Controversial, Not Controversial. Brennan v. Hagel, Big Oil vs Solar & other Media Hypocrisies
Summary: Juan Cole looks at the views of mainstream journalists, which by repetition tend to become America’s views. They’re simple, if somewhat crazy. But we’re not to think about them, just absorb them.
.
Guest post by Juan Cole
From his website Informed Comment.
Reposted with his generous permission.
.
Not controversial: John Brennan: Served in CIA during the torture program, designed the current US drone program that has extra-judicially killed hundreds, including children and including at least 2 American citizens.
Controversial: Chuck Hagel: Thinks war should be a last resort, doesn’t think an air strike on Iran would be effective, wants to do diplomacy with all major factions of the State of Palestine, including Hamas.
Not controversial: Wealthy Americans use government tax loopholes and subsidies to avoid $3 trillion a year in taxes.
Controversial: American workers who paid into Social Security all their lives and want their money back when they retire are accused of being ‘takers,’ ‘moochers’ and seeking ‘entitlements.’
Lessons about global warming from Alaska
Summary: This story about global warming in Alaska has many lessons for us. About our climate, our news media, about how we process information about our world. It’s a classic application of our methodology, close examination of a small subject to learn large lessons.
Alaska Climate Science Center
This is the annual deviation from the 1949-2011 average. The black line is the 5-year moving average.
3 December 1973. Past fads always look silly.
.
Contents
- Introduction
- In 2009 Alaska’s scientists looked at their climate
- What do they see today?
- Other posts about climate forecasts
- Some vital things to remember about global warming!
- For More Information
No “baked Alaska” puns, please.
.
(1) Introduction
In May 2009 I posted A look at the temperature record of Alaska – any sign of global warming?., describing research from the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. This evoked the usual anti-intellectual response from global warming believers, considering scientists who disagree with their dogma to be charlatans — and directing personal insults to anyone citing these scientists.
The point of that post was to show that the news media’s narrative about global warming consisted of a narrow slice of climate science work, carefully limited to mold public opinion. Most obviously, areas with warming receive publicity (they’re climate); unusually cold receive little (just weather). Worse, local news media often attribute changes in local flora and fauna to warming — even if their local area has none, or even cooled.
As an antidote we post about large areas with stable or even falling temperatures during the “pause” in warming of the past (roughly) 14 years, and describe the strong influence of factors other than rising CO2 on Earth’s ever-changing climate. More broadly, the FM website provides real journalism, showing that although there is a broad consensus among climate scientists, there are also large areas of disagreement — doing so by citing scientists actual words and showing the data.
My conclusion: the narrative that “the science is settled” is false, propaganda to prematurely close off further debate and force premature policy actions. More research is needed — better funded and with third-party reviews. Eventually we will have the necessary answers, provided either by scientists or the climate.
Read these posts (or other sources) to see the full picture; then decide for yourself.
(2) In 2009 Alaska’s scientists looked at their climate
Here is the March 2009 Temperature Change in Alaska page from the website of the Alaska Climate Research Center. Here is what they said at the start of 2009; how has three more years of data changed their views? Their attribution of temperature trends to the PDO attracted much criticism from lay warmistas; now the role of these cycles (eg, PDO, ADO, ENSO) is accepted, if still widely underestimated. (red emphasis added)
The topic of climate change has attracted widespread attention in recent years and is an issue that numerous scientists study on various time and space scales. One thing for sure is that the earth’s climate has and will continue to change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic forcing mechanisms.
This page features the trends in mean annual and seasonal temperatures for Alaska’s first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last 6 decades is 3.1°F.
… Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period.
The figure {see graph at the top of this post} shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2008) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2008, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations.
The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.
24 December 1979. It’s about the energy crisis. Not global cooling. No matter how often the anti-warmistas say so.
Links:
(3) Update: what do they see today?
How has the ACRC’s “Alaska Temperature” page changed since March 2009?
- The end dates changed from 2008 to 2011.
- The “average change over the last 6 decades” changed from 3.1°F to 3.0°F.
- They still say “since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska”
Last year they published a study with more detailed analysis: “The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska“, G. Wendler, L. Chen and B. Moore, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012 — Abstract:
During the first decade of the 21st century most of Alaska experienced a cooling shift, modifying the long-term warming trend, which has been about twice the global change up to this time. All of Alaska cooled with the exception of Northern Regions. This trend was caused by a change in sign of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which became dominantly negative, weakening the Aleutian Low. This weakening results in less relatively warm air being advected from the Northern Pacific.
This transport is especially important in winter when the solar radiation is weak. It is during this period that the strongest cooling was observed. In addition, the cooling was especially pronounced in Western Alaska, closest to the area of the center of the Aleutian Low. The changes seen in the reanalyzed data were confirmed from surface observations, both in the decrease of the North-South atmospheric pressure gradient, as well as the decrease in the mean wind speeds for stations located in the Bering Sea area.
(4) Other posts about climate forecasts
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle
- More about the forecast for flooded cities in the late 21st century
- Looking into the past for guidance about warnings of future climate apocalypses
- What can climate scientists tell about the drivers of future warming?
- What can climate scientists tell us about the drivers of future warming? – part two of two
- Checking up on past forecasts about climate change, a guide to the future
- An optimistic & successful (so far) forecast by an eminent climate scientist
(5) Some vital things to remember about global warming!
While cheering madly (ie, irrationally, emotionally, hysterically) for their faction of scientists, laypeople often lose sight of the big picture — the key elements for making public policy.
The major global temperature measurement systems tell — broadly speaking — the same story since the late 1970s: two decades of warming, followed by a pause.
This is consistent with the larger firm conclusions of climate scientists: two centuries of warming, coming in pulses (ie, waves), with anthropogenic factors becoming the largest (not the only) drivers since roughly 1950.
(6) For more information
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:
- About Science & Nature – my articles
- About Science & nature – studies & reports
- About The history of climate fears
Posts on the FM site about global cooling:
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
- Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008
- One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature!, 27 October 2008
- An important letter sent to the President about the danger of climate change, 21 October 2009
- About those headlines from the past century about global cooling…, 2 November 2009
- A look at global warming written in a cooler and more skeptical time, giving us a better understanding of climate science, 23 November 2009
- The facts about the 1970’s Global Cooling scare, 7 December 2009
.
.
.
The real Obama revealed, at last!
Summary: During the election we were warned by Republicans about the horrors of Obama’s second term, when the radical leftist anarchist socialist would show his true colors. Now that day has arrived, and we see the real Obama revealed in his first two appointments.
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
President Obama’s fist two major appointments:
- For Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel — former GOP Senator for Nebraska.
- For Director of the CIA: John Brennan, appointed by Bush Jr as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (August 2004 – August 2005). Famous for his advocacy of torture (but not waterboarding) and immunity for telephone companies’ illegal surveillance of their customers for the government.
So they were not just wrong in a sense, but 180° wrong. As they are so often these days, blinded by their madness. Will they learn from their experience, their failed predictions?
But they were right in another sense. Obama has reveal his true values. Again, as he has done repeatedly during the past four years. With Obama what we see is what we get; but most of the Left refuses to see (blinded by their dreams). For the significance of this we turn to the essential Glenn Greenwald.to explain what this reveals about Obama, about us, and about the significance of these events.
What this shows about Obama:
{T}he very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama’s own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama’s preferred policies.
What this reveals about us:
We’ve worked through all 5 stages of grief for the Republic. Now, on to The New America!
Summary: As the Republic dies, its opponents become bolder. They move from subtly working to undermine it, to outright advocacy of its overthrow.
“We’ve spawned a new race here … We’re a new nationality. We require a new nation.”
— Benjamin Franklin speaking at the Continental Congress, 7 June 1776 (in the film 1776)
Perhaps we’ve become a new race, so that the America-that-once-was no longer suits us.
Perhaps we require a New America.
Contents
- Five stages of grieving for the Republic
- A new Republic for a plutocracy
- A Marine speaks against the Constitution
- For More Information
(1) Five stages of grieving for the Republic
Grief is the price we pay for love. Kubler-Ross describes grief as psychological process of adjustment consisting of five stages (for more on the theories of Kuber-Ross see Changing Minds and Wikipedia):
- Shock & Denial: Initial paralysis at hearing the bad news: trying to avoid the inevitable.
- Anger: Frustrated outpouring of bottled-up emotion.
- Bargaining: Seeking in vain for a way out.
- Depression: Final realization of the inevitable.
- Testing and Acceptance: Seeking realistic solutions; finally finding a way forward.
Our constitutional Republic has died (or details see this post of July 4, 2006), and each of us feels the loss in some way (this accounts for the low morale seen in public opinion polls). We have moved with little fuss through stage one. What comes next? We’re sheep (the Republic died from our passivity and ignorance). The ovine {of sheep} grief process differs from that of men and women. Perhaps we will move directly to step five.
Less than a year has passed and we have evidence that my guess was correct. It’s become routine to advocate overthrow of the Constitution and the Republic. Here are two examples.
(2) A new Republic for a plutocracy
Our first exhibit is a law professor who explains that the Constitution has died, as we’re too weak to amend it. He’s less explicit about what comes next, but filling in those blanks takes little imagination.
“Let’s Give Up on the Constitution“, Louis Michael Seidman, op-ed in the New York Times, 30 December 2012
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Summary: We’ve looked at plenty of false — or temporarily not proven — forecasts by American experts about wars and climate. Today we see the opposite, accurate forecasts by an eminent scientist — for which he’s ridiculed. The rule seems to be that political correctness is rewarded, irrespective of accuracy. That’s no way to run a superpower, except on the rocks. We can do better.
Contents
- Contempt for science
- Speech by Richard Lindzen
- Other articles by Prof Lindzen
- Other Climate Forecasts
- For More Information
(1) Contempt for science
One of the great oddities of the debate about climate science is the contempt for scientists displayed by the lay cheerleaders on both sides. Scientists are authorities, unless they disagree with the true dogma — then they’re fools and charlatans (as we see in a comment to this post). Previous posts looked at forecasts that have proved false, or not correct so far.
Today we look at a speech made 23 years ago by a MIT professor. It looks good today, still accurate despite the advances in climate science. Furthermore his forecast of no warming larger than natural variability during the next century has proven accurate so far — after 23 years have elapsed (see here for the latest of 3 posts about the “pause” in warming).
(2) Speech by Richard Lindzen
In M.I.T. Tech Talk of 27 September 1989 Eugene F. Mallove describes a presentation by Richard Lindzen (Prof of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT) to an audience of 250 scientists at the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Colloquium. See Lindzen’s CV here.
(a) Key Points
- “I argue that the greenhouse effect does not seem to be as significant as suggested.”
- “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.”
- “And I certainly feel that there is time and need for research before making major policy decisions.”
- The science of global warming is “a region in which the uncertainty is vast.”
- “The trouble with many of these {temperature} records is that the corrections are of the order of the effects, and most of us know that when we’re in that boat we need a long series and great care to derive a meaningful signal.”
(b) About the natural variability of climate
