There is No Debate Now Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/

From Justin Gillis:

Many debates about global warming seem to boil down to appeals to authority, with one side or the other citing some famous scientist, or group of them, to buttress a particular argument. The tone is often, “My expert is better than yours!”

Against this backdrop, some analysts have been trying for several years to get a firm handle on where climate researchers come down, as a group, on the central issues in the global-warming debate: Is the earth warming up, and if so, are humans largely responsible?

Now comes another entry in this developing literature. William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.)

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.

“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence” of human-induced climate change “vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,” Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.

Climate-change skeptics will most likely find fault with this research, as they have with similar efforts in the past. For starters, Mr. Anderegg’s dissertation advisers are Christopher Field and Stephen H. Schneider, two of the most prominent advocates of the mainstream view of climate change; Dr. Schneider is a co-author of the new paper.

The climate dissenters have long complained that global-warming science is an echo chamber in which, they contend, it is hard to get published if one does not accept the conventional wisdom that humans are heating up the planet. So they argue that it is circular reasoning to claim a broad scientific consensus based on publication track records. The mainstream researchers reject that charge, contending that global warming skeptics do not get published for the simple reason that their work is weak.

In this long-running battle over scientific credibility and how to measure it, the Anderegg paper analyzes a particularly large database of climate researchers, and therefore goes farther than any previous effort in attaching hard numbers to the discussion.

Not that I actually expect the denialists to go away. They are, as the article points out, likely to find "flaws". Regardless, hopefully those who still had doubts on the consensus will be convinced.

Climate Change Denialism is based on "Faith"

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20100612/LETTER/100619966/1078&ParentProfile=1055

From Peter Miesler:

"A few years back we had AGW “skeptics” boldly placing bets that Earth's climate was cooling. Unfortunately, a visit to the authoritative NASA GISS website shows warming. But, do we hear any “skeptics” saying: Oh wait a minute, perhaps my assumptions are wrong? Why not? What should we think of the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming “Skeptical” community when they refuse to look at anything that disagrees with their mindset? Isn't intellectual integrity about a desire to learn and be able to admit one was wrong and that new information justifies reorienting one's thinking?

One of the most outspoken proselytizer of obstinate denial is Lord Christopher Monckton, who has been spending years demeaning every aspect of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) science. Recently, PhD. John Abraham decided to examine Monckton's claims. The result is a presentation titled “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton.” At: www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/.

Abraham rigorously sticks to examining the issues. He acknowledges Monckton's skills and admits: “After listening to his comments, and viewing his presentation, any reasonable audience might feel that climate risks are not as serious as we've been led to believe … If you believe him you'd have to conclude that: The world is not warming; sea levels are not rising; ice is not melting; polar bears not threatened; oceans is not heating; no ocean acidification; scientists are lying, (and) there is a conspiracy.”

Abraham then proceeds down the list of Monckton's claims. While examining these claims and graphs, it becomes obvious Lord Monckton is a liar performing political theater rather than scientific critique.

Ultimately, the question we are left with is this: Are global warming skeptics capable of responding to data and factual arguments or is it ultimately only a faith-based position they cling to … rather than an exercise in genuine skepticism about the data?

To answer the question, it is faith-based. I refuse to call them climate change "sceptics". They are not engaging in scepticism the way true sceptics would define it. As examining claims using the scientific method.

It is likely that you can give rebuttals to any argument presented by the denialists and they will still insist on remaining denialists. Like any anti-science movement, no amount of evidence will ever win out over willful ignorance.

Carly Fiorina doesn't understand what climate change is

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/carly-fiorina-calls-climate-change-the-weather/1

Carly Fiorina is a clueless idiot who confuses weather with climate:

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, now the frontrunning GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in California, calls climate change "the weather" in a TV campaign ad.

She criticizes Democrat incumbent Barbara Boxer for describing climate change, in 2007, as "one of the very importanta national security issues."

Fiorina, whose candidacy is endorsed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, replies: "Terrorism kills—and Barbara Boxer is worried about the weather."

Ok, so Sarah Palin is also pretty stupid as well, not that you needed to be reminded of that. Anyway, short-term chaotic weather patterns should never been confused with long-term climate change.

Same Old Deniers

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/05/29/warming_deniers_hark_back_to_aids_skeptics_of_80s/

Today's climate change deniers remind professor of biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine Larry Feig of the AIDs deniers of yesteryear:

" Global warming deniers take solace in the fact that some established atmospheric scientists (albeit an extremely small proportion of the total) support their cause. This reminds me of the 1980s, when a few prominent virologists, spearheaded by the National Academy of Sciences member Peter Deusberg, contradicted the vast majority of biomedical scientists by claiming that the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, was not the cause of AIDS.

Just like global warming skeptics and the right-wing media today, these scientists insisted that the public was being duped by those with a self-serving agenda and that vast amounts of money were being wasted on a flawed hypothesis. They prepared a slick video to support their argument that sounded convincing at the time to lay audiences (search the Internet for “HIV = AIDS: Fact or Fraud?’’). Even non-scientists viewing this video today can appreciate that the ideas it expresses have been completely discredited.

Fortunately, the opinion of the majority of scientists won out, and AIDS is now a highly treatable disease rather than the death sentence it was in the 1980s. Hopefully, a similar successful outcome will prevail in preventing the long-term effects of global warming."

Who wants to be many of these might be the same people and groups?

Scientists as PR Experts?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/st_essay_sciencepr/

Scientists aren't known for being PR experts that has to change:

"On the final day of last winter’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a panel convened to discuss the growing problem of climate change denial. It went poorly. Rather than brainstorming methods for changing public perception, the speakers wasted three hours trying to find someone to blame. Was it an anti-global-warming campaign by the coal industry? Journalists trying to make their stories appear “balanced”? The Climate-gate emails from the University of East Anglia?

But those are the wrong questions. What the scientists should have been asking was how they could reverse the problem. And the answer isn’t more science; it’s better PR. When celebrities like Tiger Woods or Tom Cruise lose control of their image, they don’t waste time at conferences. They hire an expert. What the climatology community needs is a crackerjack Hollywood PR team.

Climate scientists know people don’t believe them; they just haven’t responded well. “They have to do a better job than the other side,” says Kelly Bush, founder and CEO of ID, the entertainment industry’s largest independently owned PR firm. Bush’s clients include Patrick Stewart, Dustin Hoffman, Ellen Page, and comeback king Pee-wee Herman.

Bush says researchers need a campaign that inundates the public with the message of science: Assemble two groups of spokespeople, one made up of scientists and the other of celebrity ambassadors. Then deploy them to reach the public wherever they are, from online social networks to The Today Show. Researchers need to tell personal stories, tug at the heartstrings of people who don’t have PhDs. And the celebrities can go on Oprah to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.

“They need to make people answer the questions, What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference? Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”

In a handful of cases, nonprofits are trying to do what scientists won’t. A group started by high-profile blogger Anil Dash, Expert Labs, is helping the White House with outreach to scientists, and Dash is operating from the same playbook as Bush. “We need to make the narrative more compelling. Scientists risk their lives and fortunes to do something that is, in many cases, an act of faith. They’re heroes. It’s a beautiful thing,” Dash says. “Imagine the impact if a scientist said, ‘I’ve been working in climate science for 20 years, and it breaks my heart that people don’t believe in what I do.’”

This kind of talk unsettles scientists. “Scientists hate the word spin. They get bent out of shape by the concept that they should frame their message,” says Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a National Academy of Sciences program that helps connect the entertainment industry with technical consultants. “They feel that the facts should speak for themselves. They’re not wrong; they’re just not realistic.” By and large, Dash says, “scientists have withdrawn from the sphere of public culture. They have contempt for the lighthearted fun of communication.”

It didn’t even occur to the AAAS panelists that someone might find that here’s-the-data-we’re-right attitude patronizing—and worthy of skepticism. “Until scientists realize they need us, we can’t help them,” Bush says. “They have to wake up and say: ‘I recognize it’s not working, and I’m willing to listen to you.’ It’s got to start there.” Science increasingly must make its most important cases to nonscientists—not just about climate but also evolution, health care, and vaccine safety. And in all of those fields, the science has proven to be incapable of speaking for itself. It’s time for those with true passion to get over the stigma, stand up, and start telling their stories."

Fighting Back

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15176317?source=rss&nclick_check=1

"A few years ago, Ben Santer, a climate scientist with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, answered a 10 p.m. doorbell ring at his home. After opening the door, he found a dead rat on his doorstep and a man in yellow Hummer speeding away while "shouting curses at me."

Santer shared this story last week before a congressional committee examining the increasing harassment of climate scientists, and the state of climate science.

After the online posting in November of 1,073 stolen e-mails from climate scientists, including some from Santer, the threats took a more ominous turn," Santer told members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Skeptics of climate change have dubbed the e-mail incident "Climategate."

"The nature of these e-mail threats has been of more concern," Santer said. "I"ve worried about the security and safety of my family."

In the already-heated debate over the cause of and "” to a diminishing extent "” the existence of global warming, the stolen e-mails ratcheted up the rhetoric. And while skeptics of human-induced climate change have tried to use the e-mails to discredit established climate science and to derail policies such as the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions or cap-and-trade initiatives, climate scientists are fighting back.

They penned a consensus letter earlier this month, testified before congressional

committees to explain why they"re certain human activity is dangerously warming the world, and they"re openly airing what they call the growing harassment of climate change researchers.

In the written version of his testimony, Santer mentioned concerns "about my own physical safety when I give public lectures."

Santer is accompanied by bodyguards at some conferences, Stephen Schneider, a prominent climate scientist with Stanford University, said earlier this month. Santer and the lab declined to discuss details about security for Santer, saying it would be inappropriate to do so. Schneider, who testified at the congressional hearing, told the committee he"s a veteran at fielding abusive e-mails. A typical one, he said, accuses him of being a "Communist dupe for the United Nations," and states that "you"re a traitor and should be hung.—

The threats escalated after the publication of the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia in England. On blogs, talk shows and other forums, people heatedly discussed the content of certain e-mails, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., has requested a criminal investigation of 17 climate scientists, including Santer and Schneider, whose correspondences were among the stolen e-mails. Inhofe believes human-induced global warming is a hoax and that there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also wrote the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which produces reports widely regarded as the most authoritative assessments on climate change, requesting that the 17 scientists be banned from contributing to the panel"s next report.

Those hacked e-mails revealed some climate scientists involved in a pattern of stonewalling, discussing ways to conceal data that didn"t agree with their findings, and deriding skeptics of global warming. In one e-mail, Santer wrote that when he next encountered a certain climate skeptic at a scientific meeting, ``I"ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.—

In an interview with Associated Press about the e-mail, Santer said, "I"m not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context.—

Two independent investigations by British academic panels, however, found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct in the e-mails" contents, nor did an Associated Press analysis of all the e-mails.

The hacked e-mail incident was followed by the discovery of several embarrassing errors in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. In light of the errors, this month a review of the IPCC report began in Amsterdam, conducted by a 12-person panel selected by the Inter-Academy Council. The council is independent of the United Nations, which publishes the IPCC report.

Schneider and other climate scientists note that only a handful of errors were found, and that the report"s conclusion is solid that human activity is very likely the reason for the rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.

While four scientists at the Washington D.C. hearing detailed why most climate scientists fear the ecological and economic consequences of a buildup of greenhouse gases, a fifth scientist offered a counterpoint.

William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton University, expressed far less concern about the heat-trapping threat of carbon dioxide from human activity and said scientists on the other side of the debate also face intimidation.

"Indeed, we read testimony by Dr. James Hanson (of NASA) in the Congressional Record that climate skeptics are guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature,—‰" Happer said. "There are many similarly intimidating statements made by establishment climate scientists and by like-thinking policymakers "” you are either with us or you are a traitor."

Happer called for the creation of a "B-team" of scientists given steady funding to investigate other possibilities besides human-caused warming for the Earth"s changing climate. He said the approach is intended to establish a group of scientists to play a "devil"s advocate" role.

The Department of Defense, the CIA "and many others routinely establish robust team B"s; that is, groups of experts who work full time, sometimes for several years, to challenge the establishment position," Happer said. "This has given us much better weapons systems and intelligence."

Happer said he believes increased carbon dioxide levels may only cause an inconsequential rise in temperatures and that plant life will flourish with more atmospheric carbon dioxide. He concurred when one congressman asked if he was in a "minority position" among scientists in asserting that climate change doesn"t pose a serious threat.

"Oh yes, I certainly agree," Happer said. "And in many cases in the history of science the minority has been right."

But Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the science that reinforces most climate scientists views. Cicerone at the hearing described a 1 degree Fahrenheit rise since 1979 documented by NASA and other agencies. Declassified U.S. Navy data and satellite data show Arctic ice sheet thickness has declined 50 percent in 50 years, he said, and sea levels are now rising 3.2 millimeters per year. He said the average ocean surface temperature "has increased significantly since 1980," which scientists say lead to more extreme weather events.

"The year 2009 was the warmest on record for the entire world south of the equator," he added.

It was in response to the attacks on conclusions embraced by the majority of climate scientists and the escalating threats that Schneider and others decided to cast aside their usual scientific reserve and publicly speak out.

On May 7, Science published a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members "” including 32 from Northern California "” decrying the political assaults on climate scientists.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo applauded the climate scientists" emerging outspoken position.

"I support our scientists one hundred percent for speaking louder and clearer to the American public about the seriousness of this issue," Speier said. "If sea level rise continues unchecked, it will put major parts of the Bay Area underwater."

Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that with trillions of dollars at stake by shifting to a lower-carbon economy, especially within industries reliant on fossil fuels, there are "lots of sharp elbows" in the debate.

The institute is regarded as a conservative Washington D.C. think tank, although Ornstein defies the stereotype. But he noted that even among his colleagues skeptical about some climate science data, "they"re not going to deny there"s climate change going on." And they"re "getting brickbats" from those "who basically think it"s all a hoax."

He also supports climate scientists stepping into a more public role in explaining their science.

"You"ve got to find a way to make powerful a point, that there really is a common set of facts, and those who don"t support that common set of facts are truly outside any kind of mainstream," Ornstein said."

I do not condone intimidation on either side. I think however, that these climate change deniers who resort to threats of violence do so because deep down they know the don't have an argument against the science. There only hope is to use fear to silence the opposition.