Financial Post | Lawrence Solomon | June 02, 2007
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
So said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
. . . more
Note 100 and 102
Tom C. writes:
The list of Staff Biographies is in alphabetical order. Yes, Patricia Barden does not appear to have relevant experience in understanding environmental science, but her title is “IT Director”. Why would you pick her? Nowhere in her bio does it state that she is the one doing the watching. In fact the site is Wiki format. You, I or anyone else in the world can make entries, corrections, suggestions, etc…
Had I not gone to the site myself, I would have taken your word for it. Yes it’s a liberal based site, with liberal minded founders, but you were misleading in your example of the lesbian bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with dogs under achiever.
Correction:
Aside from Bird watching, nowhere in her bio does it state that she is the one doing the watching.
#103 and #104
You know Drew, I opened up the first one, had my suspicians confirmed, and did not bother to read further. I assumed that she covered the enviro beat since she worked at an Environmental Resource Center, but you are correct that it was probably not a good asssumption.
I think you are missing a larger point. The name of the web site implies that those profiled are up to no good and, thus, they or their funding sources must be “watched”. Or maybe that the site functions as a “watchdog”. I don’t know. What I do know is that under the global warming section, the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.
So, why exactly are they on the list? What wrongdoing or conflict of interest are they accused of? Do you make the list of someone to be “watched” just because they hold informed opinions that the staff does not approve of.
It’s is really just a strategy for trying to discredit your political opponents and is easy to see through.
Tom C writes: “The name of the web site implies that those profiled are up to no good and, thus, they or their funding sources must be “watched”. . . .So, why exactly are they on the list? What wrongdoing or conflict of interest are they accused of? Do you make the list of someone to be “watched” just because they hold informed opinions that the staff does not approve of.”
Tom, I think you’re looking for some nefarious purpose behind the site that simply isn’t there. As I mentioned, Al Gore and Noam Chomsky have entries. It’s not a hit list or enemies list. That said, the main focus of the site is to inform people about what those on the right are up to.
Tom: “What I do know is that under the global warming section, the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.”
But that speaks to the fairness and objectivity of the site, does it not? Just because someone is a global warming dissenter doesn’t mean that he’s going to be trashed on SourceWatch — in fact the opposite — his stature may be “enhanced,” as you say. Show me a similar conservative site that operates in the same spirit. I’d like to hear about it.
#106 Jim Holman –
I’m sure there are consevative sites that use the same modus operandi. I’ve never seen one. Can you direct me to one?
I can tell you this: when someone that I am debating quotes a person who holds opinions contrary to mine I do not scurry off to some site that has insta-discredit lists on it. In my experience debating you and Dean S. I run against that tactic constantly.
In a post above I commented on the identity of the Wikipedia editor merely to point out that he was not a neutral observer, but very much part of the debate.
Well, I suppose being labled a “global warming dissenter” is a mite bit better that “global warming denier”
Tom C writes: “I can tell you this: when someone that I am debating quotes a person who holds opinions contrary to mine I do not scurry off to some site that has insta-discredit lists on it.”
But as you said in #105 “the majority of those on the list were simply experts in their field, and descriptions of their experience or publications actually enhanced their stature.” So . . . if the information on the site enhances their stature, then it’s not insta-discredit, is it?
As far as “scurrying off,” heck, everyone does that here. You think Fr. Hans stays awake nights worrying about whether Uganda has enough DDT? Of course not. But inasmuch as the issue can be used to discredit “the left,” he’s all over it. If liberals were pouring DDT on Uganda, we’d never hear about it from Fr. Hans. Look, I’m not trying to “diss” Fr. Hans. I love the guy, even as I disagree with him on many issues. But let’s be honest. Everyone here scurrys off to find material that supports their point of view. We do that not because we’re dishonest, but because we’re not scholars on every possible topic that shows up here. Through the sharing of “scurried” material, hopefully we all become a little more informed.
Frankly, if there is a conservative site like SourceWatch I would invite you to use it. And if I quote someone who turns out to be a former FMLN commander and currently Noam Chomsky’s gardener, I would expect you to consider that datum in evaluating the person’s statement.
In many of these discussions, people are cited as experts about whom I know little or nothing. And I want to know some details about the person who is being presented as an authority. So if a Professor Smith is quoted as saying that welfare causes cancer, then I want to know who Professor Smith is. Is he with the Cato Institute? Is he an employee of James Dobson? Is he affiliated with an “institute” that consists of a wooden shack located five miles east of Big Tick, Wyoming? Is he a renowned public health researcher with a hundred research articles published in professional journals? Who is he?
Tom C: “In a post above I commented on the identity of the Wikipedia editor merely to point out that he was not a neutral observer, but very much part of the debate.”
Yes. And I hope you notice that I posted the link precisely so that you and others could read and evaluate the information and its source for yourselves.
Tom, believe me, I have nothing to hide. Many topics are discussed in this blog, and like most people, I don’t have any particular personal expertise. In a few areas I have a certain body of knowledge based on my own experience and education. Beyond that I have to rely on sources. I expect others to critique my sources, and if I pick bad sources, I expect to have my hand slapped.
“Global warming dissenter” is the more appropriate term because global warming is undeniable occuring. The only “debate” has to do with the causes of global warming, and whether it is the result of human activity or independent natural phenonomena. It is a debate being waged between people who believe in evidence and honest science versus industry stooges, hacks and charlatans and ideologues who believe that saving the planet is some sort of leftist plot.
Mr. Scourtes #110.
Your second sentence is a simplistic, rude insult to everyone who disagrees with you. Don’t worry though, I won’t take it personally.
I assure you that the debate isn’t between those who believe in evidence (good) versus stooges, hacks and charlatans (evil); at least not in the way that you think. Believe me, as a scientist and engineer I can assure you that scientists who think simplistic computational models can predict global climate for thousands of years, while they cannot predict the weather more than two weeks out, are at the least misinformed, or are at worst hacks and charlatans. I would also tell you that when one arcane discipline (climatology) is dominated by a “consensus” opinion, and other perhaps more pertinent disciplines are not, there is reason to be suspicious of the consensus.
Of course, for all you know I could be a hack, charlatan, or an industry stooge, but let me ask you: Are you a scientist or engineer? Have you studied higher and applied mathematics, the sciences, and numerical simulation? Have you studied historical geology and the earth sciences at depth? I’m curious, because you seem to think you can identify charlatans, but given the technical nature of the subject that would be very tough for most people, be they journalists, politicians, or reactionary environmentalists, to do.
It would be very difficult without the necessary training to determine whether the scientific process is working as it should (although people getting their research funding cut and ostracized from publications for arriving at conclusions that contradict the “consensus” should be a clue to anyone), or whether many scientists, facing threats to their research funding, are adopting assumptions that achieve desired results (editing the temperature record is evidence of this). I, for example, could call scientists who rely on government money “government stooges,” with just as much validity as you call those who rely on private money “industry stooges.”
When one has studied science at depth, one no longer idolizes scientists or the scientific process. These people are not saints any more than the rest of us, and they are just as susceptible to group-think and economic pressure.
The same is true of all higher education and all those Ph.D.s that float around thinking themselves above the “common” man. As a university professor for the last 7+ years I have been around such characters and seen first hand how politcally correct, susceptible to group-think, biased, and delusional these highly educated and intelligent individuals can be. Some even more so than the average person, since they consider themselves so much better and superior than everyone else that they think they are always right despite objective proof and data that contradicts their ideas.
Dean, as a Christian, especially an Orthodox Christian, how can you think that any human action can “save the earth”? Millennialism is not Orthodox, especially materialistic Millennialism. My understanding of Orthodox anthropology and the miniscule faith I have in Christ’s victory lead me to the conclusion that neither the state of fear that environmental activists continually attempt to foment, nor the solutions that come from that fear will achieve any positive ends. What is more likely to result is tryanny. If I am faithful to my Lord, it makes no difference in which type of polity I live, but I’d rather live in a polity that is more free rather than less.
“Saving the earth” has already been accomplished by our Lord, God and Savior, we have but to enter into that salvation in the Church to particpate in the fullfillment. That requires consistent application of the spiritual praxis of the Church in our daily lives. Without that, nothing else we do will matter, if we do that, everything we do will help.
112.
— Count Leo Tolstoy, “Education and Children” 1862
quoted in The Underground History of American Education
A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation into the Problem
of Modern Schooling by John Taylor Gatto former New York
State and New York City Teacher of the Year
One of my friends is a hydraulics engineer who designs levees and who has been invited by the Army Corp of Engineers to come to New Orleans. He attended a conference this week in which he learned that engineers in his field are already adjusting their models to account for global warming.
Here in California (the nation’s most populous state with over 35 million people) global warming will have a very severe impact. We don’t have the luxury of pretending that there is some sort of “debate about global warming that we have to wait years to be settled. We have to act now.
First, California gets most of it water for drinking and irrigation from the Sierra winter snowpack which gradually melts over the course of the summer filling rivers, streams and reservoirs. Under most global warming models there will be much less snow and more rain , which unlike snow will not melt into the soil filling aquifers, but runoff into the ocean. Not having water will cripple one of the nation’s richests agricultural areas – a major souce of exports – and create problems for at least three of the nation’s largest metroplitan areas.
Second much of the water from the snowpack runs from north to south through the Delta which empties into the San Francisco Bay . If ocean levels rise, low lying islands in the Delta, already protected by levees could collpase and become submerged filling the Delta with salt water and cutting off the flow of fresh water from Northern to Southern California.
People in the eastern half of the country don’t realize that once you get into the western Great Plains and further West the amount of annual rainfall received drops sharply.
It’s not only California that depends on melting snowpack but all the States and regions the draw water from the Colorado River. That includes much of Utah, Nevada, Arizona and San Diego. The portion of the Colorado River that runs through Utah courses through what was once a great salt water inland ocean, and it is here that the river picks up a great deal of salinity. if there is less water from melting snowpaclk the remaining water that is received may be too salty for use in agriculture or for drinking.
Washington State and Oregon, despite their reputation for precipitation, have also seen their annual snowpack decline. This is bad news for them since they depend on largely on hydraulic-generated power for electricity.
So you people in the East, insulated from reality, go ahead have your little pretend debates if you want. We Westerners are going to do what we have to do to survive and that means taking Global warming seriously.
Note 109. Jim writes:
Not really. The DDT example supports my thesis that much of the liberal fervor for the environment is apocalyptic in nature and is best understood in religious terms. If someone comes up with a theory that some practice or another will lead to the complete and final destruction of the earth — Paul Erlich’s neo-Malthusism, Rachel Carlson’s DDT approbations, the ozone hole theory a few decades back, Al Gore’s global warming crusade today — liberals tend to fall for it hook, line, and sinker and organize the next secular crusade filled with all sorts of moral opprobrium against those who challenge it.
As for the charge you don’t hear criticism from the other direction: I’ve been criticizing the right (and left) on the misguided policy on Kosovo for years, even when almost everyone believed those genocide reports and other propaganda splashed through the Western press. Do you remember those debates?
Excellent! You must have found a way to control the intensity of the sun and the multi-hundred year long sun spot cycles. You will definitely be given a Nobel Prize for this amazing feat. (PS – Still waiting on the quantitative experiments and objective data that show and prove in laboratory conditions how a 30% increase in 0.0314% concentration of CO2 in air contributes significantly to warming.)
Oh Chris! You’re the perfect example of the man who can’t see the forest for the trees. You are so fixated on a few small items of questionable intepretation that you ignore the mountain of evidence that Global warmig is already well underway.
For what it’s worth here is someone refuting Carter’s argument about the impossibility that “a 30% increase in 0.0314% concentation of CO2 in air contributes significantly to warming”
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
Hey Dean, Please do tell us how California intends to control China’s CO2 emissions?
International — According to a new study, China’s carbon dioxide emissions last year were the largest in the world. The study, released today by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, says that in 2006 China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 pollution, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US, which has long been the world’s top climate polluter.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/China-climate-change
REALITY CHECK Time – China is growing at 10% a year, so this year we anticipate 6,820m tons of CO2 from them. Within 6 years, assuming an 10% growth of China’s economy alone, China’s CO2 output alone would be 12,082m tons. The US can completely shut down its entire industry and power plants and China alone would STILL have put out an additional 5,882m tons of CO2, as much as the entire US now. Sorry to burst your bubble and bring a heavy dose of reality and common sense to your “California will save the world” polyanna dream.
Dean, You don’t get it do you! I ask for scientific experiments and hard data, showing a CAUSAL CONNECTION between CO2 and warming and you keep giving me opinion pieces with annecdotal information. Here, let me simplify it further since your “scientific” mind has still not grasped what I’m looking for.
Causal Connection Experiment on CO2 Influence on Air Temperature
===================================================
Step 1 – Create 2 heavily insulated chambers with the same volume of air.
Step 2 – Place air in Chamber A with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of 280 parts per million at set temperature, pressure and humidity.
Step 3 – Place air in Chamber B with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of377.5 parts per million at same set temperature, pressure and humidity as Chamber B.
Step 4 – Confirm the same starting average temperature of Chamber A and Chamber B to enough significant figures to measure change.
Step 5 – Shine the same amount of light energy for the same amount of time on both Chambers A and Chambers B.
Step 6 – Monitor and record average temperature in Chambers A and Chambers B after x amount of time has passed.
Step 7 – Temperature Difference (if any) between Chambers A and B will represent the additional warming caused by the extra CO2 in Chamber B.
Got it now? Show me the scientific experiments and papers on that and let’s see how much CO2 really contributes to the warming. I’ll be waiting…..
Math check time again…
Dean, your scientist must have missed something ’cause his math is off:
He claims 25% of CO2 from human activity. Ok, let’s go with that. NOAA and NASA’s data show maximum increase of only 0.6 degree Celsius from 15 C global temperature baseline in 1998 (highest increase). So 25% x 0.6 degrees Celsius = 0.15 degrees Celsius, NOT 0.7. His calculations are off by a factor of 466%. But heck what do I know, I’m just a lowly lawyer and university professor. My JD is only a professional doctorate and not an “academic” one, so I should just mind my business and stop confusing the issues with logic and reason…
Chris Banescu writes: “Step 1 – Create 2 heavily insulated chambers with the same volume of air,” & etc.
The assertion isn’t that there is some kind of reaction between CO2 and light. The assertion is that CO2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere and creates a kind of “blanket,” for lack of a better word, trapping heat underneath. Is that correct? Time will tell.
In that sense, your experiment is kind of like this: take two sealed containers and place a feather comforter in one. Heat both containers equally, and then see if the one with the feather comforter gets hotter — which it probably doesn’t. Conclusion: you won’t be any warmer at night by putting a feather comforter on your bed.
A more appropriate experiment would be this: take two identical planets. With one planet, pump X billions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere over a couple hundred years. Then compare the effects.
That’s basically the experiment we are doing, minus the control planet. In other words, our planet is the experiment. Maybe nothing happens. Maybe disaster happens. In the words of the great environmental scientist Clint Eastwood, “do you feel lucky? Well, do you?” I hope you are lucky, because I live on the same planet.
Chris: “But heck what do I know, I’m just a lowly lawyer and university professor.”
I feel your pain.
Mr. Scourtes #116:
“He attended a conference this week in which he learned that engineers in his field are already adjusting their models to account for global warming.”
I don’t blame him or his organization. Without the kind of training I mentioned in post #112, it would be tough to know what else to do. In fact, I don’t blame anyone who would not understand the wild assumptions being made and the dangerous reliance on simplistic computational models for being convinced that we cause climate change, and that the consequences will be catastrophic. It is all one hears in the media, most of our politicians have caved on the issue, even the oil companies are pretending they think that humans cause global warming for the sake of PR, and people who disagree with the “consensus” are being compared with holocaust deniers.
Still, you did not answer my question: Are you trained in higher mathematics, numerical simulation, and the earth sciences?
“So you people in the East, insulated from reality, go ahead have your little pretend debates if you want. We Westerners are going to do what we have to do to survive and that means taking Global warming seriously.”
Actually, why do you think all of us who dispute that the cause of climate change is anthropogenic are from the east? I lived in the west for ten years, much of the time in California, and my wife grew up on the high plains. I am familiar with the water supply issues. In fact, the in-laws have seen drought for the past ten years.
Besides my familiarity with the west, and my plans to spend most of my life in the west, and my in-laws being westerners, I am also a trained scientist and engineer and I can see that the case for anthropogenic global warming is full of holes. As a trained earth scientist, I understand that climate has fluctuated many times in the past, and that the American west frequently sees lengthy drought cycles.
“We don’t have the luxury of pretending that there is some sort of debate about global warming that we have to wait years to be settled. We have to act now.”
Just please be careful about what actions you advocate. It sounds as if you are panicking, and panic often leads to severe unintended consequences. Let’s say you are right and I am wrong, and humans cause global warming.
Should we wreck our economy? Should we kill off most the livestock (methane emissions from livestock are worse than our fleet of vehicles, per a recent report from a “consensus” scientist)? Is it worth starving the world’s poor in an attempt to reverse climate change? Furthermore, in light of Mr. Banescu’s salient point (#120) concerning China, whose amoral leaders could care less about pollution, does it make sense to ruin our economy when any cuts in our CO2 emissions will be more than made up for by increased emissions from China?
#112 D. George
Very well put. My experiences in industry and academia have led me to the exact same conclusions.
#109 Jim Holman
Nice try. The preface to the list includes these quotes:
and
So, the strategy is to introduce the list with these damning words, and then assume that most readers will not delve into the details.
Jim – I can read and largely understand global warming scientific papers. When I saw that Emmanuel and Mann used a data smoothing technique known as “end-point pinning” in their 2006 paper on hurricanes I knew that they had performed a trick and were dishonest. I also knew they would not perform the same trick in 2007 (which they didn’t) since it would not work. My “rogues gallery” is composed of guys that I have seen being dishonest in their science.
Chris Banescu –
You are a little off in your approach here, but your instincts are good, and you are on to an important point.
The warming effect due to carbon dioxide is easy to calculate and was first done about 100 years ago. CO2 has risen 25% since 1850. If it rises 100% at some point, it will – in itself -bring about a warming of about 1 oC. What most people don’t realize is that the highly parameterized models that the climate guys use are filled with assumptions about positive feedbacks involving water vapor, clouds, and aerosols. As Richard Lindzen points out, most experts in atmospheric aerosols don’t even know the sign of the contribution to warming. In other words, they don’t know if they will cool or warm, let alone how much. The model parameters for these unknown effects were assigned by fitting past temperature records.
Anyone who has done math modeling in other fields has their warning bells going off at this point. Models with 100s of parameters, most of which are unknown, being fit to past data and then used to predict future data. As Lindzen says ‘this is just curve fitting”. Indeed, to make the models going forward match the models going backward the climate guys have claimed that there is some unknown factor that has cancelled out 60% of the warming over the last 150 years, but just went away recently. Right guys, right.
The bottom line is that CO2 will lead to warming, but it is highly unlikely that it will to the degree claimed by the IPCC gang.