New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts on Climate Change

(Originally printed 1-31-10. Edited, and updated, 4-15-10)
Space on the prestigious NY Times opinion pages is very limited.  Most of that space, in turn, is taken up by the paper’s own editorials and columnists.

So one imagines that on the rare occasion that the paper ventures to outside sources from among its constant inundation of submissions, that it chooses its pieces carefully.  And, in its search for someone to provide an informative piece on climate change risk, the Times apparently must have heavily scoured experts from around the globe, finally settling upon one from New Zealand.

What follows is how this chosen expert’s fantastic work of reason, logic, and well tied in fact might have made its way onto the famed and highly selective pages of the “paper of record,” the NY Times:

(NEW ZEALAND PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR DENIS) DUTTON: I think we are overreacting on climate change.

NYT:   Why?

DUTTON: Because sometimes people overreact.

NYT:  Sometimes people also under react. Why are we over reacting, rather than under reacting, here?

DUTTON: Because apocalypses are intriguing.

NYT:  That’s not a reason for assigning over reaction. That’s a suggestion, if  it is determined that we are overreacting, why we are, not an argument that we are .

DUTTON: Err, uh, yeah, but, um, high seas, vicious storms, potentially catastrophic scenarios, people love this stuff, therefore we must be overreacting.

NYT: Are you saying we are overreacting to this because while most scientists are saying this will be a bad to really bad thing, we must be overreacting to what the scientists are saying because “people are fascinated with apocalypses?”

DUTTON: Yes.

NYT: That completely avoids the relevant facts of the issue, and is also a bit, well, ridiculous.  The main warning is we are doing something destructive to ourselves and our world long term. You are saying that doing potentially destructive things to ourselves is something we tend to overreact to?

While there’s plenty of things we overreacted to because they were sexy — like asteroids hitting the earth — there’s plenty of things we have repeatedly under reacted to, like the threat of al-Qaida before 9/11,  Nazi Germany, Glenn Beck today, along with plenty of other scientific warnings we ignored and which, as a result of, tens of thousands of people a year die of cancer today while even newborn babies are borne with debilitating neurological defects or learning disabilities, etc.

Also, and perhaps even more importantly, this entire climate concern thing is based on uncertain and very hard to pin point projections of unspecified times in the future, that also, in many fundamental respects, such as temperature changes or “bad weather,” seem normal; yet you are saying we are overreacting to threats that scientists are calling very real but that seem abstract to many? Wouldn’t  it tend to be the other way around?

DUTTON: No, no no.  People find apocalypses  intriguing!!! Don’t you get that?

NYT: An assessment of whether we are overreacting or underreacting comes from an unemotional, dispassionate (and, hard as that is today, well informed) analysis of the facts relative to our overall collective responses to them. Then, once and if you have determined that we are over or under reacting, you might offer “theories” as to why this is the case. You’ve both avoided and thoroughly confused the issue, and gotten the logic largely backward.  You have not shown or made an argument even supporting the claim that we are overreacting here; but rather simply speculated that we are overreacting here because “sometimes we do.” This is like saying asserting that right now it is raining in China (as opposed to not raining)because “sometimes it rains” when you have no knowledge of the pertinent facts. Besides, this also isn’t really about apocalypse, not that that matters.

DUTTON: Well, to some of the most extreme and exaggerated voices, it is.

NYT: So you are saying what makes this an overreaction is not the general warning that this is very counterproductive, if not highly destructive long term, but instead the abstract notion — that skeptics of climate change more than anyone have turned this into — that this is about saving mankind from assured destruction; and, that therefore the general warning by scientists that this is very counterproductive if not in some ways potentially catastrophic long term is an overreaction?

Is that why almost half the country thinks the issue is nonexistent or minimal, causing most scientists who actually study the issue to want to pull their hair out, because “people are fascinated with apocalypses and so are overreacting?”

DUTTON: Yes, and Yes.

NYT: That makes no sense. Also, what you are saying is “people are fascinated with apocalypses” so scientists are over-reacting to this because of apocalypses while people in general are under-reacting?

DUTTON: No. I’m just saying that we find apocalypses intriguing, so therefore, naturally, we are over reacting on climate change. Even we we are largely ignoring the issue while scientists repeatedly attempt to warn us, we are, don’t you see, overreacting, because we are fascinated with apocalypses!

NYT: It seems to us that you are saying is “people are fascinated with apocalypses” so scientists are over-reacting to this because of apocalypses while people in general are under-reacting.

But completely ignoring the fact here that most scientists say people are under-reacting, you are then in turn arguing here that people are nevertheless overreacting simply because people tend to sometimes overreact to potentially bad scenarios, even though there are plenty of times we under-react, and plenty of arguments as to why we under-react that would very specifically apply here.

So do you have anything more than the fact that while to potentially really bad scenarios “we overreact sometimes,” we under-react other times, we are overreacting this time, essentially based upon the reasoning that “we overreact sometimes”?

DUTTON: Yes, yes, of course.  Here goes. Here is my reason.  Drumroll please:

“It seems to me.”

NYT: Hey, whoa, that’s pretty darn good! It changes everything!!!

DUTTON: Yes!  And it’s awesome, isn’t it! Also, since this is a scientific issue, why should we bother with actual science, when instead we can bother with stuff that is even better than science!  Namely, science fiction. Because, New York Times, are you ready? I have even more.

NYT: Really, even more for why we are over reacting when the bulk of scientists continue to say we are under reacting, in addition to the amazingly relevant and op ed worthy fact that it “seems” to you that we are! Why, that would absolutely fantastic.

DUTTON: Yes, I am saying exactly that.  I have more. And like I said, it’s even better than science — who needs that anyway. Ready?

NYT: We have almost no room on our very limited and highly sought after op ed page for outside sources, but this clearly seems like it is going to be outstanding enough to make the cut.

DUTTON: Yes, yes, absolutely, because, in addition to the very strong fact that it “seems to me,” I even have yet another reason as to why I am claiming that people are overreacting, despite the fact that scientists — the one’s actually studying this issue — are saying that people are under reacting.  Are you ready?

NYT: Yes, Yes!

DUTTON: “Mary Shelley Created Frankenstein.”

Thus, you see, people are fascinated with this stuff, like Frankenstein; so, therefore, ergo, as a result, thus, voila, we are over reacting on climate change!

So now I’ve given yet another reason why in sometimes people overreact in general (just like we sometimes under react or vastly underestimate) without one bit even of suggestion or support as to why we are overreacting here! And no one will ever notice.

NYT:  Including us.

However, brilliant and relevant as this argument of yours now quite obviously is  is, it’s still, um, a largely tautological and unsupported sentence or two, not an op-ed. It’s very slight, but do you see the difference?  That is; Largely tautological and and unsupported sentence, versus complete op-ed piece.   Thus, in addition to mentioning apocalyptic visions and maybe a few more Frankenstein examples, can you largely fill in the bulk of the piece with a wholly irrelevant yet excruciatingly detailed example of a time when we over-reacted as opposed to under-reacted, perhaps regarding something which has absolutely nothing in common with the current situation save for the fact that we “over reacted” which, of course, since we already know that sometimes we overreact, sometimes we under-react, makes it about as relevant as the price of tea in China?

DUTTON: You mean like how if I theorized, with no support, that your publisher was having a steamy affair, I might write a piece about how on another occasion someone else had a steamy affair and provide excessive details about it, throw in the idea that “it seems to me” that therefore yours is also, and “support” it all with the idea that, much like apocalypses, people are fascinated with sex so therefore he probably is having an affair?

NYT: Exactly.

DUTTON: Okay, sure, absolutely. I will talk in excruciatingly irrelevant detail how many people over reacted to Y2K.

[Editor of ELA here:   Ahem, uh, "ahem."  Fear of  enormous breakdowns was not a widespread consensus. Yet with respect to those fears, which were based purely on the unknown of a one time, unique event rather than upon scientific reason and risk assessment of an extremely complex, centuries long global biological, ecological and physics problem, some thought the entire notion of an unavoidable enormous Y2k breakdown just because the years on many computers were in double rather than quadruple digits, was ridiculous, and said so repeatedly.  Including the editor of this site.  As for some of the practical implications it should also be noted that many Y2K computer problems and attendant  breakdowns were diligently worked on and avoided in advance precisely due to concerns.]

NY TIMES:  Yes!

DUTTON: Done. Check  your in box. You now have a piece consisting in its entirety of; the assertion that we are overreacting on climate change because people sometimes overreact; the assertion that are are over reacting rather than under-reacting here because “it seems to me” we are; a reason offered as to why we sometimes overreact rather than reasons offered as to why we oftentimes greatly under-react  – as opposed to reasons why we may be doing either in this particular case; and an excruciatingly detailed example of a time when some overreacted– omitting the fact that since we already know that sometimes we overreact,and sometimes in advance we greatly underestimate  and “under react,” this is about as relevant as which trash can of the many in your building you should throw my inane climate change submission into, which I nevertheless hope that you publish.

NYT: We’ll publish it!

Hard to believe, right?  As the NY Times might very well put it:

If you don’t believe this, come read our pages, December 31, and see for yourself.

Simply saying “We overreact to some things, perhaps we are to climate change, here are some reasons why we are over-reacting here,” flawed as the conclusion that we are overreacting likely is, is fine. Dutton does not come close to doing that, however.  He suggests that sometimes we over react to things; he explains why he thinks we over-react to things sometimes (fascination with the eschatological), and then suggests that “we are over-reacting here” for no reason other than the completely tautological explanation that sometimes we do, along with the completely irrelevant reason why we sometimes do.

If anything, there would be far more driving the idea that we are under-reacting here.  Likely results are many years in the future.  The implications to many, of this, are extremely negative, because of the (flawed) perception that sensibly addressing this means we have to sacrifice our economy. There is a general lack of general scientific understanding among the populace. And our expectations are grounded in what we have come to expect, and the difficulty we seem to have grasping the ideas that 1) there is an enormous time lag here between both cause and effect, and 2) effects are very likely to be non linear (that is, potentially accelerating with increased input and cumulative effect).

Whether that last paragraph was a good or bad (but short) opinion piece, at least it offered reasons. Dutton offers none. What he offered is like suggesting “remember how in medieval times the plague hit, and people did not take it seriously enough;” then spending most of the time writing about how bad the plague was and how wrong everybody was; then offering up a bunch of reasons why in general people often don’t take things seriously enough (and they tend to number far greater than “fascination with eschatology”) and then concluding “it seems to me climate change is the same. The end.”  That would be an inane piece.  And, analogously, it is exactly the logic — and all of it — that the NY Times, incredibly, chose to publish, though a far better example of it at that.

Update: The  NY Times seems at times to be to science understanding and real journalism on this issue as Saddam Hussein was to democracy and open, fair elections in Iraq.  Even its leading “Dot Earth” climate blog, comments included, helps contribute more to the general confusion and misunderstanding on the climate change issue, than to expose and correct it.

This is yet another, and  particularly troubling, example of the fact that our “media” is increasingly becoming a stenographic  reflection of our worst common ignorances, misunderstandings, and rhetoric, than a necessary Fourth Estate investigative and illuminative check upon it.

False Equivalency And Specious Analyses Offered up as “Balance” on Highly Influential NY Times Climate Change blog

A recent climate change coverage post concluded:

How repeated comments on the estimable NY Times DotEarth blog, to the constant effect that there is no evidence or support for the consensus of most scientists, continue to get posted and not sufficiently undermined by other commenters and in particular the blog itself, is hard to fathom. Unless — as I have suggested on it back when I inefficiently if not foolishly ventured forth some comments myself — this leading science blog is supposed to serve more as a reflection of the ignorance and disinformation of our national debate, rather than a check and attempt to improve upon it.

ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm suggests a rather harsh but on point reason why this might be the case, in a piece scathingly entitled “Revkin’s DotEarth hypes disinformation posted on an anti-science website”:

One of the reasons for the collapse [in rigorous scientific media coverage] is the media’s refusal to draw a distinction between what scientists say based on actual observations and analysis in the peer-reviewed literature and what anti-science disinformers say based on their total lack of knowledge of the science and general willingness to misrepresent the facts or make stuff up.

The only area I might tend to disagree with Romm on — and it’s minor to his point above —  is the conscious willingness to make stuff up and misrepresent. Sure it’s done a lot, but often I think it is believed by those doing so (or at least the points that it tends to support are believed); it is frequently the way an ideological driven analysis and the human minds works. If  belief is fervently held and/or there are particularly strong (believed) reasons for it, arguments will be concocted that reinforce (and sell) one’s predetermined belief. (Here’s an example of this just posted in comments on Romm’s blog itself.) We see this in spades on the climate change issue — and in some ways, it almost defines it. Although if it were that obvious, then obviously, we wouldn’t be having the national (and even to some degree international) misinformed discussion on the issue that by and large, we are.

Romm’s piece was in reference to this Dot Earth column.  I had written a decent enough comment to that same Dot Earth piece, to which Revkin both responded (see bottom),  and also quoted from at length in a post the next day.  (Which nevertheless wouldn’t update to reflect more than my last name only, for reasons he would not state, or, apparently, change.)

But to that same initial post that Romm critiques, Revkin also printed a somewhat inane email from ideologue and meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr.; another, much worse comment from some random blogger (who mislead or was flat out wrong with respect to almost every substantive point therein); and as Romm  harshly but correctly points out, updated the piece with an analysis by Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University — who in a highly convoluted but poetically written piece of tripe compares “the science is settled” assertion with the gravity and apparent lack of full candor on the “Iraq has WMD’s” assertion. (Indicating, in the process, that he either knows little about either (see here, or the second half of here), or his fervent ideology on this issue has gotten in the way. Not to mention the fact that the Ravetz letter appeared on one of the most powerful disinformation sites out there.)

The WMD certainty or near certainty belief was widely held. But not that widely held. And by mid-March of 2003 when we commenced military action, outside of this country and a few others, it was not a belief that was widely held by those at all remotely involved in the process.  It had been mainly believed in the absence of actual data, based upon Iraq’s history and pattern of non cooperation. Unlike climate change, it did not require looking into a crystal ball regarding long term future scientific effects in what amounts to a long term and wild experiment upon the entire earth’s climate, with no “sister” or control earth’s by which to assess differences in hindsight. It required confirmation of something that either did or did not exist at the time.

After weapons inspectors went back into Iraq on November 27, 2002 and conducted viable weapons inspections in Iraq for the first time in numerous years (up until they were ordered out on the eve of our military action commencement on March 19, 2003),  they found no substantial evidence to support what every nearly major intelligence report emphasized was a presumption rendered in the absence of verified data from Iraq, and were universally saying to “wait.”

Ravetz might be very scholarly.  But to compare that to a widespread consensus opinion that — by the actions of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to the point where atmospheric levels of said gases, in total global warming potential equivalent GWPe (that is, taking into account the relevant long lived gases as noted above, and their various heat trapping potential reduced to a common denominator) are now approaching heat levels not seen in many millions of years — we are effecting future climate, is asinine.

Then of course there is this comparison, which makes the equivalency of Ravetz’ “the science is settled,” and “Iraq had WMDs” assertions even more asinine;  We have to get off of fossil fuels anyway.  They are finite. Their continued reliance harms national security and sends hundreds of billions each year overseas to often unfriendly regimes for a natural commodity which (in the case of oil) we simply don’t have nearly enough of on our own; they are highly polluting otherwise; and in the case of coal even lead to often excessive ecosystem damage in their acquisition, and in usage to the bio accumulation of toxins, such as mercury, in our food supply.

Even more importantly, as far as the climate goes, we can’t ever know exactly how much we will effect it until well after the fact (not to mention sufficiently after the fact to have given us enough time to accommodate for the large multi decade plus lag between cause and effect, and to iron out the enormous inherent variability of climate itself on top of that); but it is an enormous risk that will likely affect our children and their children far more than us, and one that an overwhelming number of actual climate and geophysical scientists who have studied the issue are in agreement, for basic, sensible reasons, is quite high.  The entire question is one of risk assessment, not of certainty of ‘X’ or “Y”result.

Iraq was  a monumental unilateral military engagement (now, seven years later, still ongoing) based not upon a risk assessment that Iraq had WMDs (for even if they did, plenty of nation’s do, it is not necessarily a reason for pre-emptive military action);  but upon “the fact” that Iraq did have them, and that therefore pre-emptive aggressive military action was justified. The risk assessment itself was based upon the assertion of this fact.

There is nothing remotely corollary to the climate change issue, nor, by the very nature of it, can there be. The only “proof” or evidence that has come in has tended to bolster the perception of the underlying climate change problem — in may ways, rather powerfully and extremely coincidentally. Critics of this often however confuse this so called “proof” or (as better terminology), evidence, with the problem itself, when it is most decidedly not the problem, but (likely) merely some very early, and highly trailing, evidence of it.  It is no surprise that if Watt’s Up is going to find a professor from a seemingly eminent Institution somewhere (among the tens of thousands of professors from eminent Institutions), he would find one who does not get this, among other things.

As for the “climategate” scandal which Ravetz also makes such a WMD type fuss over, see the summary of my email to Revkin below, highlighted in bold: As noted therein:

How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones']  work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did.

But one doesn’t hear about how their data compilations comprise the “science scandal of the decade.”  Yet most if not all of the data compilations put together by critics targeting the methodology and even integrity of Jones or Mann were repeatedly shown to have been more manipulated, if anything.  Yet nothing remotely approaching the same level of widespread public  scrutiny and condemnation has ever been applied.

The reason for this? There are very few people who decided it would be a good thing if the future climate was being royally screwed up; but countless — including many who have (or wrongly believe they or we have) strongly vested interests — who have predetermined that it would be a good thing if we are not, and have sought diligently to arrive at the end result conclusion, where belief is driving the analysis rather than vice versa.

Thus Mann and Jones’s work has been pilloried as a sort of  scandal of the decade. (Despite the fact that data supporting Mann’s hockey stick is still stronger than data not supporting it, and the fact that if the earth has shifted even more in the past than we think, thus rendering Mann’s “hockey stick” less oblique than as presented, this only means the climate is even more sensitive to or apt to ultimately, easily change, not less.)  Whereas creative critiques “proving” otherwise or any number of other fallacious or misinformed claims, has not nearly been so illuminated.  Indeed, media sources, often scurrying to provide the false patina of “balance” but providing anything but, have often promoted these as some sort of ’side’ to a ‘debate,’ and ideological interests have zealously pushed this point further.  (Revkin himself even recently and quite strongly played into this general trend of seeking false balance rather than simply the best and most relevant scientific inquiries of all types — and why I think he was well off base to do so.)

The disinformation site Watts Up With That, where Ravetz’ inanely contorted piece appears — the same one that Revkin promoted along with the Watts Up site itself  – engages in more misrepresentation on the underlying issue than Mann or Jones ever did – and does so on a fairly ongoing basis.)

(In reading Ravetz’ highly contorted but well presented piece, however, I can’t help but think that if pro climate change advocates assessed this in broader language, and stopped falling prey to the desire to overemphasize trailing temperature data — which is not the basis for the problem — at least some understanding would be improved.)

As Romm puts it:

The reason I am writing this post, however, is not any of the above.  It’s the staggering update Revkin has:

[UPDATE, 8 p.m.: In an interesting guest post on WattsUpWithThat, Jerome Ravetz, a longtime student of the intersection of science and society, explores the panel's travails and related issues.]

No, no, a thousand times no.

In general, you can assume that if Watts has reprinted a piece, it is filled with anti-scientific disinformation.  It’s kind of like the laws of thermodynamics.  If someone tells you they have a perpetual motion machine, you don’t actually have to look at the design closely to know that, in fact, they don’t.

Now the least Revkin could do is quickly skim this nonsensical piece to see if, yes, it is in fact a perpetual disinformation machine, like all of Watts’ other posts.  It’s just pure anti-scientific garbage masquerading as … well, it’s masquerading as mostly anti-scientific garbage.

A decent enough example of the ideologically driven Watts Up With That disinformation site is found here, noting:

The idea that weather does not define climate was examined here.  But A. Watts’ “Watts Up With That?” webblog elected to simply re post verbatim excerpts — note that the site often simply reposts large chunks or an entire article verbatim without much or any additional commentary, insight or analysis — from an original snowfall article,with the simple, snarky introduction:

More from the “weather is not climate department.”

Read through the 154 comments to the snowfall article to see if this kind of subtle (and very often not so subtle)‘arguing’ doesn’t have a profound effect on shaping and misinforming the discussion. Unfortunately, as a perusal of the comments on the site at any point in time aptly illustrate, it does.  (Here’s an interesting related video, which Watts improperly had YouTube take down, and which was then put back up: see from minutes 3:56 on — as the earlier part is peripheral, and it is true, someone does have to defend smokers.)

Watt’s article completely neglected to mention that this unprecedented summer snowfall in Australia also happened during one of the hottest, and driest, Australian summers on record, following an even hotter summer, and during the continuance of Australia’s worst long term drought on record (which also included its worst short term drought on record).

The link to the very popular but designedly anti climate science site Watt’s Up, and Ravetz’ misunderstanding of the state of science and what “settled” means and does not mean, along with his misunderstanding of the scientific basis for, and the fact of, the overwhelming relevant scientist consensus that we are now in the process of affecting future climate (see endnotes here for support), not surprisingly, was also provided by another near constant misinforming and/or misinformed commenter on Revkin’s blog; to whom Revkin directly responded:

I added a link to it earlier tonight…. Thanks for posting here. Well worth reading.

No, Andy, it wasn’t.

To the same post yet again, Revkin also highlighted a comment by yet another clearly driven ideologue — who for some perhaps not so coincidental reasons seem to get attracted to Revkin’s Dot Earth blog like moths to light. (It’’s a venerable NY Times blog and considered influential, hence a good place to go to try and influence public opinion, and Revkin puts up with, and occasionally even promotes, a good deal of misrepresentation, and worse.)

This commenter was responding to an IPCC statement to the effect that “[the data] show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone,” and wrote:

This statement is simply absurd! How can these people sit there and make statements about what is and what is not consistent with internal climate variability when they have no idea what all of the elements of climate variability are? Ask them to explain what elements of climate variability are responsible for overriding the effects of CO2 for the most recent twelve years, and they have absolutely no clue.

Number one, 12 years are not that consequential climate wise — the longer term trend of statistically significant warming over the past 150 years, is– depending upon what happens within those twelve years. (Proving the negative of a causal effect on an inherently variable and long term system always takes a certain amount of accumulated data,proving the opposite, or the high likelihood of the opposite, depending upon the actual data itself, also takes a lot of data, but to varying degrees less depending upon the extremity of the data itself.)

Number two, whether or not some aspects of the IPCC’s generalized language and explanations could have been better or not, this commenter badly confuses the inability to precisely map climate with both precision and short term precision, with any ability whatsoever to ascertain broad parameters of climatic effect.

And, number three, those same 12 years which this commenter asserts negated any impact of CO2 (which impact, again, is far more significant long term, and with a large time lag to boot, anyway) have witnessed ten of the eleven warmest years on record. Just another tiny little oversight.  But to him, because we can’t do the near impossible and model it down to all of the huge variability, it is then “absurd” that we can know anything at all.

It’s a scientifically specious, or just extremely misinformed comment.  Yet Revkin highlighted it.

But he’s highlighted worse.

And linked to worse pieces, as Romm points out.

As I wrote to Revkin recently, in part explaining my decision to not waste time posting comments on that blog unless and until standards for accountability and for true, dispassionate, science objectivity rather than false balance equilibrating are improved, essentially:

You [recently gave] a speech at Warren College about changing mindsets, in a world that is different than the one that exists out here. And the reason the world is different is due to facilitating and playing into the misrepresentation and misleading and ideological driven zealotry where any workable and self believable and thus highly sellable manipulation is arrived at or contrived in order to fit the “fact” into a pre arranged belief…

By allowing [this] to go unchecked, by providing the forum for it, by sometimes even highlighting for “thoughtfulness and interesting-ness” what is misleading, manipulated (unintentionally or otherwise), misrepresented, or the comments of those who engage in this, is promoting it. It is promoting, and not checking or improving upon, the basis of our misinformed collective understanding. Not the “understanding” of journalists, or scientists, or only those who have studied the issue intensely, but of all of us, that which shapes our world and our collective response through sensible policies (or not) of what is whether we like it or not, a decidedly collective challenge.

…How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones, who together comprise "climategate" as referred to above] work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did. Yet is this nearly as frequently pointed out (or even one tenth as big a deal made about it), do the ideologues call these people criminals and worse, like they do Mann and Jones? Of course not. They call them heroes. I don’t know if you fully get what is driving what can’t even fairly be called a double standards — because double standards pale in comparison — and how putting up with it only perpetuates and furthers the problem; in which case, that is, facilitating or putting up with it, then, really, there is no point in working on the issue.

I imagine that was my ultimate point to Revkin. If it — an estimable blog at the (still somewhat?) august NY Times, or any such ideal journalistic endeavor– is going to try to seek a “common ground” based upon the misinformation perpetuating and entrenching pretense of false equivalency, and vastly differing standards of scientific and logical rigor, then there is no point in pursuing it or engaging in it in the first place. It becomes more a part of the problem, then of the solution.

Don’t Worry, Winds Are Not a Part of Climate

Regarding climate change, if all the ice melts and northern albedo (heat reflectivity) is decreased, leading to significantly reinforced additional warming, it may not count, because it will all be due to “winds.”

But winds are not separate from climate, they constitute a key part of it.

On the popular NYTimes DotEarth blog, here are the first four, of five, comments today in response to a column examing the idea of winds pushing ice southward where it has tended to melt faster, and perhaps serving as a more direct cause of half of the floating ice melt than direct overall ambient warmth itself. (The first two are in full, the next two in part):

Mark Serreze at NSIDC coined the term “death spiral” in 2008 – the same year he incorrectly bet on an ice free pole for that summer.

Arctic ice area is currently normal, which is quite different from a “death spiral.”
http://arctic-roos.org…
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers

_____

The well-informed amongst us knew all along, of course, that any 2007 ice “crisis” was a result of the winds having pushed a lot of ice out to sea.

Somehow, however, I don’t think the information we knew and you so well lay out made it to the headlines and to the desperate calls to “save the Polar Bears.”

In fact the Department of the Interior rather adroitly used the 2007 ice “crisis” to list the Polar Bear as an endangered species in May 2008… at at time when there were 5 times more Polar Bears that 60 years ago. One might even think the DOI wasn’t using science, but politics!
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers

_____

Since no one mentioned it, I thought I should bring up well documented earlier Arctic ice summer melts.

The big 1922 Arctic ice summer melt. The Washington Post headline on Nov 2, 1922, was
“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.”
(discovered by John Lockwood)

http://www.washingtontimes.com…

_____

New light shed, or existing ignored light?

To begin, shall we all adjust our Arctic warming clock down approximately 45% accounted for, according to NASA, aerosols or soot:

“The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.”

The soot comes primarily from burning wood,coal and dung, and is partially combusted carbon residue.   But don’t worry, it “doesn’t count.”

The other aerosols here are mainly man made pollutants as well.  They don’t count as well.

Also don’t worry, whatever the state of the earth’s climate 50 years from now, it won’t be because of “climate change;” but instead, anything we can think to label as something other than “climate change.”

Including perhaps, one the most critical components and products of climate — wind itself.

But even the Dot Earth post itself tends to potentially somewhat underplay the role that wind plays in climate, as if understanding some short term mechanisms for specific changes somehow conflicts with the broader understanding of the direction of change that the globe’s increased heat trapping potential is likely to lead to. It is almost as if one expects to hear the following one day when and if climate really ratchets up: “Climate change is not real, increased heat in oceans driving climate, not climate change!” when of course climate change is increased heat retention in oceans (as noted below).

That basic, underlying effect — increasing heat leading to increased heat retention by oceans which ultimately drives climate –  we tend to understand at least to a minimum degree, even if it has been largely overlooked in coverage of the climate change topic. But just because we don’t understand all of the other mechanisms does not mean that when we do find a particularly apparent direct sub climate component cause and effect that “appears” to be coincidental to the actual changes that we would expect to see as a result of “climate change,” does not mean that it doesn’t count. What the climate does on its own or not is a part of the inherent variability that we are dealing with. The conditions we create + that inherent variability will combine to form the end results of what we observe;  in other words, it all counts. Climate change acts upon the system as is, with all its attendant variability, not the system ‘norm,’ as their is no ‘norm.’

If warmer temps lead to thinner ice, which combined with strong winds pushed ice to warmer waters where it melts even faster, whether those winds were a part of the change we are wreaking, coincidental, or a little bit of both, ultimately does not matter.  Things will act in tandem regardless.

I wrote to Andy Revkin, the estimable former NY Times environmental reporter who runs the Dot Earth blog, half suggesting, half asking the following, hoping that Revkin would have something to add that I was missing:

Why the leap to thoroughly disassociate wind patterns from climate?  In the long run, things will happen climate wise:  what largely makes climate change the issue that it is, is the changing systems’ response to those components that make up the forces of weather and climate over time.  As bases change, susceptibility to more change increases.  Even if the specific pattern can not be directly tied to climate change itself (this is always a questionable concept as ultimately climate encompasses everything, but it is understandable given our desire to isolate out and explain various observations), such variability, in part attributable to us or not (again see parenthetical) still produces a different effect than it would upon a more stable base. It is how climate tends to ultimately lurch –and it has geologically, and no reason it might not at some point now.

Even given this caveat about the original article, the comments were still out of sync with what it was conveying, leading the 5th commenter to note:

[I] Suggest you all read the article and ignore the effort to reinterpret the information in the first two comments, and doubtless many to come.

Leading to this question: Why such an exacerbated attempt on the part of commenters on this popular NY Times future climate and ecology blog, to spin everything in a direction away from the basic science of climate change?

Since this winds up repeatedly undermining its purpose, and causing it to become a source of as much if not more disinformation as information, one might ask why the Dotearth blog itself puts up with it or doesn’t at least try and correct it?

Lest one think the above comments are not that bad — and they are not in comparison with the usual — here is a typical example from an earlier post, by someone who in other, often far more misleading, comments, claims to be a mathematical physicist. From this page here:

As the story points out, people always worry – as they should – about changes in climate, freezing and warming alike.

The idea that the cause of these changes, which have always been around, is us is new.

This idea does not appear to be rooted, or search confirmation, in the cold reality of measured data. It seems motivated by a general, vague feeling of guilt.

Actually, the idea is rooted in the fact that due to specific, easily identifiable anthropomorphic activities, we are in the process of taking CO2 that was sequestered deep undeground over hundreds of millions of years, and releasing it back into the atmosphere in what is almost a geologic instant.

And it is rooted in the fact that because of this, as well as an increase in nitrous oxides, a tremendous increase in methane, the development and release of fluorocarbons, and significant net deforestation, we are now at a level of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in total global warming potential equivalent (GWPe) likely not seen in millions of years; and are rapidly adding to that level, at geologically breakneck speed. And the fact that the greenhouse effect, due to these greenhouse gases, is the reason the earth is warm and teeming with life as we know it, rather than largely a frozen ball hurtling almost lifelessly through space.

And because there is no reason, based in physics,  biology, ecology, or climate science, to presume or believe that the greenhouse effect reaches a certain level and “magically” shuts off when greenhouse gases reach a certain point in their range — say, by wild coincidence, that point where they stood just before we started ferociously adding to them beginning in earnest about 150 years ago, and even more so the past several decades.  And there is every reason to believe that the greenhouse effect doesn’t magically “shut off.”

And, perhaps most importantly of all, it is rooted in the fact  that climate is not instantaneous, or linear in response to changes in climate stressors or some type of external forcing. (That is, it takes time for increased trapped atmospheric heat to slowly effect climate sub systems, most notably oceans,which then being to change appreciably many decades after the actual causation; and climate does not respond in an even, symmetrical, fashion.)  Climate is a complex, highly variable phenomenon, with trapped heat but a fleeting precipitator of gradual, increasing system changes which then in turn change climate; including, yes, prevailing winds, and ultimately the oceans themselves, the main driver of climate here on earth.

And, over time, the oceans are, in fact retaining more and more heat.

The main basis for concern over any potential effect on the climate is not rooted in anything we have seen, but in fact of the underlying physics of and biological science of the matter. The problem, or “challenge,” could have been realized, theoretically, in advance even of any anthropomorphic activities. In fact the beginnings of our increasing atmospheric trapped heat climate awareness actually had their origins decades ago when the earth was in the process of a short cooling process. (A cooling process that itself was still part of a longer term statistically significant warming trend, which has now at this point seen the eleven warmest years in modern record, all in the last thirteen years of our history.)

But to this commenter, its just a new angle to dismiss all of this, which is just one step short of dismissing the fact that the sun rises in the East — now it’s based in “guilt.”  The day before on the desire of the UN or Al Gore to “control the world.” The day before that on Neanderthal Democrats’ (and some Republicans’) misanthropic desires to return us to the stone age, the day before that it is to get ‘funding money’ (unlike all science the planet over, one presumes), the day before that because — unlike far heavier investments in non “green” technology — vested interests in “green” technology, who invested after it was seen that maybe older energy sources were a long term problem, were nevertheless just self interested, the day before that it was….  But this comment was about average on that blog, and not even nearly among the worst.

How repeated comments on the estimable NY Times DotEarth blog, to the constant effect that there is no evidence or support for the consensus of most scientists, continue to get posted and not sufficiently undermined by other commenters and in particular the blog itself, is hard to fathom. Unless, of course, as I have suggested on it back when I rather inefficiently ventured forth some comments myself — this leading science blog is supposed to serve more as a reflection of the ignorance and disinformation of our national debate, rather than a check and attempt to improve upon it.

.

An Email to Climatologist Roy Spencer on the Basis for Climate Change Concern

On March 6, I sent the following email to climatologist, and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer. It goes to a very common fallacy underlying the issue of climate change — one that seems to be widely held by the media, and by some scientists.

[Introduction]

I just briefly perused your website, and found it both interesting, and well presented. I do take issue with several of the assertions and assumptions, but I thought it more relevant here to take issue with one very significant, in fact central, statement which you make, and for which, you have some apparent support [Edit: The word support is a bit misleading here; what was meant was that the idea is held by others.] Namely, on this page here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

“Since computerized climate models are the main source of concern over manmade global warming.”

I don’t think that they are. The great science historian Naomi Oreski has correctly noted, for example, “Indeed, one could reject all climate models and still accept the consensus position because models are only one part of the argument—one line of evidence among many.”

For some people, they may be the main source of concern. There are a few reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is the overwrought desire to achieve a level of precision and exacting prescience, which makes it far easier to convey that this is a problem than does the more conceptually difficult idea of a range of risks in combination with a range of probabilities as to what those risks are based in turn then again upon a known set of factors.

Models also give a potentially powerful way to further our understanding, and begin to test certain ideas. (Unfortunately, however, models DO NOT give us a way to test the idea that our activities now will have a very strong effect on future climate, and I believe confusion over this is prevalent.) They give a way to further refine, and work with, data.

They provide a starting point rather than an ending point; namely, this is a problem, here are the ranges, we can update and possibly further refine with further observation, but there’s not much else without something approximating modeling. They hold out the ideal of that much else. They are obviously an invaluable aspect of the study of this phenomenon, and are heavily focused on for the reasons just stated (and perhaps others). This DOES NOT, however make them the basis for concern.

Some over-reliant statements by climate scientists upon models notwithstanding (and quite consistently I believe), I would strongly assert to all those who do claim that computerized models are the main source of concern over climate science, that this view is highly mistaken. I don’t believe that computerized models are even close to the main source of the most legitimate concern over manmade climate effect. I also believe there are plenty of leading scientists who, for the most part, agree. (Not that, as you I am sure are well aware, general agreement or disagreement proves or disproves the vitality of an assertion, but it is often relevant to note.)

Of course, we could now examine the actual causes for (for lack of a better word) “concern,” but then that would make this email untowardly long. But I wanted to emphasize to you that this idea that models form the basis and rationale for why our atmospheric greenhouse gas altering activities pose a robust long term problem, is highly mistaken.

Of course, to accept this, you might have to re work some of the approach you have taken to the issue. Thus you might not accept it. But I believe you would then be in grievous error on the issue.

[closing]

As of yet, I have not received a response; any responses received will be duly noted.

Unblemished Risk Assessment on Climate Change Reduction.

Cornell economics Professor Robert Frank offers up a solid op-ed in today’s New York Times on the economics of climate change. (Calling it a big step up from this recent climate monstrosity in the Times is an understatement):

Organizers of the recent climate conference in Copenhagen sought, unsuccessfully, to forge agreements to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But even an increase that small would cause deadly harm. And far greater damage is likely if we do nothing.

The numbers — and there are many to choose from — paint a grim picture. According to recent estimates from the Integrated Global Systems Model at [M.I.T.], the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures.

The gist of the piece is that based upon non political, objective, logic based risk assessment, and basic economics, there really isn’t a decent case against immediate climate change redress. Summarizing, Frank notes:

In short, the cost of preventing catastrophic climate change is astonishingly small, and it involves just a few simple changes in behavior.

The real problem with the estimates is that the outcome may be worse than expected. And that’s the strongest possible argument for taking action. In a rational world, that should be an easy choice, but in this case we appear to be headed in the wrong direction.

(A few quick examples of how the market could be motivated to effect much of this change on its own, while preserving personal choice and promoting growth at the same time,  are here.) Ironically, the piece could have painted a stronger picture for action and been more objective and accurate at the same time.  For example, it concludes:

Most people would pay a substantial share of their wealth — much more, certainly, than the modest cost of a carbon tax — to avoid having someone pull the trigger on a gun pointed at their head with one bullet and nine empty chambers. Yet that’s the kind of risk that some people think we should take.

First, and more controversially, this follows the common and likely erroneous presumption that addressing climate change sensibly “costs” money rather than simply serves to shift what constitutes GDP.   But more pointedly, Frank’s assessment is based upon a probability of 10 percent of a rise of 12 degrees or more.  Yet the same M.I.T study Frank relies upon for this, as noted earlier in the piece, projects the median rise to be 9 degrees. (In other words, half of the projections come in above 9 degrees, half lower, if no remediation action is taken.)  Thus, to continue the analogy, the other chambers are not “empty.”

Frank notes this himself earlier:

Essentially, the risk is that if current estimates turn out to be wildly pessimistic, the money spent to curb greenhouse gases wouldn’t have been needed to save the planet. And yet that money would still have prevented substantial damage. (The M.I.T. model estimates a zero probability of the temperature rising by less than 3.6 degrees by 2100.)

Thus, NONE of the chambers are empty; and half of them are not that far off from the 12 degree “bullet.” But what was left out of this assessment is that if current estimates turn out to be wildly pessimistic, there are still other significant reasons why the expenditures would not have been a waste.

First off, as noted above, they won”t serve as “true” expenditures in the long run — but will shift what we do spend our GDP dollars on. So if they “do nothing,” we probably would have preferred having more flat screen TVs (metaphorically speaking) and instead we will have more historically stable CO2 levels.  But since in the long run happiness is not correlated with absolute levels of wealth, but rather an ongoing increase in growth and job opportunities, even this is fairly trivial, again, in the long run. (Implementing cleaner, less destructive fuels prompts jobs and GDP growth the same as building a few extra flat screen TVs does.)

But they won’t do nothing, even apart from the climate change issue.  Much of the climate change challenge stems from fossil fuel use.(The rest stems from deforestation, changing agricultural practices and grazing ruminant livestock, and other sundry causes.) We have to get off of these anyway. They are finite. Extremely so in the case of oil. We might as well get off of them now.

And in addition, fossil fuels also cause considerable harm in addition to being largely responsible for an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to levels that on a sustained basis may well be unprecedented in the past fifteen million years:

They are responsible for a large proportion of our atmospheric pollution, CO2 (which is not a “true” pollutant), aside.  In the case of coal, they are also responsible for a majority of the toxicological poison mercury that is bio-accumulating in our food chain. Also in the case of coal, they are responsible for a significant amount of degradation to the natural landscape and watersheds where coal is mined. (Sometimes even causing the irreversible destruction of entire mountain tops).  And in the case of oil, they are responsible for unnecessary national security vulnerabilities created by relying upon, and sending hundreds of billions of dollars to, foreign oil selling regimes overseas that we often view as hostile to our interests.

Another interesting aspect of the piece is when Frank notes that we may be “headed in the wrong direction.” Quoting Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert, Frank notes:

“Global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning.”

But we’re also headed in the wrong direction for a few other reasons. Number one is an incessant parade of nonstop misinformation on the topic, along with poor media coverage of it.

Number two is that climate change is abstract. We can’t feel it, touch it, taste it, see it, or smell it. Sure, we see and feel the weather everyday, but climate change is a decades long process; the weather at any particular time is all but irrelevant, and of course, all over the board.

Number three is that, perhaps given a natural desire to believe such conclusions, people tend to confuse the lack of precision or absolute certainty on climate change with the certainty of the physics that underline the phenomenon; including the certainties that heat drives climate (ultimately through the oceans), heat trapping gases trap heat, and levels of heat trapping gases have ratcheted upward at geologically breakneck speed to extremely high levels — and are still climbing.

Number four may be the most infrequently mentioned, yet, after misinformation, perhaps the most important.  An increase in atmospheric trapped heat is ultimately going to warm or otherwise alter the planet, and produce some sort of radical change (likely warming) through the oceans.  It takes an extremely long time to heat up oceans. (And, as we would expect, oceans are slowly retaining more and more heat.) Decades, if not more.  For this reason, among others, there is a considerable lag in climate change between cause and effect.

That is, given natural variability, we won’t “know” the effects of climate change (as opposed to mere, bizarre, variability) for years. And even then we still won’t because there will be multiple decades of effect built up in the pipeline.

It’s abstract, it’s in the future, and there are considerable cause and effect, and potential variability lags on top of that.  Those things, however, do not make it any less real. We are, however, very counter productively, treating it as if they do.

If we purchase a stock at 100 dollars, and we knew it had an 80 percent probability of going to zero, and a 20 percent probability of going to 125, we would sell it in an instant. And at a steep discount from 100 dollars, also. We would never go “but we don’t know with certainty that it is going to go to zero” as a rationale for doing nothing.

But that is precisely what we are doing, with respect to climate change.  The precise number of the effect is all but irrelevant when it comes to future harm.  What matters is the range of likely outcomes, their expected probabilities, and likely, attendant harm for each.  Somehow — perhaps through natural confusion over the science, and the four reasons listed above along with the one posited by Gilbert and Frank — we are completely confusing this.

The suspicion here is that misinformation driven by ideology is in fact playing the leading role, with the other factors merely facilitating the process and allowing for easy and in many cases, perhaps even earnest, confusion and misinformation promulgation on the issue.

Creating Jobs, Spurring the Economy, Solving Energy Problems, and Lessening Government Dictate, with One Same Swift Strategic Approach

The best way to create jobs is to solve another problem at the exact same time.

Tax the crap out of gasoline. Yeah, unpopular; but Dems have the majority in Congress, and tend to support it (as do some moderate Republicans). Just do it, sell it, it’s about national security and getting off of sending billions to hostile foreign regimes.

Do it more as a value added tax in addition to just end user tax. Take all the funds from this tax and use thusly: Give hardship relief, but only on a well communicated sliding scale so that people begin AND CONTINUE to make adjustments themselves. All of this will go right back into the economy while encouraging the market itself to further adjust and create.

Next, bag the tax credit idea and instead do immediate credits for solar penal installation on roofs. Make it a big credit too, so that anyone living in a sunny area is getting some power from the sun, and almost no environmental cost, increasing further development and economies of scale in this industry, and transitioning us over to cleaner, more independent, fuels.

No tax credits; they are abstract, and the full value is never realized.

Tax electricity. That’s right. Electricity, generated from coal. Sounds politically bad? Right now we tax hard earned income. That’s bad. Instead, we will be shifting some of that burden onto a revenue raising program that at the same time inspires the market, and ends the undue non true capitalism penalization of industries and end uses that don’t rely upon excessive externality cost electrical use or production.

Same hardship remuneration applies, while people incrementally, with six month at a time decreases in hardship assistance, learn to adapt with positive change:

We can’t ask what is perceived to be sacrifice of industry (though we are de-facto subsidizing some industries now too, with other ones right now unduly penalized because their lack of harm is not integrated into their price) yet just give handouts to the economically disadvantaged without asking them to learn to adjust also — and there is PLENTY of adjustment that can be made short and, increasingly, longer term, when money is at stake — at the same time.

DON’T pour money into R & D. This is a common call by many, but it is a waste. Let the market do it. Then the money not only inspires the research, but concomitantly the development and implementation at the same time, for no additional cost. It’s a waste to simply give industry money for “research, if they do x or y or promise to look at z.”

Take the same money, and later use for deficit reduction. Right now, trying to bring jobs back, use it for reward. Not as efficient as economic discentive (e.g, a tax on coal fired electricity) but choose broad behavior parameters that are already established, and again, grant immediate purchase and investment credits.

Not for bicycles or stuff like that that also has other uses (cool and helpful as bicycles are), that’s another waste. But for stuff which only serves to produce or use far cleaner energy.

Use the rest for direct stimulus in the way of immediate construction, but smaller scale that also indirectly enriches communities, towns and cities, and DOES NOT further support more fossil fuel based uses or needs. Bike paths can be construction ready anywhere, and have the opposite effect, encouraging biking. Don’t put up electric lights unless they are solar powered. Install solar charging stations, wind or geothermal powered, for local electric vehicles, bike and walking paths, tennis courts, etc.

And those are just a few quick examples.  Everything in such a jobs or stimulus bill needs to be designed to either discourage fossil fuel based behavior while encouraging the opposite, while not regulating people and letting them and the market decide, while inspiring the market further at the same time, all while stimulating jobs and the economy rather than further dragging it down.

If Dems with a solid majority can’t sell that, what can they sell? (Oh, yeah, I forgot:  Apparently nothing. But that can change when they learn not necessarily how to do it, but that they must do it. Who might teach them that?)

Use the market to solve the climate change, pollution and energy security problems all at the same time, without increasing government encroachment, and while creating jobs and spurring economic growth all at the same time.

The Other Part of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Equation – Science, and the Illusion of Cost

The other part of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Equation is the existence of carbon sinks — naturally occurring earth processes that absorb carbon dioxide in a relatively moderately (and very slowly) fluctuating cyle, in the absence of mankind’s recent greenhouse gas emitting activies.

A new study seems to confirm for Europe what has long been postulated as part of the global problem – anthropomorphic effected reduction in effective carbon sinks at the same time that specific anthropomorphic activities are contributing enormous net amounts of carbon dioxide (and some other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere.

According to the EU-Integrated Project CarboEurope:

The new bookkeeping effort confirmed the existence of a strong carbon sink of -305 Million tonnes of carbon per year in European forests and grasslands. A sink of this magnitude could offset 19% of the emission from fossil fuel burning. However, agricultural land and drained peat-land are emitting CO2, which cancels part of this sink. The resulting net CO2 sink of the European continent is 274 Million tonnes of carbon per year – only 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel burning. But this balance is still incomplete, because all European ecosystems are managed and as a by-product of land management other powerful greenhouse gases are released – for example nitrous oxide from fertilizers applied to grassland and crops, and methane from ruminants and from peat-lands. These previously neglected emissions of greenhouse gases from land-use cancel out almost the entire carbon sink, leaving the landscape offsetting only some 2% of the CO2 emissions from households, transport and industry.

All that ultimately matters is the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (with CO2 being by far the most important); what the levels are, and what direction they are headed in.  Sinks, after emissions themselves, are the next most important variable that ultimately goes into determing what these levels are.

We can’t solve the climate change challenge through sinks alone, but effective improvement in this area can help considerably.

Of course, over the shorter run, growing more trees (the simplest way to improve sinks on any scale, from apartment balcony to continental wildlands) will only effectively help the problem if the carbon is then stored in those trees and not re-released; this is why long standing forests are helpful; forests tilled over for mono agriculture (where most of the trapped carbon is then re-released into the atmosphere) are not. 

But the real answer must address the real root of the problem. That is, the burning of fossil fuels, and thereby in a geologic time sense the emission, almost instantaneously, into the atmosphere of carbon that was accumulated over millions of years.

Thus the real solution is simple.  Stop using fossil fuels.  Start using alternative fuels.

Is this easier said than done?  Not nearly so much as conventional wisdom holds.  We just need to start prompting the market to respond far more favorably to fossil fuel alternatives, and far less favorably to fossil fuels themselves, and people will be amazed how quickly we can transform over.

In fact, there will be headlines exclaiming surprise that so many people, are now using so much alternative energy, instead of fossil fuel based sources. (That is, if we take the sensible market based policy steps designed to promote this  – which do not include throwing billions of dollars toward “development grants” and “studies,” but only to user and producer decisions. This approach will at the same time more fully promote and reward the same research and development, and do so far far more efficiently, while at the same time shift behavior through the accumulation of various individual and producer responses to the appropriate incentives and disincentives.)

How can this pronouncement be made with such certainty? Easy. It is the nature of markets, and the nature of mankind’s perception, to always lag behind anticipating what market induced, rather than just governmentally mandated or “conscientiously motivating” behavior, can do. 

Necessity is the mother of invention. The more necessity that is created, the more invention, adaptation, and evolution and advancement will occur.

The necessity is there from a scientific perspective, but it is abstract. This necessity needs to be reflected in the marketplace, as well as in this current, abstract –and often ideologically challenged — form.  And dollars are the highest form of practical immediate motivation, and inspiration. (Note also that giving out grants to “study” or to “develop” as a substitute for changing market behavior, does not do this.  This is not to say that we should cease giving grants, but that increasing grants is not an effective response to what is ultimately a broad market based technological and behavioral challenge.) It may sound crass, but capitalism and free markets are based upon this.

Where those markets invariably fail — the classic example being the externality of environmental impact — policies that properly inspire market behavior can have the same effect as otherwise draconian regulation and prohibition. And do so far less onerously, and at the same time, far more efficiently. Indeed, usually in the transitioning over, more new industries and modes of production — all contributing to growth, and jobs — are created than are lost.

Right now we are essentially letting this problem both linger and spin increasingly out of control, for one reason.  The perception of “costs.”  And those that don’t want to sensibly address climate change due to “cost” fall into one of two camps.

The first camp involves those who are attached to industries which will have to change, and which may even fade.  This prompts the idea that adjusting — which is in those industries’ advantage both on a personal and industry level — is far more sensible and efficient than fighting, which is disadvantageous on a personal level, and wasteful of capital on an industry level. Of course, the more effective such fighting becomes — thus the more effect entrenched greenhouse gas emitting industries can have upon our policy makers, the more rational, from a short term industry perspective, fighting any such movement toward climate change remediation, becomes. 

The easiest way to render this calculus moot is for policy makers to ignore the necessarily self interested pronouncements of entrenched interests, thus making it far easier for industry to save wasteful sums on fighting, and focus on what business requires; namely, adjusting to changing needs. The only difference here being that the changing needs are external to the marketplace — the great biological and ecological harm that crescendoing climate change is likely to cause (and ongoing environmental and pollution harm that many of these same pratices otherwise cause) — and are being integrated into it through sensible policy. 

The second camp consists of groups which confuse “cost” to addess certain environmentally and climatologically harmful sectors and attendant product usages and habits with net overall economic cost to society. This, while being a widely held (and often even unquestioned) presumption, is, as a basic law of economic mathematics, incorrect. In the long run, net economic costs to society will not go down, but will merely by redefined by the newer less harmful (in this case energy) sectors, attendant product usages, and habits.  We will have the same amount of growth but with far less damaging environmental externalities.  

It is just that the growth is slightly diffferent than we have gotten used to; and this is what many, including the IPCC, confuse with “true cost” — because we can see and measure the net cost to the present way of doing business, but can not see and measure the net benefit conferred by better, more efficient ways of doing business, which addressing harmful energy practices by definition will promote.

In essence, GDP does not go down, but money is spent on different things, which we somehow confuse with “cost.” If we do not “want” some of those things (efficient energy sources and cheaper products that use them or less energy and more expensive products that use more, which will of course all iron out over time anyway), it has to be considered that what we “want” is still, on a societal level being increased each year (due to technology and accumulative production); and yet people’s happiness does not increase geometrically along with this increase.  Yet, curiously, economists, who tend to look at such things in “static” or two dimensional ways in a three dimensional word, speak of dollars being the ultimate measure of  ”utility” or happiness.  And yet with dollars increasing most years since the industrial age began happiness, or “utility” has remained relatively constant.  This does not mean that growth is bad, it just means that as an absolute it has value not in where we are at any one point in time, but in the fact that we do continue to grow. 

Thus how we grow, ultimately matters, not whether we stay with this or that product set or consumer or industry habit because of entrenchment,  simply because we can grasp the immediate “utility” or happiness benefit of what we have become used to rather than an alternative. (Turning up the heat in winter instead of putting on a sweater and saving money, which then just prevents our body from adjusting properly to the outside enviroment, and so we are less comfortable, is just one of literally millions of such examples where such choices are our right to make, but that we look at as complete benefits, which are completely arbitrary and in some cases counter productive).

Thus, it can be broken down like this. By increasing fossil fuel energy source prices (and decreasing, concomitantly, that of alternatives, thus inspiring the latter development, deployment, integration and usage far more rapidly) we now have to pay ”more” for things that traditionally came from cheap fossil fuel source, so we will start to substitute in other behaviors.  A long term look at economic trends and happiness shows us that this has no real meaning; it just “bothers” us because we think that it does. Thus the “harm” is that a gas powered lawn mower now costs more, and a lawn of wildflowers or even beans and tomatoes now less (and even less still, or more still, depending upon whether we consider the labor to put it in a joy and exercise, or a burden — and even then we might not really know). It’s all sort of random. Yet we “think” cheap energy is a “good” and if we desire cheap energy (as is very likely that we will) cleaner alternatives will thus be developed and deployed faster — all the while contributing to economic growth in the process, and yet not counterproductively beginning to slowly wreck havoc and destruction upon our biological and ecological world through radical atmospheric greenhouse gas increased climate change — which is, unfortunately, exactly what we are doing right now.

If we had no reason to not have cheap energy right now, one could argue that lacking any other information we might as well go with what we have chosen. But we do have reason.  Fossil fuels, which have artificially created cheap energy and dis-inspired the development of correspondingly inexpensive alternatives — by being subsidized in that their true costs are not reflected in their pricing — are causing a looming potential and highly counter productive ecological catastrophe. So now we have reason not to.  But we always want energy, and the process that has value — for creating true meaning and for creating economic growth — is in seeking it again, in far less destructive ways.

The bottom line is this, and it is fairly simple. There are a number of practical things that we can do, country by country;  independently, and to some degree, perhaps through some international “accords” or promises. But what is really required is the cessation of fossil fuel usage.  Since they are finite (let alone very polluting, otherwise) and this has to be done anyway, we might as well do it now.  The way to do this now is stop approving permits for new development, exploration, usage, employment, and saturation.

This sounds draconian, but it is not in the least.  Fossil fuel usage is the problem.  We are not going to simply destroy what is built in terms of energy production. But we have to shift over anyway.  So purposefully adding to the problem is extremely counterproductive.  Thus continuing in the acquisition and development of that which causes the problem is foolish. It increases supply, and in many cases (particularly in the development of new coal fired power plants, which under the current science is asinine yet we continue to do it anyway), our committment to it.  Increased supply only serves as market disincentive, rather than incentive, to move away and into cleaner alternatives. 

Remember, again, necessity is the mother of invention.  At the same time, use disincentivizing cost structures, and incentivizing cost structures, to prompt the increasingly rapid development (thus producing economic growth by so doing) of, and transitioning to, cleaner alternatives.

It’s not really that hard. We just need to do it and get rid of this archaic, misguided 20th century notion that simply expending “costs” to change over from something we are used to, over to something that we are not, is somehow a true “cost” and not simply a redefining of what constitutes GDP.

The George Will Disinformation Campaign

George Will has a thing against science.   I’d say I’m not sure why, but it wouldn’t be true. I am pretty sure why Will abhors the idea that on a practical level we should take sensible steps to arrest atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration buildup, among other environmental problems. (Update: see this typical comment to a Discover Magazine article exposing Will, where the reader can not fathom his motivations. This is why understanding what drives manipulations on the part of Will which obviously carry a lot of appeal — including to newpaper editors who seem to confusedly think that misrepresentation and falsity in the name of a “contrarian view” is balance and provocativeness — is so important. When it is understood what drives it, it can be sensibly addressed, rather than dismissed as inexplicable “lying” “manipulation” or “weirdness,” which does little to help inform those that have been so mislead and improve the level of the national discussion and debate on the issue.)

Will thinks these steps cost “money,” lots of money (in that estimation, a lot of other people agree). What he does not see is that “money” is just a reflection of total GDP, and that anything we “spend” also goes toward the GDP, just in a different direction.  Solving the climate change problem does not undermine long term economic growth. It changes the nature of it.  [Update:  See this link, which explores this concept further.]

Will, it would seem, can’t comprehend that at all. He also thinks it is an interminable violation of inherent rights to make polluting more expensive. He thinks there is an inherent right to pollute (since the earth is so “large” and all that, it all must simply disappear anyway), but there is no inherent right for every individual to be reasonably free of someone else’s pollution unduly impinging upon them.

Both are rights.  Heretofore, our approach has presumed the former is absolute, the latter abstract. But these presumptions were formulated and bred deeply into our mindset before we even had any sense of the possibility of environmental damage or harm, and when we were industrializing (an age we are rapidly moving from, into the information and services age.) Will simply can not adapt. And really does not want to.

Thus, like an impetulant child, he steadfastly refuses not only to refrain from writing on a  subject on which he is so biased it is almost comical, he also makes no effort to arrest those biases (and neither do those who continue to publish his drivel, either), or to try and learn.  As a result, he continues, time and time again, when it comes to matters of science or the environment, to mislead and misinform. And this is fairly significant, due to his national syndication and overwhelming acceptance by our mainstream media presses as a “commentator for the ages.”

Will no longer takes to simply denying that there can be a phenomenon such as climate change — apparently convinced, not by the fact that heat trapping gas concentrations are rising at breakneck speed, geologically speaking, and that ultimately, heat drives climate, that climate patterns do not shift on arithmetic or neatly predictable curves, and that any data that would be probative would likely be after the fact, but by all the data in support of a very general warming trend,and projections that predict overall continued warming trends.

But what he does to is everything possible to play tortured games with the facts, with the logic, and with the science. That is, not to promote genuine disagreement, devil’s advocacy, and provocative alternatives, but simply to try and undermine in any way he can, any idea that widespread and  harmful long term ecological and biological change is likely to result from continuing to increase ambient atmospheric heat trapping gas concentrations; or, barring that, any idea that it is worthwhile to do something about it.

His latest effort, while not quite as horrific as some of this others, is still a veritable hodge podge of misleading insinuations and patently false reasonings. Essentially, Will finds great solace in the idea that some scientists are predicting shorter cooling trends because of ocean patterns, and takes great joy in what he seems to believe  is the clever idea that scientists and others concerned about climate change are very saddened by this seemingly good, but essentially irrelevant, short term news.

That is, Will misses the fact that it is speculative. Will misses the fact that it would likely be short term. Will misses the fact that climate is extremelycomplex, not a symetrically predictable mathematical equation. Will misses the fact that climate change does not and can not mean that underlying variability in climate, overall change aside, suddenly disappears. Will misses the fact, regardless of all the observations “supporting” climate change guestimations,and a few others questioning it ,  that heat drives climate, and in the long run, with more heat trapped in the atmosphere, climate will change — and Will misses the fact that this latter effect, while not on a straight, or short term symetrical, curve, will likely accelerate, as concentrations shift rapidly away from the norm.  And, most importantly of all, Will misses the fact that the evidence of exactly what this experiment is we are conducting on the atmosphere, as sure as the sun rises, will come after its cause has been long implemented, not before.

Vintage Will (emphasis added):

By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere “plateau,” not warming’s apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.

Suddenly 1) Will is the expert on climate change; 2) most science is thrown out the window, as the great bulk of scientific consensus is both hooey and irrelevant; 3) the underlying science — namely, greenhouse, “heat trapping” gas concentrations have risen by close to 40 percent since the start of the industrial age, with much of that in the last few decades>>they have risen and continue to rise, as a result of very specific anthropomorphic activities>>heat drives climate — is now also irrelevant; 4) the fact that ocean current and shorter global patterns play overwhelming roles on shorter term climate activity is now similarly irrelevant.

And why?  Because 1998, you see, was the apogee, of any ongoing radical greenhouse gas alteration’s effect!!  And it is so despite the fact that there is nothing to indicate this empirically. And most importantly of all, it indicates this despite the fact that there can not be, anything to indicate this empirically, because the effect is longer term, not geometric, and lags terribly behind its precipitating cause.

But somehow, Will, whose entire piece is filled with these little “innuendo” like and ridiculously misleading distortions, decided that the perceived –and still speculative shorter term ocean circulatory effect on climate, means that 1998 might mean we’re done. And, why if suddenly a rash of 20 or so years of increasingly wild, violent and hot weather ensues, but then for 5 or 10 or so there is little change, why, we’ll be done then too!

These formulations rely upon the work of Mojib Latif, who, as Will at least mentions, advocates policies to address climate change.  Joseph Romm — who writes the usually thoroughly researched climate blog, climateprogress.org — spoke with Dr. Latif on Thursday:

“We don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″ and “it is just as likely you’ll see accelerated warming” after then . Indeed, in his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the next two decades. He told me, “you can’t miss the long-term warming trend” in the temperature record, which is “driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases.”  Finally, he pointed out “Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.”

For more on what Latif’s work means, see Romm’s piece. And for the record, with all due respect, I don’t trust Latif’s formulations before 2015.  We can’t predict the weather very accurately three days in advance, and there are simply too many variables that interact, and too many amplifying assumptions, to be able to model anything climate wise beyond basic pattern parameters.

However, the underlying, and seemingly reasonable, gist of his work is that ocean current changes play a dynamic role, and may have a shorter term cooling effectd. What this also points to is something else, very elemental,  that Will not only completely misses, but uses his ignorance on therein, to essentially and ridiculously mock everything else. And that is, as noted above, climate change does not mean that shorter term variability in climate will suddenly cease. Will takes the ridiculous idea that it does, to create the novel idea that therefore 1998 (even though it has gotten slightly warmer since) might be the apogee, and the NY Times, by not “telling its readers this, is thus playing right into this crazy idea that almost all scientists have, that heat drives climate, and increasing heat trapping gases, long term, very likely drives climate increasingly upward.    

Romm, by the way, was an assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy in the 90s,  in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and is the author of several books, including two on how businesses can reduce their environmental impact and improve profits.  His latest, 2006’s “Hell and High Water,” according to Technology Review, “provides an accurate summary of what is … a sensible agenda for technology and policy, and a primer on how political disinformation has undermined climate science.”

Will serves as a perfect example, of precisely this.

Another great mistake Will makes is to stereotype the great bulk of the scientific consensus and concern over the issue, into nothing other than hand wringing alarm and panic — what he terms “Cassandras.”  I am not saying here that such alarm is assuredly wrong – I don’t know, nor do I think that anyone can know.  I do know that there is a reasonable probability that there will be multiple ecological “threshold” effects (or “tipping points”)  reached, where after long periods of seemingly little or random change, whole scale systemic change (typically very negative or destructive) will erupt or ensue;  it is the way nature works. And I also know, and it is fairly elemental science, that radically altering the heat trapping chemical composition of the atmosphere in what is, from a geologic perspective, an almost instantaneous period, is the classic type of system impact that would produce such effects.  (It also seems possible, since we are really not doing much about a challenge that needs to be relevantly addressed, that so called “Cassandras,” while perhaps playing somewhat into far right wing stereotpying, may at least be alerting people to the need to pay attention to the issue. )

But Will appeats to takes great comfort in such seemingly extreme, and or obviously hyperbolic statements as the following one he recites, with great glee, that Prince Charles, back in March, apparently uttered, stating therein that we had until 2017 to prevent ”catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring.”

For the reasons that have been exhaustively illuminated, in countless studies — not to mention basic common sense — the time to act on climate change is yesterday, and significantly.  (And what Charles was likely referring to is the fact that given current atmospheric concentrations,and the persistency of these gases in the atmosphere, our window for the most proactive period where we can still potentialy avoid a great deal of unnecessary harm, may be about 8-10 years or so.)  But Will otherwise misses the fact that the issue of apparent hyperbole in Prince Charles’ statement is irrelevant to the larger challenge that we face.  Thus, he instead, and falsely, and turns statements such as that by Prince Charles’ into THE issue, concluding his claptrap piece thus:

Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince said that by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western people now do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their predictions lest they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable faux pas of denying that the world is coming to an end.

So a few people (over?) hype the climate change thing — maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong — and suddenly the great bulk of scientists and others who have studied the issue, and contend, unlike Will, that it is foolish to continue conducting an enormous experiment on planet earth with geologically radical alteration in heat trapping (and thus climate driving) gases, are suddenly Cassandras charged, according to Will with the fervent and unshakeable belief that the world is coming to an end.  And an end that it is coming (silly as the first notion is) despite anything we try to do to try and improve the situation, which would be the point of the few true “climate change” Cassandras, of trying to prevent in the first place.  Will also misses the obvious metaphor. We will adjust, but why largely destroy the basic ecology of our environment, and possibly flood large swaths of continents?

In what is still the very same column, Will also commits yet another, fundamental, and quite extraordinary, error.  After raving on, with sarcastic, highly misleading, and even more misinformed, half quips every step of the way, Will tries to assert, essentiallly, that there is all this “conflicting” evidence out there and we don’t know what to do! So then he writes, thus:

America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change.

It is worded a little bit differently, but isn’t this easily recognizable? 

The basic driving scientific reasoning for action is the same today as it was nine years ago when the Bush Administration first took office — though perhaps with nine more years of continued rapid buildup the problem is simply grander, and somewhat more urgent given the increasing difficulty and not too far off impossibility of significant reversal. (And, overall, some short term empirical evidence has made this more evident to some.)

Bush had esssentially pledged to address climate change, then once in office decided, quite famously now, that the issue needed “more study.”  By the time Bush was close to leaving office, he had switched back.  Now, with nine more years of buildup, and the accumulation even of some rather compelling but unnecessary empirical data, George Will has finally graduated from the school of complete science denial, to the simple reactionary positions of nine years past.

And that is, “the issue needs more study.”

Will might not be enough of a scientist to grasp this statement, but for a newspaper editor who continues to publish’s his almost “religiously” driven anti science screeds, consider this:  By the very nature of this problem, by the time we will no longer need to “study it,” the problem will have manifested itself, and the earth will be very dramatically, and unalterably, different.

If Will wants to make the case that that “difference” is going to be exciting (and fun!) that is one thing.  While many might disagree, it is subjective, and people are entitled to their opinions regarding what “matters.”  Ecological havoc might not matter to Will, who seems to exist in a bizarre world (and this is a watered down version of the original version of this monstrosity of a piece).  But to play games with the complex nature of trying to forecast, with precision, what is, with precision, an unforecastable thing, and then leapfrog back in time to a position that was reactionarily ridiculous back then when the matter was pressing, but not as pressing as now — is voodoo logic.  Yet it is precisely the type of thing that Will, when it comes to matters of science, and the environment, has become quite practiced at the art of.

Perhaps he should consider writing about politics, instead. Or, and here’s just an idea — opening a few science books.  And reading them.

And then, maybe, throwing on a pair of jeans (see his closing parenthetical at the end, it just about says it all), and going out and doing some work with his hands, for once. Looking up at the sky, and mountains. Maybe it will open his eyes.  If it doesn’t, once again, hopefully those of the editors at our county’s municipal newspapers’ will be.  To borrow liberally from a Paul Krugman column back on September 10, 2004 regarding budgetary math, and apply it here, Will science: 2 – 1 = 4.  He’s not just wrong, he’s peddling misinformation, and detracting, not adding, to the discussion and debate.