Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War Against Climate Science Unravels
The skeptic case against climate change is unraveling before our eyes like someone walking away from an old sweater, thread in hand.
For those who have ever put the skeptic arguments to the test, it has always been clear that their criticisms rarely stand up to even the most basic level of academic rigor. But last week's release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study delivered a decisive blow to the edifice of climate skepticism.
The key skeptic pillar, summarized by arch skeptic Anthony Watts, has always been this: "How do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature record?"
His 2009 study of US weather monitoring stations argued that many were located in areas where temperatures were likely to be higher than in surrounding areas, suggesting that estimates of warming were exaggerated. So the BEST study, partly funded by the climate denial industry, was undoubtedly meant to corroborate Watt's fundamental tenet.
NASA Goddard, 2010
Instead, the BEST study confirmed quite the opposite -- that rapid warming trends found by previous studies of climate change are in fact correct. While the study must still undergo peer review, it is a climate change denial killer for two reasons:
• The research was led by a prominent climate skeptic with funding by denial bankroller Charles Koch. It was given the seal of approval by Watts and other skeptics. Watts: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Fred Singer, another long-term denier said: "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project -- a very difficult but important undertaking."
• It annihilates the "climategate" accusations. Skeptics claimed that climate scientists had tried to hide discrepancies in the temperature record which were inconsistent with global warming trends. Even though every one of the six independent inquiries has exonerated the scientists as well as the science, deniers have been relentless. BEST shows that these discrepancies are inconsequential.
It's important to remember, however, that climate denial is not about getting at the truth. It is a well-funded, carefully orchestrated campaign to block regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. So once the skeptics realized their own study was going to fly in the face of their main talking points, they figured BEST would have to be neutralized somehow. Indeed, Watts has been back-pedaling for months, ever since the preliminary findings were known. Their counter-strategy generally went like this:
1) Create Confusion and Sow Doubt: On October 19, the day of BEST's release, climate denier command central Heartland Institute ran a story headlined: "GAO Confirms: Anthony Watts Is Right, UN Temperature Data Rigged To Show Warming"
Was the timing a coincidence? Hardly. The GAO study in question (PDF) was more than six weeks old and had already been reported widely in the blogosphere based on a distorted press release issued by the skeptics' very own Sen. James Inhofe. (And Heartland further distorted it beyond all recognition, I might add. Rigged data? GAO didn't even imply this, let alone confirm it.)
So why the sudden re-release of an old story, but this time focused specifically on vindicating Watts? Because it was his work that BEST eviscerates. As Watts himself admits, "I knew that behind the scenes, they were planning a media blitz" (and he of course is scrambling to cast doubt on the findings). It was a preemptive strike meant to imply that there were two sides to the story. And why refer to "UN temperature data" when the story had nothing to do with the UN? Because tapping into public mistrust of the UN is part of the denial narrative.
2) Change the Subject: The press didn't buy the standard "two sides" gambit. Virtually every major media outlet ran stories with headlines like this one from The Economist: "The heat is on: A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming."
So the next move was to pretend this was never a key tenet of the denier argument. The day after publication, Heartland's line was:
The mere assertion that the planet has warmed some tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know... Few skeptics claim the earth has not warmed during the past 100 years...What defines global warming skeptics is the assertion that our present warming is not a crisis (human-induced or otherwise) - not an assertion that the planet has not warmed.
Um, right. I Googled "Earth is cooling not warming" and got 13 million results. The Urban Heat Island effect has been a lynchpin argument of the deniers, led by Watts, for years.
Perhaps the most blatant example comes from the very man who coined the term climategate, James Delingpole. Just one year ago, in a piece titled Global Cooling and the New World Order, he wrote "the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming..." The same guy last week?
'The planet has been warming,' says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he'll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go "baaaa"? ...It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend."
Outright denial is increasingly hard to defend, so the new talking point is "Yes, there is some climate change, and yes, a little might be man-made, but don't worry, most of it is natural so we don't need to do anything about it." This friendly face of climate denial is backed up by Heartland's insidiously deceptive "Encyclopedia" on Climate Change.
3) Silence Climate Scientists: climate scientists have been subjected to a veritable witch hunt. As a bunch of people understandably deficient in PR craft, they've proved an easy target for the skeptics. The most recent attack can be found in an obscure amendment (SA 862) to a Senate "minibus" budget bill (HR 2112). The amendment would prohibit federal employees (including scientists from NOAA, NASA, and other government institutions) from participating "in any password-protected electronic forum that involves the participation in a process or production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Of course the IPCC uses password-protected fora. Anyone who has ever used online tools (like Google docs) to work on joint papers knows they are far more efficient than using email. Having draft versions in the public domain would simply create confusion (see 1 above). It would be like conducting climate science as if it were a reality TV show, with every spat judged in the court of public opinion, although in this case the public is far less qualified to pass judgement than on whether Britney should be voted out of the house.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
63 Comments so far
Show AllTiberius,
You are lumping the science together with the policy.
Those who deny the science (about temperatures, CO2, arctic ice, glaciers, changes in plant and animal ranges, etc) are "deniers" in the true sense of the word.
Those who question policy -- ie, how we go about adressing climate change and more specifically, our wasteful lifestyle and reliance on limited natural resources -- are NOT necessarily deniers (they might be -- eg, if they are opposed to all policy to adress a very real problem).
There is nothing the least bit inconsistent about accepting the science -- as pretty much all of the world's great scientific bodies (NAS, Royal Society, etc) have done -- and questioning specific policies like "cap and trade".
In fact, I am one who thinks cap and trade is a scam waiting to happen. While it might work in principle if everyone were honest, that's a nonstarter. Wall Street is a lot of things, but honest is not on the list. Wall Street also happens to be the entity who would be heavily involved in the "trading' aspect, so, based on past performance, I'd have to say that it will probably turn out good for wall Street and bad for the planet overall.
I think Jim hansen's idea of a fee and dividend is much better -- much MORE likely to wean us from fossil fuels and much LESS likely to result in "manipulation".
I agree.
Just as the CIA uses the cover of "plausible deniability," the right wing frauds in this forum have largely mastered the art of blaming the wrong entities, and casting doubt at the wrong targets. It's a sophisticated use of inverted LANGUAGE, a form of warfare on truth, reason, decency, and any who work to counter the fate of Armageddon, M.A.D, or End Times. Many WANT an end to mankind! They confuse the centuries of conditioning with what human nature is or could be.
This sock puppet has sought to use his alleged compassion for climate change as a ruse and means for casting doubt.. by suggesting the argument is merely about those who intend to profit from a carbon tax, as if the greed motive is what's really operating here, or the item worth discussing! Anyone else (who's bothered to return to this thread) may notice that this same meme is frequently used to discredit very important writers, for God forbid, promoting their books? We need money in this society (as it stands) the way we need toilet paper. Try dealing without either... as with ALL things, the issue comes down to how a resource is used, or gotten.
The purists in this forum would have us think that climate scientists must be absolute saints, never having committed a mistake in their lives; and similarly, they pretend that voices on the Left must be perfect in every aspect of their lives... lest they risk becoming discredited. THEY want to discredit these sources! If they cared about these issues, they'd take the stance of lending their support to these significant causes as opposed to acting like snipers aiming careful bullets at these targets!
Just as the Right, owning the mouthpieces of the MSM, convinced a lot of people that government is the problem, or blamed the poor for the mortgage crisis ENGINEERED by the banksters.... here they are seeking to invert the subject of climate change to hold the truthtellers accountable for things that have NOTHING to do with them, or The Truth. They are MUDDYING the facts while deceptively pretending that they honor them... it's amoral madness!
And it makes me want to cyber slap these dangerous frauds across their faces. Lies are weapons here used to DULL the triggers on the actions required to preserve LIFE; and thus these voices are a TREASON to life in all of its manifest forms. The pseudo-intellectual, "Gee, I'm not convinced yet. Can you do better?" Is a sick form of sophistry.
Hi Sue.... Thank you,,, very well said.
I have used a square sponge a few times though. After about 70 wipes and washes,, both sides,, it's worn out though... Get a green one on one side and white on the other side... Use green first, then white, to see if you need another green wipe.... ( :>0)
"Tiberius Bond", this particular mix of concerns (but all totally valid, of course) that you express, yet while using the words "peddling the CO2 Climate Change Propaganda" is an example of a funny phenomenon that I have come across before. After asking for the source of some of the arguments (based on a hunch, of course) I found that these people get a lot of "input" from sites such as those run by Alex Jones. These people are fairly well read up on various conspiracies, some of which I happen to consider quite plausible, but they also include global warming as a conspiracy.
It's also a peculiar logic that goes like this: some of the people demanding action on climate change are crooks - so therefore the whole thing must be a hoax.
Apart from an influence by people like Alex Jones, there may also be a cultural factor, with an aversion towards making some real, fundamental changes in our lifestyles and consumption patterns. Because that is what any real program to tackle climate change would need: some major change in how much we all consume, right down to how much meat and dairy we consume. A lot of people don't want to go there, imagining and pretending that renewable energy and some serious reduction of economic inequality would be enough to avert disaster. Oh, I almost forgot the population factor too.
I don't know where you are coming from. But I am 99% sure that you get some of it from sites such as those by Alex Jones. He is wrong on this, big time, and has been causing some massive damage by way of spreading misinformation. As an example of some past exchanges with someone with a similar "mix" of views, please check out this CD article:
"Suicide by Pesticide: India's Hidden Climate Change Catastrophe"
www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/02-2
In that article, check out the thread starting from "Jonathan Edwards" - Jan 2 2011 - 3:51pm
And finally, I must say that you make some totally WILD accusations about those you call "Climate Change Trusters" as NOT being concerned about other threats such as militarism, nuclear power, etc. It is certainly not true when it comes to those posting here. It may be true that some of the scientists and activists have resigned themselves to what they consider as "practical" and hence advocate nuclear power. But that is only because they do not want to challenge the legitimacy of western lifestyle (and that includes the lifestyle of the elite in the "emerging" economies elsewhere). I like to challenge those who are anti-nuclear to come clean on their position on coal power and to confront numbers. And I happen to agree with James Hansen that in the list of things to be closed down, burning coal ranks right at the top, above nuclear. But I have not seen one person on this forum or similar ones who is concerned about climate change and yet does not oppose militarism. You are right of course that the military should be listed as the number one culprit. But that still does not negate the fact that climate change is the biggest crisis facing humanity and all of life today.
I don't agree to any type of a carbon tax. Here are three very good reasons why I do not.
For one thing taxes on necessities, such as food, housing, utilities, fuel are regressive taxes and only insure we have more people in government jobs than are necessary... And taxes on necessities have not done shit to rebuild our falling apart infastructures. etc. Taxes do not hurt the 1%, just the 99%.
There are already ample taxes on fuel for us to have the finest roads and hghway bridges in the world, the finest ariports, railroads, public transportation in the world.. But those taxes are largely diverted to have a Pentagon, one of the largest buildings in the world, filled with thousands of paper shufflers, a monstrosity embassy complex in Iraq and other such wasteful obnoxious spending... Our roads, rail systems, bridges are falling apart... Any carbon taxes will pay for such shit as that.
No one can explain to us how any type of a "carbon tax" will reduce the amount of fossil fuels now being used to produce electrical power if there is a tax on burning fossil fuels... The amount of fossil fuels now being burned to produce electrical power (will not) decline because of any tax, in fact as our population increases, more coal and oil will be burned to produce the added electricity required.
One reason Exxon, the Koch bros cartel and others have spent millions with public relations firms to hire professional writes to be Global Warming Deniers and load the web with their lies, is because of a proposed carbon tax. So we do not need a tax to reduce fossil fuel use,,, we need green energy, solar, geo-thermal, tidal to replace all of the fossil fuel power plants. to reduce our Co2 emmissions by at least 40%.
Dr. James Hansen's proposal is to have a carbon tax and reduce our carbon output by only 6% over an 88 year time frame... That proposal is not near good enough to prevent a runaway global warming within the next few years.
And ~Tiberius~,, this one comment you posted makes me believe that you are not just a doubter or global warming skeptic, but one who is actually a bona-fide GW Denier.... You wrote,,,, ("but I do not agree with the Bashers or those peddling the CO2 Climate Change Propaganda.")
Propaganda? __ I do not believe seeing the amount of Co2 and methane in our atmosphere which is now far higher than it has been for thousands of years is propaganda.
I don't beleve rising sea levels is propaganda adnthat has only just begun, watch out.
I do not see that the Arctic will be ice free by the year 2015 is propaganda.
I do not see that almost 99 % of the climate scientists, earth scientists, geologists, oceanic geo-physists in the world have a firm consensus that AGW is a fact is propaganda.
The propaganda about global warming is being broadcast by the professional global warming deniers... So if you are not one ~Tiberius~, don't write and broadcast propaganda like one, or you may be "bashed" on the computer screens... So if the foo shits,, wear it.
Here is a one word poem on why we never, ever, have to worry about climate change any more:
Fukushima.
You have a point ~~Shoe Thrower~~
But unless the entire Fukushima plant blows up,,,, and it might with those thre reactor cores' still melting down, ,,, that disaster will only kill millions within the next 10 to 20+ years.
Global warming if not controlled (now), very soon, fast, may kill everybody within about 20 to 25 more years, maybe less... When the Arctic's "ticking time bomb" goes off and a trillion plus tons of methane gas erupts into our atmosphere, the last person alive on this once beautiful blue and white water world, , please turn out the lights.
This morning the skies were clear over my home in Southern California, but at about 9am, the spraying of "chemtrails" began to mar the beautiful blue sky above my four year old child's school. I was there for the annual Halloween parade (which is a real hoot), but my blood boiled as I watched line after line scar the sky dome above. I was probably the only parent that noticed. For several hours today I could count about 30 trails at any one time. Persistent spreading (a term I think NASA came up with) eventually created a marble-like effect that blanketed the entire atmosphere with haze. My girl has pneumonia this week, and a persistent cough that concerns me to no end.
At best, there is a huge problem with the amount of chemical pollutants being dumped over our heads,contaminating soil, water reservoirs, and snow packs. I resent being sprayed like vermin to a crop duster.
Many Climate Change believers MIGHT be convinced to think that Chemtrailing the skies is a way to shield the earth from the harmful rays of the sun, reflecting them back into space. If you've managed to hear about, "Geo-engineering" maybe you've been told that the primary ingredient, Aluminum, is a good thing to try.
But found within Chemtrails is a cocktail of banned and illegal materials that might surprise you. They include (but are not limited to): Aluminum Oxide, Barium Oxide, Bacteria such as Anthrax and Pneumonia, Nine chemicals, (including Acetylcholine Chloride), Twenty six heavy metals including Arsenic, Gold, Lead, Mercury, Silver, Uranium and Zinc, Four molds and fungi, Seven viruses, Two cancers, Two vaccines,Two sedatives, E.coli Salmonella, and Thorium.
The news today, or maybe yesterday, included more information regarding actual levels of radiation that continue to spew from Fukushima. It seems officials at Tepco and the Japanese Government lied about their scientific measurements again, underplaying the true amounts (this time by a factor of only 2???) Looks a thousand times worse than Chernobyl to me. How can we know for sure, the US shut down most measuring stations shortly after the disaster, The EPA just raised minimum standard limits and there's a total news black-out on how to avoid contaminated anything. But Nuclear power is supposed to be a "green" solution to our energy needs, or at least practical for the short term until a better solution can be found. Sounds reasonable. Not really though, Hot Particles are contaminating the entire Northern Hemisphere with lethal radiation that most corporate controlled experts say isn't anything to worry about. Oh really?
Nuclear power is a spin-off industry of the nuclear weapons industry. It is beyond all human technology to contain nuclear waste, that which remains deadly for an eternity.
It seems most on this site can not reconcile someone with a true concern for the environment, and at the same time doesn't want to fall victim to a binding contract concerning "Global Warming"as sold to us by the Industrial Military/Congressional/Media Complex. It was suggested that I was clumping science with policy. "Cap and Trade" being just a tip of that policy iceberg. I agreed with Jimbo.
Siouxrose suggested I might be CIA. I used to respect her comments for the most part, but she couldn't be further from the truth on that one.
I responded to the comments on this site because I saw Galenwainwright's comment about Deniers and landfills. I noticed a very hostile tone throughout and no one really objecting to such language or notions. That's what I called a Basher (Isn't such vitriol a red flag for such enlightened thinkers on this site?).
To use the labels provided thus far, I guess I would most likely be called a "skeptic", I am certainly not a "Professional Denier."
I do think that LANGUAGE as Siouxrose identifies is in part what I am reacting to. I do believe the planet, at least in terms of a home for humans, is in peril. Ultimately, earth will survive long after humans are extinct. Humans have desecrated their home and are in the process of making it a wasteland. Uninhabitable for people, maybe not cockroaches.
The language, "Climate Change" has soured to my taste buds. I prefer to call the problem "Pollution" because it doesn't let criminal polluters off the hook (chemical, carbon, thermal or nuclear). I agree that we have pollution problems that have reached a planetary scale, a scale of which has already thrown the balance into a tailspin. Instead of Global Warming or Climate Change, (words of the Globalist Elite) I still just call it Pollution. After decades of deregulation (read decriminalization) I prefer straight forward law enforcement as applied to 30 year old standards.
I do have a concern for the future, I am trained as an electrician specializing in Photovoltaic systems design and installation AKA Solar Power. Superficially you could say I am "green," I won't eat red meat except on rare occasion, I won't buy a new car, hybrid, electric or not, because the expenses in terms of building a new one are much greater to the environment than me driving my 11 year old car into the ground. (BTW, Afghanistan is rich in Lithium, a necessary resource for future electric vehicles and next generation battery packs used in everything)
I prefer to restore old work instead of disposing of it. I'm training myself to survive off the grid with minimal footprint, but alas it is most likely too little, too late.
So why is it so important that we all agree about "Global Warming?" With over half of our resources being sunk into Military madness, how much of those scientific measurements are reflecting America's wars of choice? I guarantee the Military escapades will be exempt from the carbon cause equation while you and I are nickel and dimed to death.
I guess the traditional thinking is that if we only confront our possible extinction due to Carbon emissions, we will finally grow up and make the changes necessary to save the planet. Do you think the threat of extinction is really going to change the hearts and minds of the .05% in the ruling class? They want us dead anyway, they are not letting it happen, they are MAKING it happen. "Do as I say, not as I do" (got it from a headline in another CD article) is standard operating procedure these days coming from our psychopathic masters. You and I are slaves, and as the economy crumbles, we won't have much opportunity to afford being "Green" anyway. The game is rigged.
I'm just pointing at the man behind the curtain. I see plans within plans.
Do you still think I am ignorant because I don't trust proven liars?
A long list of words ~Tiberius~ , but you havnen't explained your comment that global warmng is "propaganda", spoken or written by those who understand global warmring is a fact, caused this time by excess Co2 in the atmosphere from human activity,,, (not propaganda)
The Professional Global Warming Deniersw are nothing less than hired assassins and are actually plottng to kill,.. to kill everyone on the planet and you don't think they deserve to be bashed on a website they choose to advocate their lies and their propaganda,
The hired assassins have managed to cause so much skepticism about GW among the leaders of the world and the citizens of the world so that nothing is being done to prevent a possible mass extintion of life.
Bashing them on computer screens is far, far less than what they deserve and your comment is right in line with their lies and propaganda. You had an aopportunity to clarify that comment and you didn't do so... I don't disagree with your other comments but do not know if aircraft are spraying chemicals into the armosphere just because of your claims. .. Could you cite a reference?
I hear you, Tiberius Bond.
One thing that always mystified me: the global power elite have to breathe too. Why do they allow Chemtrails, and all the other pollution? Are they exempt from biology? Are they suicidal as well as sociopathic?
I heard the GW denier too... You ask,,, ("Why do they allow Chemtrails").
Is that actually a fact is my quetion? It better not be happenng, but I'd like to see a credible reference that it is a fact.