Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Let's by all means honestly discuss the climate
John Tierney is going to irritate a lot of people today:
I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.
You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.
Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.
But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).
He forgot about the gross overpublicity of deaths from heat, and the underpublicity of deaths from cold avoided because of warmer weather in northern climes (Bjorn Lomborg demonstrates
that cold deaths avoided have exceeded and will in the future exceed incremental heat deaths). But still read the whole thing, which talks about the importance of setting off an "availability cascade" in public relations.Now, that said, Tierney seems to believe the science in support of anthropogenic global warming -- my sense is that he is a "consequences skeptic," along with Bjorn Lomborg and, well, me. He is just offended when politicians and journalists make wholly disingenuous arguments to promote concern about AGW.
Interestingly, the New York Times complains this morning that the journalists who cover the presidential candidates have not sufficiently pressed them to explain their policies, or lack thereof, to address climate change. In an editorial hysterically entitled "The One Environmental Issue," the editors reveal that they believe the American electorate would respond well to full revelation of the costs of Kyoto-style greenhouse gas regulation:
So far, the Democratic candidates seem more engaged with the issue than some of their interrogators in the news media. In a recent study, the League of Conservation Voters found that as of two weeks ago, the five main political talk-show hosts had collectively asked 2,275 questions of candidates in both parties. Only 24 of the questions even touched on climate change.
One result is that even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?
Addressing these questions will require more courage of the candidates than simply offering up broad new visions. The voters deserve an honest accounting and the candidates should be prepared to give it.
I certainly agree that journalists should forcefully ask the questions in bold, and that the voters deserve "an honest accounting" of the costs and benefits of manadatory reductions in greenhouse gases as a solution to climate change. If that happened, however, the editors of the Times would be very disappointed in the result at the polls. Americans are not going to give up car culture and move back into the cities to prevent the inundation of the Maldives or even the extinction of the polar bears, even if those results were not themselves highly unlikely. Nothing would lead more quickly to Republican victory in November than "an honest accounting" of the costs and benefits for Americans of the various Democratic proposals for greenhouse gas reduction.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jan 01, 10:37:00 AM:
"Observer bias" is a problem in science generally, which is why studies need to be carefully designed to avoid sloppy "proof" of whatever it is that is being investigated.
Bad science -- and for that matter bad medical -- reporting is nothing new. Everyone goes for the "sound byte" and regardless of whether the underlying research even reaches any definitive endpoint, the media manages to find one anyway. This is, of course, not limited to the NYT.
All of which is why I read actual medical literature when I'm trying to learn more about health topics that are relevant to my personal situation, and when I research climate change, I go to the source material.
And of course, since most of our citizenry likely lack the time or interest in going beyond the news story, we are led like sheep.
Happy New Year!
By 
joated, at
Tue Jan 01, 11:10:00 AM:
Those who have leapt upon the AGW bandwagon have done so with the fervor of the jihadists. Their belief (and it can only be couched in religious terms as they have abandoned science) can brook no descent. Rather than produce legitimate arguments and factual data in support of their hypothesis, they selectively present microscopically focused numbers and interpolate them to the entire planet. As evidence of this, take a look at the hysteria about polar bears which are declining in just one of their dozen or so populations or, as Tierney mentions, the Arctic Ice vs Antarctic Ice and the hurricane forecasts vs reality for the last two years.
The AGW crowd plays upon fear and depends upon the media to carry the ball. And the media does, indeed, carry the ball. There’s no “news” value in the ho-hum, everyday occurrence. TV news and print media depend upon the out of the norm to make ratings and sales. Add the willingness of the public to believe what they see on TV or read in the newspapers and you’ve got the makings of a catastrophe all right, but not of the climatologically variety.
Hopefully, the hyperbole behind the AGW claims will be exposed sooner rather than later.
By lcmslutheran, at
Tue Jan 01, 11:18:00 AM:
One of the best sources of information on weather is one that is maintained by, among other professional weather forecasters, one of the original founders of the Weather Channel. The URL is www.icecap.us and is full of data and articles on globull smarming.
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 12:25:00 PM:
climate and weather are energy driven processes. has anyone ever seen an analysis based on the amount of energy from man made sources it would take to distort or impact the world wide climate ? the bottom line is, to believe in AGW you have to believe the pitiful amount of energy we produce is going to offset the incredibly large energy input (to our planet) from the Sun. and given that the sun's output isn't constant, our little contribution is easily swallowed up in the variations of the former -- kind of like throwing a dried leaf on a campfire. just my $0.02
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 02:20:00 PM:
"I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice."
He forgot earthquakes.
Me, I'm thinking of making history this year by being the first to scientifically link global warming to earthquakes. The extra heat makes the tectonic plates expand from the heat and creates more friction between neighboring plates? As the AGW crowd has proven, where there's a will, there's a way.
I was, however, glad to see he at least included forest fires. As is obvious, as weather temperatures rise to the point of spontaneous combustion, that natural dry tinder is just begging to go up in flames.
"...and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears..."
Huh? "Images of struggling polar bears"?? I've never seen such a thing!
"Dr. Sunstein says, '...I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat'"
How brain-dead can anyone be? A couple of degrees is "serious"? The trouble with people like this is that they treat the whole thing as some kind of intellectual exercise, never actually applying their 'findings' to real life.
Okay, let's say global warming arrived yesterday and it was two degrees warmer last night. It's two degrees warmer today. You see any mass extinctions or human deaths or anything that could remotely be described as "serious" from the two-degree upswing?
Would you even notice?
Now, it's true that the Blueback Ridgeheaded Salamander only mates when it's 86.7 to 86.9 degrees out, so they'll probably die out, but is this knucklehead going to sit there and tell me that it's going to cause a "serious" disruption to the food chain? Massive starvation sweeps the planet because the Blueback Ridgeheaded Salamander died out?
Exit question for Dr. Sunstein: If two degrees is "serious", just what are you going to call the next Ice Age when it arrives?
As far as Tiger's commentary goes:
"Now, that said, Tierney seems to believe the science in support of anthropogenic global warming -- my sense is that he is a 'consequences skeptic,' along with Bjorn Lomborg and, well, me."
I re-read the entire article twice looking for the tiniest clue that he "seems to" believe in AGW, but every word he writes mocks it. Just because he quotes the lunatic who thinks it's all "serious" doesn't make him "seem to" agree with the guy's stance.
I'd say that if someone writes a lengthy article like this and it only "seems" like he's making some point you agree with, then he's probably not. 'Reaching', as they say in the psych biz.
A cynic would claim that you only posted the article once you saw that it appeared the author seemed to agree with you, so you could then add another name to your ever-growing (two at the moment) 'consequences skeptics' list.
But I'd never make such a claim, of course. :)
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 03:39:00 PM:
There is no climate crisis if we can have a conference in Bali.
If our forecasters can't get the weather forecast right for the next day, how in the world are we supposed to believe that they can forecast 50-100 years down the road?
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 05:24:00 PM:
i'm going long in polar bear futures.
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 09:04:00 PM:
Driving through the mountains this morning, on my way to the truly awful Denver airport, I had a hard time finding any evidence of global warming. It was 15 below in the valley's and something worse in the passes. My rental car was claiming 26 below at the peak of Vail pass, but who knows how accurate it was. No word on the CO2 content in the atmosphere, though.
By , at
Wed Jan 02, 02:55:00 PM:
"Global warming" as a terrible problem is a pure anti-American issue. If there is a real "global warming"effect, it is a symptom and not the cause. The real problem is population growth.
If you attack the real problem, you attack third worlders who breed; if you attack the symptoms, you attack the evil, wealthy Americans.
Our growth from six billion to nine billion people over the next 40 years has to effect the environment. If we invent tomorrow power sources that leave no exhaust, we'll still have nine billion folks by 2050, all using whhat's left of the resources.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 12:01:00 PM:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
