Blue Crab Boulevard

The Global Warming Racket

Note: I started drafting this piece a few days ago. I am very glad I waited to post it.

I got into a discussion with a guy who writes science columns for a newspaper in the comment section of another blog. He kept insisting that the preponderance of scientific evidence was proving that global warming is a reality, is caused by humans and is happening at an accelerating rate. I kept insisting that there still was no proof that man had anything to do with it yet.

It went on for a longish time by comment section standards, spanning several days. I kept telling him he needed to look into trying to follow the money. In other words, global warming is a business. Look at how many "climate change experts" there are right now? How many were there twenty years ago? All of these people's jobs depend on global warming. Do you honestly think they are being totally honest? They're paid to wail about global warming, they're paid to blame it on humans.

But some scientists are starting to push back. First came word that Canada was pulling out of Kyoto, at least partially because of a letter signed by 60 scientists. Now some of the media is starting to actually publish contrarian views.

I suspect it's about time to bring in Richard Lindzen MIT professor writing in the Opinion Journal.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

……..

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

UPDATE: Manolo has the upside to global warming.

Media, Politics, Science | Gaius Wednesday, 12 April , 2006

By Tano, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 2:40 pm

So, lets take your advice and follow the money. Could you provide us with the fruits of your research into what Lindzen’s self-interest is? Who has given him money for research or for spreading his opinion?

Did it ever occur to you that the “alarmists” are basically saying that the research is conclusive, therefor we need to do something about warming. IOW, it is an argument for spending money on remediation, NOT spending lots more money on research. Where is the self-interest in that?

Lindzen et.al. however, are claiming 1) global warming is happening 2) human factors probably have some influence 3) carbon dioxide is, in fact, a greenhouse gas and we are pumping lots into the atmosphere - but 4) the research is not conclusive on the extent of the human factor or what we should do about it. IOW, an argument for MORE RESEARCH FUNDING.

Follow the money, yes. Be skeptical, yes. But apply these standards across the board.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 2:52 pm

Are you aware that all US air pollutant emissions from all sources have declined by 1/3 since 1970? Check the EPA website. The trees that people want to plant to remediate carbon emit methane.

The alarmists will be very sure they are well taken care of, rest assured. Do you think the pattern of crushing dissent is a good tactic?

Sure, follow it on both sides. That’s fair.
By Tano, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 3:39 pm

Crushing dissent? Gimme a break. Lindzen is an extremely well known scientist, with tons of publications, public appearances etc. How do you know about him, other than through the fact that his dissent is obviously not being crushed?

His whining about the treatment of his Iris effect paper is pretty transparant. If his dissent were being crushed, it wouldn’t have been published in a leading journal in the first place. But it was published. He complains that other scientists (as well qualified as he is) wrote opposing papers? What value should we assign to someone who complains that his critics write peer-reviewed full length papers criticizing him, instead of just submitting letters to the editor? Thats a problem?

I agree that scientists should shun the alarmism of the popular press. But just because the popular press is alarmist over the conclusions drawn by a majority of scientists doesn’t mean that the minority is correct.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 3:44 pm

People have been villified if they try to speak out against the alarmists. The tratment of the paper was not at all the normal treatment.
By Mike's America, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 7:32 pm

You beat me to this one.

I can tell you from my time at the U.S. Enviro-Leftist Protection Agency (Grants Administration) that what Lindzen says is true. The science at EPA was more political science than the stuff going on up the road on Capitol Hill.
By Tano, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 7:47 pm

Gaius,
You know nothing about how the paper was treated. All you know is what you read in Lindzen’s piece. Which, if you have any experience in the world, you should instantly recognize as being one side of a story. Why do you believe that this guy’s version is the objective truth? Do you have the slightest idea who the journal editor is, or the other authors? Do you have any reason whatsoever to assume that they are evil, and Lindzen is some poor victim?

And what do you know, independently, about people being villified? The academic world is a competitive hornets nest - lots of people villify lots of other people all the time. You think Lindzen doesnt villify people?

Bottom line - its a competitve marketplace of ideas; a very good one, because the ultimate standard by which ideas are judged is that they conform to reality. So far, Lindzen is losing the argument in his field. Taking refuge in whining victimhood is not an honorable way to fight back. If he comes up with better ideas, they will be accepted, for in science you cant hide from reality, and every scientist knows that.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 8:34 pm

Tano,

True enough, I only know of his paper’s treatment through his words - which I would assume he is smart enough not to lie about on the web.

But I do know of some of the other accounts from having read about them at the time.

I also am a trained and experienced engineer - and I know lockstep when I see it, and I see it in the science reporting on this - there is almost no dissent and that is an indication not that the science is sound, but that there is a muffler in effect.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 13 April , 2006 @ 2:17 pm

Gaius,

Lindzen’s piece didn’t even deal with the strongest arguments on global warming, such as the research of his own colleague at MIT, Kerry Emanuel, on the strong relationship between surface sea temperatures and tropical cyclone intensity worldwide. Emanuel has a q and a that is pretty balanced in the way Lindzen fails to be.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

People who only read Lindzen’s political screed would come away with the impression that global warming theory is based on no more than an offhand comment by a U.N. official.

Scientists are supposed to deal with evidence contrary to their views, not ignore it. That’s why Lindzen’s views are not widely accepted in the scientific community — and by science reporters.

As for the petition signed by 60 scientists, a number of them are not, as the petition claims, accredited experts in “climate and related scientific disciplines.”

These include Arthur Roach, an emeritus professor of molecular genetics. Art Robinson, a biologist, Paul Reiter, an expert on the natural history and biology of mosquitos, Benny Peiser, a professor of social anthropology, Ross McKitric an associate professor of economics, David E. Wojick, a consultant on the dynamics of the electric power industry, etc. This petition-stuffing is a sign of weakness, not strength. There are hundreds of well-qualified experts in climatology and related fields who attest to the scientific reality of the phenomenon.

Your line about how “All of these people’s jobs depend on global warming. Do you honestly think they are being totally honest?” shows a deep ignorance of the subject. Many of the petition signers work in the energy business, and have an economic stake against global warming. Yet you unskeptically accept what they say.

Boasting about being a “trained and experienced” engineer is no substitute for being familiar with the facts.
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 13 April , 2006 @ 2:36 pm

Ah, Bradley. You found me. I don’t believe I said the scientists were climate change experts, did I? The comment about my background wasn’t a boast. It was a statement of fact.

I am saying this cannot yet be said to be man’s fault. The remediation steps we are being told must be done turn out to have more negatives consequences than positive - yet the push continues.

Here’s the thing, Brad. We have here a correlation between the warming of the earth and industrial activity. There is, without any doubt that there is a virtual 100% correlation between warming and indoor plumbing.

So, is it ok to say toilets cause global warming?

As I kept trying to get through (unsuccessfully), is that correlation does not prove the cause. And that is exactly what is being presented as evidence that man causes warming.
By John Anderson, Thursday, 13 April , 2006 @ 5:21 pm

For the umpteenth time, since Global Warming is caused by we humans, I call upon the world’s auto manufacturers to disclose and share the space drive they use to ship SUV’s to Mars and the Jovian moons! Think of the potential for tourism alone - ski the twenty-mile slope of Olympus! Join the dance of the stones in Saturn’s rings! Enjoy the dry-heat bath of Venus!

Oh, and for those who believe natural causes are nothing compared to anthropogenic action, why are you not picketing the Chinese and Indian embassies and missions?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 13 April , 2006 @ 9:17 pm

Hi Gaius,

Your Web site’s name makes me hungry!

But hunger aside, what of my point about Lindzen? You cited his article, after all, and I gave proof that he simply ignored contrary evidence. Do you have a defense?

And as for the petition, I was quoting its own description of the signers.

Now for some Mexican lasagne and some reading over at Cathy’s site.

Bradley
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 13 April , 2006 @ 9:34 pm

Heck, Bradley. of course he had an ax to grind. That would be human nature. That human nature extends all over the scientific community. Including the folks who push hard for the acceptance of their theory on global warming. What bugs me (and should be raising you hackles as a journalist) is the really obvious lock step on this - and the strident shouting down of any contrary opinions. That’s an indication that something is amiss.

Nothing like a really well made crab cake, is there?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 12:02 am

Hi Gaius,

“What bugs me (and should be raising you hackles as a journalist) is the really obvious lock step on this - and the strident shouting down of any contrary opinions. Thatâ€™s an indication that something is amiss.”

As a journalist, I am not an expert in most of the stuff I cover. So I have to learn how to judge which of those regarded are experts are worth listening to. To do that, one has to judge the quality of the evidence and the arguments behind the various arguments.

Kerry Emanuel (you should really read his stuff) hews to rational scientific discussion. He makes no strident accusations and rejects extreme claims on global warming not supported by the evidence. He is careful to point out misconceptions by those who think global warming is human-caused.

Perhaps Emanuel and his colleagues are wrong in thinking that humans could be playing a significant role in global warming, but Lindzen doesn’t even attempt to show how that is so.

Lindzen claims without evidence that his opponents are just angling for grants out of economic interest. But Lindzen’s allies, which heavily come from the energy industry, also have their own economic incentives to deny or play down global warming. Why should his allies get a pass?

Sometimes, Gaius, the scientific consensus is actually correct.

“Nothing like a really well made crab cake, is there?”

The operative words are “really well made.” Well made, they’r e heavenly. I’ve had poorly made blasphemous imitations, and been very sorry with the results. And I won’t get started on that atrocity made from pollack sometimes called krab . . . bleeeeach!
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 4:40 am

That’s why I said well made!

The earth has been much warmer in the past - and much colder, too. That was before man, too. What we’ve got right now is correlation evidence, which isn’t evidence at all.
Yes, consensus can sometimes be correct. But not usually (if ever) on correlation alone - for the reason I wrote above.
There’s also the fact that the proposed mandatory remediation causes more problems than it solves.
Did you ever look into wind credits, Bradley? You should.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 8:25 am

Gaius,

I will look into wind credits, if you tell me why, and what sources you recommend.

As for your points about the earth being warmer and colder in the past, well, that’s addressed in the various studies. When natural forces released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there was a warming. The argument for human-induced warming follows a similar cause and effect relationship.

And please either admit Lindzen’s article was seriously flawed, or defend it. You haven’t addressed any of the specific points I made.

Over at Real Climate, a scientist made the same point I did about extratropical vs. tropical storms. It’s an important distinction that Lindzen obviously didn’t think his climate-unsophisticated audience would catch:

“Here we discover that the outlandish claims involve something about more “excitation” of extratropical storms. I’m not sure where he’s getting this- when I go to, for instance, Ross Gelbspan’s website, the only references to storms I see is to tropical storms, and to more intense rainfall generally. Both are well supported by empirical studies. The increase in rainfall intensity (shift in distribution of rain from more light events to fewer heavy events) as a consequence of global warming is a robust feature of GCMs.”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/#more-291