Saturday, August 18, 2007
Following up on the revision of U.S. temperature data
Last week, I was among the bloggers who followed the story that NASA's United States temperature data had been revised, supposedly because a "Y2K bug" had bolluxed a calculation, with the result that 1934 was now the hottest year on record, not 1998 (as had been previously claimed). Lots of mostly righty bloggers had fun with that one.
Well, NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, has responded. His main point is that the revisions are so small as to be irrelevant, and in any case they relate only to the U.S. data, which influence the global result immaterially. Worldwide, 2005 remains the hottest year on record, at least according to the recordkeepers.
Hansen's email also includes a broadside attack on those of us who followed the original story, charging specifically that we are the shills, unwitting or otherwise, of a conspiracy to destroy the world:
The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species….
Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.
The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.
So, the "captains of industry" know we are destroying the planet, but they either do not have children or care about them less than they care about "short-term profit"? There is not the slightest possibility that they honestly believe that the data do not support destroying the standard of living of billions of people? This is the essence of Hansen's accusation, which is widely echoed on the left.
Of course, if any actual elected Democrats believed that the stakes were this high, they would propose a tax on gasoline and electricity generated from fossil fuels, both measures that I, a "soft" climate-change skeptic, have long supported for a variety of reasons (and, yes, I would return the money to the people, albeit somewhat different people, via cuts in the income tax). Elected Democrats, virtually all of whom would claim to believe in anthropogenic global climate change, have avoided this not because they are paid or intimidated by ExxonMobil. Rather, they know the price of gasoline is the real third rail of American politics. That is why oil companies are so unpopular notwithstanding their unbelievable accomplishments.
Here on Martha's Vineyard, where one cannot escape "progressive" activism, the wealthy left strongly opposes extracting power from the wind in Nantucket Sound. Do these people also know that we are destroying the planet? I have no doubt that the very liberal denizens of this island believe they know as much, per capita, about global climate change as any residents of any other town in America. The airport, though, is abuzz with private planes. A huge proportion of the vehicles on the ferry are SUVs (see my picture at right). The harbor and surrounding waters are clogged with power boats, all of which burn fuel prodigiously. Are these people innocent of Hansen's charge, or just pardoned for their offenses because they say they believe global warming is a huge problem?
The policy debate over the climate would be much more productive if it were much less disingenuous.
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Aug 18, 06:33:00 AM:
"The policy debate over the climate would be much more productive if it were much less disingenuous."
Well, now, thats a good point.
But somehow you fail to go after the really really disingenuous players in this debate - all those people last week who spread such disinformation so thickly.
You want some credibility? Go after all those liars. Then maybe we might bother to listen to you rag on those who have been right on this issue all along.
By , at
Sat Aug 18, 07:47:00 AM:
Anonymous:
Go after all those liars.
What liars? The ones who reported that the NASA climate numbers were wrong? Didn't Dr. Hansen just say that they were?
Are all who reported and commented on this reality disingenuous players? or perhaps people who think its a good idea to check and double check any idea, be it scientific or otherwise that promises to engage us in a series of untried policies to correct an unproven problem?
By 
Country Squire, at
Sat Aug 18, 07:48:00 AM:
TH,
I suspect you might see enthusiasm for these global warming theories diminish substantially if you took away the wealthy Left’s toys. But as long as it remains “Do as I say, not as I do” everything is fine.
After all, saving the earth is only about how much we care, isn’t it?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Aug 18, 08:43:00 AM:
Hansen talking about "creation" like some sort of snake handling fundie gives me the creeps.
By Ray, at
Sat Aug 18, 09:06:00 AM:
Hansen is not speaking as a scientist. He's speaking as a political advocate, and he's failing the first rule of political advocacy: when your side screws up, admit it graciously.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Aug 18, 06:33:00 PM:
Debate? The time to debate is over. All there is now to do is to address the problem. Newsweek had a nice series of articles on the agenda of the climate change nay-sayers; frankly instead of being typical right wing douchebags and attacking everything like one-testicled dogs, why don't you use those vaunted neurons of yours to come with ways to help? Seriously, I just don't understand this level of snarky-ass hostility or smarmily pointing out some deficiency in the folks who at least have acknwoledged there is a problem. Well, actually... I do 'cause you creepy white boys just can't help yourselves. But good Lord you all are so brave and powerful and so much smarter than all of us--can't you just try for a moment? Try to see that yeah, there might be something to this and it is a threat? Try to walk at least a few yards in someone else's shoes? Would it frigging kill you? Come on.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Aug 18, 07:52:00 PM:
"creepy white boys"
CC, why not apply to become Robert Mugabe's press secretary? You seem to have the right skills and attitude for the job.
By SR, at
Sat Aug 18, 07:53:00 PM:
Easy Chris,
The US has been the country that has held its carbon emissions most constant in the last decade. We could have done a lot better if we developed nuclear power even to the extent that the Euros have (especially the French), but no, it has to be done the green's way. Who's telling who what to do about this? We realize that China and India will overwhelm any efforts we make at carbon reduction. Given that, it only makes sense to do it in a way that doesn't ruin the world's economic engine.
By , at
Sat Aug 18, 10:51:00 PM:
Chambers --
When you give up your power, water, other niceties and live like a poverty stricken Mali inhabitant I'll figure you're serious about GW.
Until then, I'll figure you're not and like Al Gore or Leo or Sheryl Crow just interested in controlling people's lives.
Al Gore's electricity bill is $22,000 a month. God knows what Leo's mansion runs up. Both jet around all the time in private jets. Carbon emissions galore.
None of those guys believe the issue is real. So why should I believe it?
As a practical matter, China and India and the rest of the developed world want to be wealthier not poor and living in dirt. So if it's actually happening you might as well get used to it.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Sat Aug 18, 11:31:00 PM:
>"just pardoned for their offenses because they say they believe global warming is a huge problem."
Bingo! As we protestants point out, justification is by faith alone.
CC, thanks for illuminating the racial angle for me. Somehow I had missed the fact that people of color are the principal folks warning the world about climate change. I was under the mistaken impression that there were a lot of creepy white boys in that camp.
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 01:03:00 AM:
Time for JAMES HANSEN to have his pork fund cut off entirly we dont need his junk science and his blather
By Country Squire, at
Sun Aug 19, 07:34:00 AM:
Chris,
“(R)ight wing douchebags”, “one-testicled dogs”, “snarky-ass hostility”? Way to use that vaunted education of yours to raise the level of discourse. You’re now the official poster child for the saying “Before entering into an exchange of ideas MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AT LEAST ONE”.
“Would it frigging kill you?”
By , at
Sun Aug 19, 08:46:00 AM:
CC
You left out running dog imperialist Yankee baby killers.
By Simon, at
Sun Aug 19, 02:10:00 PM:
I'm waiting for Newsweek to do a "nice series of articles on the agenda of the climate change YEA-sayers." The idea that only scientists who receive funding from corporations have an illicit agenda is mistaken beyond comprehension.
I worked at several Federal agencies for more than 30 years as a scientist and manager of scientific programs. Sometime in the 1970's, the strategy for squeezing program money out of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress became devious and simple: scare the sh*t out of somebody.
In essence shaking the money tree works like this. Government contractors (or more rarely in-house scientists) make sure their reports end with both a scary implication and a recommendation for further research to better understand the threat. The contract manager makes sure that useful outside pressure groups (fill in your favorite environmental or other busy-body organization here) receive copies and an obvious process starts in which everyone wins other than real science and the taxpayer. The contractor gets a new bigger contract. The contract manager gets an award or maybe even promoted. The managers get more staff. The Agency gets a bigger budget. The pressure groups get contributions and influence. The politicians spread pork, sound serious, and gain power. And supporting this whole shameless scheme from the bottom are the scientists, who like Dr. Hansen, get recognition, awards, free trips to international confernces in exotic places, and an opportunity to make pronouncements about political matters they know nothing about. Global climate change has been a particular godsend because almost anyone from atmospheric physicist to botanist to decision theorist can play to win.
From what I know both technically and politically, the science is far from settled and only those who stand to gain from bigger or more intrusive government agree that the debate should be.
