By Kennedy Maize
As a democrat (that’s with a small “d” and a large “D”), I have a great deal of faith in the wisdom of the American people. That’s why I’m not surprised that the hysteria over alleged man-made global warming is in rapid decline in public opinion polls. It’s no longer in the top 10, or event the top 15, of issues that Americans care about.
Folks are much more concerned about their jobs, their investments, their retirement, and the prospects for the America economy. Well they should. Concerns about global warming, despite the intellectually-dishonest hypes of former vice president Al Gore, just aren’t cutting it with the public, according to a series of recent, reputable polls. Folks don’t care.
But this view among the general public, which has as much scientific backbone as the alarums of the climate catastrophists, doesn’t seem to have made much of a dent in the coverage of the issue by the conventional print and broadcast media, or the views of the policy elite, also known as opinion leaders, particularly those in Congress.
There are exceptions. John Tierney, the excellent and experienced science reporter for the New York Times, has not swallowed the man-made cooling Kool Aide, and gives skeptics an opportunity to make a contrary case on his blog. He’s not an advocate in any scenario, as befits his role as a journalist.
Generally, the media, policymakers in Washington (including electric industry trade groups who are trying to arbitrage damage), and the staff of members of Congress in both parties, seem to have accepted the conventional wisdom, and abandoned any idea of serious probing. At the Electric Power conference in Chicago this May, I heard a couple of smart industry analysts sign onto the entirely unproven hypothesis that there is some sort of physical inertia built into the climate system, and we are now seeing the effects of that in terms of California droughts and wildfires.
That’s entirely bogus, regardless of who is pushing the notion (Obama science advisor John Holdren?). How does the inertia show up in measurable terms? The global climate, by all credible measures, including those of the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has declined over the last decade, and has not risen significantly since the 1950s. Nor is there any evidence – only assertions — of an inertial temperature increase.
A word about John Holdren. He’s on record going back to the 1960s as an environmental catastrophist. He and Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, circa 1969) together ardently argued that economic growth and advancement of technology would lead to greater worldwide poverty and starvation. They are both neo-Malthusians, and have been proven consistently wrong at every turn. Yet some environmentalists, including those in the Obama administration, apparently revere their work.
Now Holdren is advising the White House on issues he has never gotten right. I confess I don’t get it. I can’t imagine a worse choice for the president’s science advisor (well, maybe Paul Ehrlich would be worse).
Similarly, I heard folks who should know better at the EP meeting in Chicago cite Al Gore’s entirely discredited, hysterical projections of drastic sea level increases caused by warming. Even if the models that Gore relies upon are close to accurate, the results are sea level rises in inches, not the multiple feet that Gore claims and too many folks in the industry have apparently decided not to challenge. Scientists have thoroughly debunked Gore’s sea level claims, yet he continues to advance them, without challenge.
Gore also continues to claim that global warming today is influencing hurricane frequency and strength. That’s also bogus. None of the major hurricane researchers in the U.S. buy that analysis, including at least one major researcher who has recanted on his original support for the hypothesis that warming is boosting hurricane activity. Nonetheless, Gore continues to push that case.
There is a political correctness aspect to warming politics in Washington, where one dare not suggest that the conventional, politically-approved, view of climate science is flawed. As a result, advocates of renewable energy and opponents of fossil fuels are driving the policy debate in ways that I believe will be disastrous: enormous increases in the costs of electricity with no benefits to the environment. Based on what I saw in Chicago — the reluctance of power generators to push back — I fear that the outcome I suggested is being teed-up in Congress.
Fortunately, the naked politics of special interests will make it nearly impossible for the Obama administration to implement any kind of serious CO2 reduction policy anytime soon. That’s a good thing. Congress is unlikely to go very far to limit existing coal-fired electric generation. Half the states in the U.S. have significant coal deposits. That equals 50 senators, plus a few on ideological grounds.
On top of that, other industries that are carbon emitters, including steel, cement, and cars, will also make their views known to Congress, as American Electric Power CEO Mike Morris made clear at the Electric Power meeting in Chicago. The likely outcome, for at least the next year or so, and I’m guessing four years or so, is gridlock.
I also suspect that as congressional staffers dig deeply into the problems of the unpredictability and remote locale of wind and solar, and the need to built lots of visible, expensive, high-voltage transmission over thousands of miles, a lot of the sizzle will depart from the argument. It will begin to concentrate more on the steak and the potatoes.
Belief :
“The global climate, by all credible measures, including those of the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has declined over the last decade, and has not risen significantly since the 1950s.”
Reality:
“April 2009 was the fifth warmest April since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. The year-to-date (January-April) land and ocean combined temperature tied with 2003 as the sixth warmest on record.” ( NOAA ).
Don:
Before you claim your source is the only truthful one for reality and fact, better do some more research. We know media is always selective on what they want to write in paper or report on TV once they have their own agenda. You should not unless …
Other than NCDC data, you probably should also check out GISS, Hadley, UAH and RSS data and see what is going on
Thanks
Hi Wayne, Ken specifically mentioned the NOAA. I just pointed out that what they really say is completely different than what he claims. It’s up to Ken to explain that. I’m not quoting any “media” at all, that was a direct quote from the latest NOAA report.
There were other factual errors in Ken’s column. I just picked this one as being particularly obvious and easy to disprove.
Don’s comment typifies the statistical confusion that pervades the climate change debate. Ken said 1950 but Don cites 1850, which includes emerging from the little ice age, which many consider a natural warming. If so then the fact that it is warmer today then 150 years ago is no evidence of human induced warming, none at all. In fact it has only warmed for one 20 year spurt over the last 70 years — roughly 1978-1998 — while CO2 levels have increased steadily over the 70 year period. It is difficult to argue that the spurt is due to the steady rise, but many do. The real problem is the science is completely uncertain so advocates use friendly statistics.
Hi David, Nice bit of bafflegab. Only works as long as no one looks at the NOAA website for themselves, unfortunately. They show strong warming since the 1950s.
Don, (I see you have resorted to insults, which is characteristic of you clan.) There was some warming between roughly 1978-1998. 1950-78 it cooled, and likewise since 1998 it has cooled or been flat, but not warmed. Your claim of “strong warming since the 1950s” is visibly false. Look again.
Hi David, The temperature trends are available to all. Anyone can look at the NOAA trend and see that the claim of “no warming since the 1950s” is false. Your variations on that, such as “no warming since 1998″ aren’t much better. Everyone knows that ’98 was a strong El Nino year. You’re pegging your analysis of trends onto an anomaly — hence “bafflegab” — cherrypicking start and end dates to find trends to suit your position.
Don:
Help yourself with your beloved NOAA website, to see if you can find something different from what other people took out of
the report by NOAA
“Recent NOAA Study: Climate change not all man-made”
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-3/sap1-3-final-all.pdf
Enjoy
Hi Wayne, “For annual, area-average surface temperatures over North America, more than half of the observed surface
warming since 1951 is likely due to anthropogenic forcing associated with greenhouse gas forcing.”
Sounds about right to me — were you expecting something different?
Don:
I am expecting you to complete the reading of the report, if not, complete the reading of the abstract, if not, complete the reading of key paragraph or sentence, therefore to grasp the center piece of the idea the authors want to convey. Unfortunately, either your temper or intellectual maturity makes me hardly believe you are sufficiently scientifically trained.
Quote for you from the report abstract, you apparently has difficulty to understand the main point below
“The Product also assesses current understanding of the causes of observed North American
climate variability and trends from 1951 to 2006. This assessment is based on results from
research studies, climate model simulations, and reanalysis and observational data. For annual,
area-average surface temperatures over North America, more than half of the observed surface
warming since 1951 is likely due to anthropogenic forcing associated with greenhouse gas forcing.
However, warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions alone is unlikely to be the main
cause for regional and seasonal differences of surface temperature changes, such as the absence
of a summertime warming trend over the Great Plains of the United States and the absence of a
warming trend in both winter and summer over portions of the southern United States.”
Interesting site, but much advertisments on him. Shall read as subscription, rss.
Hi Wayne, you’ve just quoted back the same paragraph I quoted from … so, what exactly are you trying to say?
Don:
I quote you on purpose the same paragraph that you read, but you only read the first half, ignorantly skip the second half. No mention you have not read the later summary chapter and recommendation. Your inability to read the full sentence, chapter and report is the whole issue I am talking about. Yet you showed time after time you don’t have objective mindset to read any technical paper with different opinion than yours even it is from your GOSPEL source NOAA.
LOL
Hi Wayne, so, really, you have nothing to say about the document that you introduced into the discussion …?
If you want, you can skip the usual ‘Don is stupid’ rant in your reply, it means nothing to me. Or, make it a little more inventive and colourful, then at least it would be worth a laugh