15 years. I have provided clear evidence in my links that this is not the case. The temperature record over the past 15 years is not in question. I am absolutely confident that you will not be able to provide any evidence that will prove me wrong. There isn't any.
6.29.2012 | 3:09pm
Daniel says:
There is so much politicized pseudo-science now circulating that the reality is hard to discern.
I personally believe the "climate changers" are a modern incarnation of an ancient pagan religious cult.......like the worshippers of Baal or Ashtarte.
Real science has long left the debate. And now the concerned secular environmentalists demand ever increasing prostrations to the "faith".
Paganism is returning to the West.............and the climate changers are the high priests and priestesses.
I personally believe the "climate changers" are a modern incarnation of an ancient pagan religious cult.......like the worshippers of Baal or Ashtarte.
Real science has long left the debate. And now the concerned secular environmentalists demand ever increasing prostrations to the "faith".
Paganism is returning to the West.............and the climate changers are the high priests and priestesses.
6.29.2012 | 3:10pm
Fred says:
_the catastrophe we're inflicting on other species solely for the benefit of ExxonMobil and Massey Energy_
So I take it you don't drive, heat your home in winter and cool it in summer, light your home at night (or do you just use candles to do that?), use electronic devices (I guess you just willed those electrons to make your comment.), use the products of chemical plants, or use plastics. You're quite admirable. The rest of us, though, do those things and rather enjoy them. So I wouldn't exactly say fossil fuel use is _solely_ for the benefit of ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.
So I take it you don't drive, heat your home in winter and cool it in summer, light your home at night (or do you just use candles to do that?), use electronic devices (I guess you just willed those electrons to make your comment.), use the products of chemical plants, or use plastics. You're quite admirable. The rest of us, though, do those things and rather enjoy them. So I wouldn't exactly say fossil fuel use is _solely_ for the benefit of ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.
6.29.2012 | 4:01pm
Steve Billingsley says:
@Fred
LOL
Kind of puts self-important hysteria in perspective.
LOL
Kind of puts self-important hysteria in perspective.
6.29.2012 | 4:50pm
Tony Francois says:
Meggie,
it is for the author of the main article, not a commenter, to provide evidence for the claim of a plateau in temperatures. But it would be wise for you to provide more credible evidence to support your claim that warming is continuing. Remember, Meggie and others, that the important part of the hypothesis is not the warming, it is that the warming is anthropogenic (caused by you and me driving to work) and catastrophic. And, while there is a data record that supports some pattern of cooling and warming over the past century, the anthropogenic part of the hypothesis is a theory, with some evidence for and against, and the catastrophic part of it is based on computer modelling of what will happen decades from now. So, it is both a theory and incapable of proof or even much real evidence during the next decade.
Your reference to 97% of the scientific community's integrity appears to refer to the 97.5% consensus for the warming hypothesis referenced in your second link. However, the footnote in that page makes clear that the percentage is limited to peer reviewed opinions. One thing the climate-gate archives demonstrate is how deeply the actions of Mann and others have used the peer review process itself to stifle dissent. Mann and his colleagues have impugned their own credibility and the credibility of their thesis by their own actions and their efforts to conceal their actions.
I did look at the pages you referenced, and my conclusion, as a scientist, attorney, and experienced government and public affairs professional who has dealt with a lot of 'advocacy science' on both sides of several issues, is that while the conclusions of your cited pages seem pretty clear, their veracity depends on a LOT of factors.
The passion with which you assert their veracity is not one of those factors.
The data on which climate theories are based is remarkably complex, and the statistical analysis used to assess that data is also both complex and subject to professional judgement. Relatively few people know that it is not simply a matter of adding up the reported daily highs from newscasts around the world and taking an average. One of the most effective critiques, at least to my mind, of the dominant view of climatologists, is the repeated demonstration that those who theorize anthropogenic warming have cherry picked data and/or manipulated it to get more dramatic results.
To argue that anyone who disagrees with the theory (note that word again) of anthropogenic and catastrophic warming is some combination of (a) dumb, (b) disinterested, and (c) corrupt, actually impairs the credibility of the anthropogenic catastrophic warming hypothesis. Such non-scientific and uncivil engagement of policy opponents, over the last hundred years, has been most in evidence among the murderous regimes that have done so much to hold the global population in check.
it is for the author of the main article, not a commenter, to provide evidence for the claim of a plateau in temperatures. But it would be wise for you to provide more credible evidence to support your claim that warming is continuing. Remember, Meggie and others, that the important part of the hypothesis is not the warming, it is that the warming is anthropogenic (caused by you and me driving to work) and catastrophic. And, while there is a data record that supports some pattern of cooling and warming over the past century, the anthropogenic part of the hypothesis is a theory, with some evidence for and against, and the catastrophic part of it is based on computer modelling of what will happen decades from now. So, it is both a theory and incapable of proof or even much real evidence during the next decade.
Your reference to 97% of the scientific community's integrity appears to refer to the 97.5% consensus for the warming hypothesis referenced in your second link. However, the footnote in that page makes clear that the percentage is limited to peer reviewed opinions. One thing the climate-gate archives demonstrate is how deeply the actions of Mann and others have used the peer review process itself to stifle dissent. Mann and his colleagues have impugned their own credibility and the credibility of their thesis by their own actions and their efforts to conceal their actions.
I did look at the pages you referenced, and my conclusion, as a scientist, attorney, and experienced government and public affairs professional who has dealt with a lot of 'advocacy science' on both sides of several issues, is that while the conclusions of your cited pages seem pretty clear, their veracity depends on a LOT of factors.
The passion with which you assert their veracity is not one of those factors.
The data on which climate theories are based is remarkably complex, and the statistical analysis used to assess that data is also both complex and subject to professional judgement. Relatively few people know that it is not simply a matter of adding up the reported daily highs from newscasts around the world and taking an average. One of the most effective critiques, at least to my mind, of the dominant view of climatologists, is the repeated demonstration that those who theorize anthropogenic warming have cherry picked data and/or manipulated it to get more dramatic results.
To argue that anyone who disagrees with the theory (note that word again) of anthropogenic and catastrophic warming is some combination of (a) dumb, (b) disinterested, and (c) corrupt, actually impairs the credibility of the anthropogenic catastrophic warming hypothesis. Such non-scientific and uncivil engagement of policy opponents, over the last hundred years, has been most in evidence among the murderous regimes that have done so much to hold the global population in check.
6.29.2012 | 6:11pm
Thomas Murray says:
This is not the first time that we have been treated to warnings about pending climate doomsdays.
Global warming:
"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” – New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times, June 23, 1890
Coming Ice Age:
Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923
“The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923
Or both:
Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” – New York Times, March 27, 1933
“America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather's day.” – Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934
Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says – “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. – New York Times, May 30, 1937
Warming again:
“Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters.” – New York Times, Aug. 29, 1954
“An analysis of weather records from Little America shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees Fahrenheit.” – New York Times, May 31, 1958
“Several thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world's ice? – New York Times, Dec. 7, 1958
Cooling:
“After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.” – New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961
“Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.” – Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” – Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970
“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” – New York Times, July 18, 1970
“In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post, July 9, 1971
“It's already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes. . . .” – Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971
“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” – New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978
Not to mention Time magazine, "Another Ice Age" from June 24, 1974, and the cover story of teh April 8, 1977 double issue "How to Survice the Coming Ice Age", with 51 things you could do to make a difference.
In the past, these scares were perhaps most successful in driving newspaper and magazine sales. Today, however, as politicians and some scientists have banded together, the results from misguided policies are much more serious.
Global warming:
"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” – New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times, June 23, 1890
Coming Ice Age:
Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923
“The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine, Sept. 10, 1923
Or both:
Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” – New York Times, March 27, 1933
“America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather's day.” – Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934
Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says – “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. – New York Times, May 30, 1937
Warming again:
“Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters.” – New York Times, Aug. 29, 1954
“An analysis of weather records from Little America shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees Fahrenheit.” – New York Times, May 31, 1958
“Several thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world's ice? – New York Times, Dec. 7, 1958
Cooling:
“After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.” – New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961
“Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.” – Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor, "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” – Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970
“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” – New York Times, July 18, 1970
“In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post, July 9, 1971
“It's already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes. . . .” – Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971
“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” – New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978
Not to mention Time magazine, "Another Ice Age" from June 24, 1974, and the cover story of teh April 8, 1977 double issue "How to Survice the Coming Ice Age", with 51 things you could do to make a difference.
In the past, these scares were perhaps most successful in driving newspaper and magazine sales. Today, however, as politicians and some scientists have banded together, the results from misguided policies are much more serious.
6.29.2012 | 6:20pm
Thomas Murray says:
With regards to Meggie's comments on the infamous 97%. Here are some facts:
The 97% statistic is based on a survey to which there only 79 climatologists responded. There are two problems here. The first is sample size - 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second problem is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.
Another concern is with the questions themselves. Here is one:
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Gee, there's a hard one. The period known as the Little Ice Age was colder than the period before that (when Norse people were raising sheep and cattle in Greenland, so named because it was green at that time, not as some part of a marketing campaign to get people to move there) by a significant margin, hence the name. If you take as your starting point a period of low temperatures, then the data would tend to show a rise just to get back to the norm. Hardly indicative of a crisis.
Another question:
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Notice that the question presupposes the "fact" that mean global temperatures are changing. And, there is no definition of "significant".
They originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. So more than two-thirds did not feel a sufficient sense of urgency to respond. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists”.
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
Again, the original number of scientists contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions. However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?
This survey should not be cited as evidence that a consensus exists among climate scientists regarding AGW. This is due to the fact that it does not ask the scientists if human activities are the primary cause of increasing temperatures. The questions asked only pertained to ascertaining whether or not climate scientists agree that the earth has warmed and humans have played any role, and it did a poor job at ascertaining these facts as well. Anyone using this study to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming is ignoring the ambiguous and poor phrasing of this survey questions. The survey does not ask if global warming is primarily driven by human activity, so the survey responses cannot answer this question.
The 97% statistic is based on a survey to which there only 79 climatologists responded. There are two problems here. The first is sample size - 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second problem is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.
Another concern is with the questions themselves. Here is one:
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Gee, there's a hard one. The period known as the Little Ice Age was colder than the period before that (when Norse people were raising sheep and cattle in Greenland, so named because it was green at that time, not as some part of a marketing campaign to get people to move there) by a significant margin, hence the name. If you take as your starting point a period of low temperatures, then the data would tend to show a rise just to get back to the norm. Hardly indicative of a crisis.
Another question:
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Notice that the question presupposes the "fact" that mean global temperatures are changing. And, there is no definition of "significant".
They originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. So more than two-thirds did not feel a sufficient sense of urgency to respond. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists”.
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
Again, the original number of scientists contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions. However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?
This survey should not be cited as evidence that a consensus exists among climate scientists regarding AGW. This is due to the fact that it does not ask the scientists if human activities are the primary cause of increasing temperatures. The questions asked only pertained to ascertaining whether or not climate scientists agree that the earth has warmed and humans have played any role, and it did a poor job at ascertaining these facts as well. Anyone using this study to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming is ignoring the ambiguous and poor phrasing of this survey questions. The survey does not ask if global warming is primarily driven by human activity, so the survey responses cannot answer this question.
6.29.2012 | 6:34pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
Meggie, the actual climate record of the last 15 years bears NO resemblance to the climing temperatures that were predicted by various computer models at the time of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. I have seen no evidence that ANY of those models has been discarded, despite the blatant evidence that they have NO predictive ability. The models all predicted that the warming effect would not just be a liniear positive relationship, but actually accelerating! But the rate of change has gone DOWN not UP.
And that is separate from the utter LACK of any explanation for the COOLING which took place from 1935 to 1975, even while CO2 levels were rising! How did that work? Why isn't that a counterexample that disproves the simplistic models connecting CO2 to temperatuire?
The notion that warming is contributing to an increase in extreme weather events is embarrasingly bogus, I don;t know how Al Gore can show his face. After Hurricane Katrine, he predicted that every year we would get MORE and BIGGER hurricanes, but it HAS NOT HAPPENED. It has not even been as bad as in 2005! After 15% of a century has passed, and we have not even 1% of the dire forecasts fulfilled, it is NOT SCIENCE to declare that your theory still is valid, when it has nothing to do with observed reality.
Global warming is the THIRD bogus climate threat of the last 50 years. The first was acid rain, which turned out to only affect a few lakes in the Adirondacks. The second was the "ozone hole", which is only a 10% decrease in ozone concentrations that occur over the South Pole when it is in DARKNESS and the sunlight is not availalbe to create NEW ozone, and then the problem disappears every spring when the sun comes out and the ozone builds up to average levels again! What is more, the ozone hole nonsense led the world to BAN CFC refrigerants, and forced us to use non-CFC refrigerants, which happen to be FEROCIOUS greenhouse gases! In fact, the UN IPCC declared over a decade ago that the non-CFC refrigerants by themselves were ADDING so much global warming that it canceled out TWO Kyoto-protocol-sized reductions in CO2.
In other words, the single largest contributor to global warming is the Montreal Protocol, foisted on mankind by the same people who now want CO2 reduction to be the governing principle of civilization. They want US to suffer because of the problem THEY created. Oh, and they REFUSE to get rid of non-CFC refrigerants and go back to harmless CFCs.
And that is separate from the utter LACK of any explanation for the COOLING which took place from 1935 to 1975, even while CO2 levels were rising! How did that work? Why isn't that a counterexample that disproves the simplistic models connecting CO2 to temperatuire?
The notion that warming is contributing to an increase in extreme weather events is embarrasingly bogus, I don;t know how Al Gore can show his face. After Hurricane Katrine, he predicted that every year we would get MORE and BIGGER hurricanes, but it HAS NOT HAPPENED. It has not even been as bad as in 2005! After 15% of a century has passed, and we have not even 1% of the dire forecasts fulfilled, it is NOT SCIENCE to declare that your theory still is valid, when it has nothing to do with observed reality.
Global warming is the THIRD bogus climate threat of the last 50 years. The first was acid rain, which turned out to only affect a few lakes in the Adirondacks. The second was the "ozone hole", which is only a 10% decrease in ozone concentrations that occur over the South Pole when it is in DARKNESS and the sunlight is not availalbe to create NEW ozone, and then the problem disappears every spring when the sun comes out and the ozone builds up to average levels again! What is more, the ozone hole nonsense led the world to BAN CFC refrigerants, and forced us to use non-CFC refrigerants, which happen to be FEROCIOUS greenhouse gases! In fact, the UN IPCC declared over a decade ago that the non-CFC refrigerants by themselves were ADDING so much global warming that it canceled out TWO Kyoto-protocol-sized reductions in CO2.
In other words, the single largest contributor to global warming is the Montreal Protocol, foisted on mankind by the same people who now want CO2 reduction to be the governing principle of civilization. They want US to suffer because of the problem THEY created. Oh, and they REFUSE to get rid of non-CFC refrigerants and go back to harmless CFCs.
6.29.2012 | 8:28pm
BCody says:
What can we really do to stop global warming? Honestly, we are talking us versus the sun! Is the earth so incapable of continuing to be a viable planet for us? I am sure the argument is much more complicated than that, though.
6.30.2012 | 12:18am
Frank Pray says:
Great comment thread. Has anyone examined the credulity of the computer long term simulations that show the "point of no return" for reversing climate change? The cyclic variations, or the "snapshot readings" of one year or even 5 years versus another such period, are unconvincing. But longer term trends projected by computer scenarios are persuasive, depending on the legitimacy of the inputs and variables used. Congress has this data, and I understand even some business conservatives have conceded to the weight of the data that the world climate is at risk. Feedback?
6.30.2012 | 12:19am
Meggie says:
The anti-science assertions made here are made so frequently and repeated so often that they've been collectively reported and debunked at these websites:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
I would recommend http://realclimate.org/ as a good site for climate information. It is written by genuine climate scientists who often comment on articles in relevant scientific journals. In most cases, one can access these articles (sometimes for a small sum) and read them oneself.
If you want to disagree with the overwhelming agreement amongst climatologists, you essentially have to believe that tens of thousands of scientists and virtually every scientific and highly respected science organization in the entire world -- from NASA to NOAA to the Royal Society for the UK to the Royal Irish Academy to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, etc., etc. -- are all involved in a massive conspiracy to perpetrate a worldwide hoax. If you believe that, well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. I would also encourage you to avail yourselves of the very generous funding made available by ExxonMobile and to publish a refutation. Anybody who can create a revolution in science by turning an overwhelming consensus on its head would certainly become very, very rich and famous.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
I would recommend http://realclimate.org/ as a good site for climate information. It is written by genuine climate scientists who often comment on articles in relevant scientific journals. In most cases, one can access these articles (sometimes for a small sum) and read them oneself.
If you want to disagree with the overwhelming agreement amongst climatologists, you essentially have to believe that tens of thousands of scientists and virtually every scientific and highly respected science organization in the entire world -- from NASA to NOAA to the Royal Society for the UK to the Royal Irish Academy to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, etc., etc. -- are all involved in a massive conspiracy to perpetrate a worldwide hoax. If you believe that, well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. I would also encourage you to avail yourselves of the very generous funding made available by ExxonMobile and to publish a refutation. Anybody who can create a revolution in science by turning an overwhelming consensus on its head would certainly become very, very rich and famous.
6.30.2012 | 3:26am
TXW says:
If we want to stop Marxism, make us quit paying for roads for the fracking crews and oil rig crews and equipment to be hauled all over the country. May free enterprise pay for their own roads, we shouldn't subsidize them.
I have not seen a cogent rebuttal to this list yet, but I haven't read all the gazillion comments: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense.
The tone of conspiracy from both sides does not build trust.
I have not seen a cogent rebuttal to this list yet, but I haven't read all the gazillion comments: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense.
The tone of conspiracy from both sides does not build trust.
6.30.2012 | 4:28pm
Ken Z. says:
The ocean is acidifying because of its absorption of endless amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As one result, coral reefs are dying, or are already dead, in large swaths of the planet where they existed for millenia. The ocean is undergoing alarming changes, which scientists are only now beginning to understand. What has long been known, however, is that humans cannot thrive, or ultimately survive at all, without a pH-balanced watery surface of the Earth. In the Medieval Warm Period (seized upon as countervailing evidence by blinkered “skeptics”), the world’s oceans did not become acidified. Today’s situation is unprecedented.
Nor is it true that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Numerically, the denialist scientists are smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in the U.S population, but like the militant homosexuals they have a very big megaphone.
I count myself among the anti-anti-Warmists because I believe reason lies *clearly* on that side.
Nor is it true that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Numerically, the denialist scientists are smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in the U.S population, but like the militant homosexuals they have a very big megaphone.
I count myself among the anti-anti-Warmists because I believe reason lies *clearly* on that side.
6.30.2012 | 5:52pm
T.S.Derr says:
The vigor of the responses shows how impassioned the debate continues to be. The argument here is mostly about scientific evidence, though I wanted to emphasize the developing energy revolution and its relation to Rio+20. As for the science, I read the same sites as most of you, and will only say that I trust the warming statistics analyzed by professionals who get their data from the three major worldwide sources. All the traditional comments about the manipulation of statistics to prove a point are worth thinking about here, for evidently different people can use the same figures to make quite different points. What aroused my own skeptical attitude toward the Gore-Hansen thesis was climate history, not just within recorded time, but in ages measured by geologists, which shows wide variations in climate cycles where humans can have had no influence.
6.30.2012 | 9:06pm
Meggie says:
To put this into something of a religious context, the Vatican last year convened a group of Nobel Prize winners and other relevant scientists and issued a report calling for action on climate issues:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/05/anthropocene-vatican-climate-change-group-coins-name-for-our-era/
I'm sure we all understand the secular attraction of the almighty dollar, so the Vatican frames its arguments in terms of how much cheaper it will be to address the problem sooner rather than later, as well as touting the moral imperative to respond.
According to the report: "Human-caused changes in the composition of the air and air quality result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security—especially among those 'bottom 3 billion' people who are too poor to avail of the protections made possible by fossil fuel use and industrialization."
One can read about the work of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on AGW and climate change here:
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1158
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/05/anthropocene-vatican-climate-change-group-coins-name-for-our-era/
I'm sure we all understand the secular attraction of the almighty dollar, so the Vatican frames its arguments in terms of how much cheaper it will be to address the problem sooner rather than later, as well as touting the moral imperative to respond.
According to the report: "Human-caused changes in the composition of the air and air quality result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security—especially among those 'bottom 3 billion' people who are too poor to avail of the protections made possible by fossil fuel use and industrialization."
One can read about the work of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on AGW and climate change here:
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1158
7.1.2012 | 5:31pm
Quine says:
Meggie has the facts on this. Arguing against the facts will go down in history as silly as continuing to argue against heliocentrism. Yes, vast reserves of fossil fuel will continue to be developed and used, which puts the task before us to find ways of doing so without destroying ourselves by continued release of CO2.
7.2.2012 | 3:37am
Don Roberto says:
Gore and his fellow Nobel Laurets did everyone a terrible disservice through their histrionics. Calm understatement would have been far better. No one should be arguing that pollution is A-Okay. But neither should anyone be focusing on climate variation over mere years or decades. In my view, it is inevitable that sooner or later pollution (if not CO2, mthane, etc.) will reach a tipping point. This should surprise no one. But raised blood pressure will serve little purpose: No matter what the U.S. does, pollution and CO2 emissions will continue at close to current rates, because China, et al. will not alter course, and our contribution is no longer large enough to make a significant difference.
7.2.2012 | 7:35pm
Dean from Ohio says:
Meggie seems to want to bring into evidence the history of climate change (through the Mann/Jones distortion filter, however), but wants to suppress the evidence of the history of climate change false prophets and their failed prophecies.
Sorry. Four times crying "wolf" in the last 100 years will not cause me to believe in a fifth canine alarum, even if the liberals the Vatican get in on it. Take your story somewhere else. I have scientific credentials, but I don't need them to see through this. A fifth grader can do it, and not even a smart one at that.
Ironic, isn't it, that Environmentalists are trying to use Statist means perfected by Marxists to save us from the Global [spin the wheel here and insert phrase] they say is caused by the Capitalists, all the while ignoring the massive environmental disasters that every Marxist tyranny in the history of the world has left behind.
Like the Communists, the Environmental movement's leaders (not a few being recycled Communists from the 1970s and 1980s) are neither good enough, nor wise enough, nor humble enough, nor God-fearing enough to be trusted with the sweeping powers that they demand. If they get it, they will eventually try to kill us all. The 100 million humans murdered by the Communists in the 20th Century will pale in comparison to the piles of corpses that will be left by the Communists' heirs, the Environmentalists in the 21st.
In the end, the only things that Environmentalists recycle are Marxism and humanity, the former in slick sounding words, and the latter in slick-sided mass graves if we're lucky. And because tyrants eventually care for nothing and no one but themselves, they will trash the earth on top of it.
Sorry. Four times crying "wolf" in the last 100 years will not cause me to believe in a fifth canine alarum, even if the liberals the Vatican get in on it. Take your story somewhere else. I have scientific credentials, but I don't need them to see through this. A fifth grader can do it, and not even a smart one at that.
Ironic, isn't it, that Environmentalists are trying to use Statist means perfected by Marxists to save us from the Global [spin the wheel here and insert phrase] they say is caused by the Capitalists, all the while ignoring the massive environmental disasters that every Marxist tyranny in the history of the world has left behind.
Like the Communists, the Environmental movement's leaders (not a few being recycled Communists from the 1970s and 1980s) are neither good enough, nor wise enough, nor humble enough, nor God-fearing enough to be trusted with the sweeping powers that they demand. If they get it, they will eventually try to kill us all. The 100 million humans murdered by the Communists in the 20th Century will pale in comparison to the piles of corpses that will be left by the Communists' heirs, the Environmentalists in the 21st.
In the end, the only things that Environmentalists recycle are Marxism and humanity, the former in slick sounding words, and the latter in slick-sided mass graves if we're lucky. And because tyrants eventually care for nothing and no one but themselves, they will trash the earth on top of it.
7.3.2012 | 3:10pm
Meggie says:
I don't think we need to worry too much about Environmentalists, Marxists, and Communist plots. We just need to focus on the science, and we all deserve clear information about the atmosphere we share. The models have predicted more extreme weather events for years, and those predictions are certainly being born out this century. Scientists have predicted, for example, that for every 1°C rise in global temperature, we can expect fires in the western US to increase in acreage covered by a factor of four to six times. With a 4% increase in atmospheric water vapor over the past 30 years, we can expect more floods like the one seen recently in Duluth and more violent storms, such as those that have recently lashed the East. Home owners insurance companies need to be sure their actuaries are aware of what they're up against.
7.4.2012 | 2:18am
TXW says:
I do not want Meggie to be right, none of us do. She listed some plausible websites. Feel free to take them apart , assertion by assertion. That is how science works, that is what I need to not agree with Meggie, not references to one's own credentials or to Marxist influences, even if they are true. Meggie wrote few ideological statements. Stick with honest science, and I am confident the truth will prevail.
Contrarily, Duluth covered up a creek/sewer in the 1920's, made it a road, but it became a creek again during the rain, and that is where much of the damage was. The flooding by the Duluth zoo was exacerbated because some debris got stuck in under a bridge, the only outflow in that area. So the destruction could be attributed to poor planning/increased urbanization. More space used as residential equals more people in the way of natural disasters. A flood on the far side of Nunavut doesn't make the news. So blaming most natural disasters on global warming strikes me as confirmation bias.
Contrarily, Duluth covered up a creek/sewer in the 1920's, made it a road, but it became a creek again during the rain, and that is where much of the damage was. The flooding by the Duluth zoo was exacerbated because some debris got stuck in under a bridge, the only outflow in that area. So the destruction could be attributed to poor planning/increased urbanization. More space used as residential equals more people in the way of natural disasters. A flood on the far side of Nunavut doesn't make the news. So blaming most natural disasters on global warming strikes me as confirmation bias.
7.5.2012 | 12:35pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@TXW - Thanks for your reply.
I referenced my credentials only because a favorite tactic of the science Left, including Environmentalism, is to dismiss those without them. And I reminded the readers of the Marxist and Gaiaist movements within Environmentalism, so they are aware that some of the science Left cheats.
Saying, "Stick with honest science, and I am confident the truth will prevail" is incomplete, like saying to an honest card player, "Don't cheat, and you'll win." If you don't tell him about the cheats at tables 2, and 4 and 5 and 6, and the kinds of tricks they pull, and what to watch for, he is not ready.
Forewarned is forearmed. The scientific 'community' is not neutral ground.
I referenced my credentials only because a favorite tactic of the science Left, including Environmentalism, is to dismiss those without them. And I reminded the readers of the Marxist and Gaiaist movements within Environmentalism, so they are aware that some of the science Left cheats.
Saying, "Stick with honest science, and I am confident the truth will prevail" is incomplete, like saying to an honest card player, "Don't cheat, and you'll win." If you don't tell him about the cheats at tables 2, and 4 and 5 and 6, and the kinds of tricks they pull, and what to watch for, he is not ready.
Forewarned is forearmed. The scientific 'community' is not neutral ground.
The author referring to an easily rebutted and oft-quoted myth, which is based on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year that remained, for some years, an easily cherry-picked outlier.
In reality:
1) Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
2) 2000 to 2010 were warmer than 1990 to 2000. Every decade since 1950-1960 has been warmer than the previous one.
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2010/10/19/noaa-every-decade-warmer-than-one-before/
3) Ratios of record highs to record lows have been shifting very strongly in the direction of record highs since 1950. In the 1950s, the ratio of record highs:lows was 1.09:1. From 2000 to 2010, it was 2.04:1. Over each decade, the ratio has increased in the direction of record highs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33887745/ns/us_news-environment/t/warning-sign-record-highs-are-double-lows/#.T-2ou45D2lI
Global warming and the resulting climate change and increase in extreme weather events are presenting huge ethical issues in terms of social responsibility. It's very important to get our facts straight so that we can come together and work on a solution.