Site icon Fabius Maximus website

Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!

Larry Kummer, Editor

Most of the comments on this site supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) reveal little about the science, but much about effective use of propaganda to mold public opinion in our society.  To investigate this the FM site has discussions in depth with people posting pro-AGW comments.  The first was with Mclaren in Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?.

The second in this series is this comment by Juan Andrés Delmastro, posted in reply to “Weekend Reading, watching the world change before our eyes” (29 November 2008):  His blog is The Contingency Monitor:  “An organic and vibrant publication that challenges your thinking.”

Delmastro’s comment exhibits the first 4 (perhaps 5) of the 7 common elements of pro-AGW comments found on the FM site as described in A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming (my generic reply).  As such we see the effectivenss of the pro-AGW propaganda campaign, that it inspires such belief — which they are unable to defend in any meaningful way.

  1. Pro-AGW comments often display no signs of having read the skeptics’ work.
  2. Pro-AGW comments often invent assertions which they can easily refute (making stuff up, almost a signature characteristic of pro-AGW comments).
  3. Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no awareness of the authoritative reports on this issue.
  4. Pro-AGW comments usually show little or no knowledge of the long struggle to force some climate scientists to release data and methods.
  5. Pro-AGW comments usually show little understanding of the scientific method.

He makes an esp interesting statement in one of his final comments (#13), which perhaps you can help interpret:  see this post, and the discussion in the comments.

Delmastro’s comment appears in full below (the original is here).  My replies are interjected into the comment for clarity.  The section numbers have been added to Delmastro’s comment.  A second comment appears at the end.

Reminder:  like most posts in this series, it discusses not the underlying climate science but the public policy debate about AGW– esp the propaganda campaign that shows only one side of the debate.

Comment by Juan Andrés Delmastro, with replies in italic

Your work here is stupendous, congrats and much thanks for sharing your in depth analysis, perspectives and relevant information in such diverse topics.

(1)  Regarding the article you pointed at Ner. 3. (Global warming melts glaciers elsewhere, but not at Mount Shasta), you read there also, from Tulaczyk himself:

“’Mount Shasta is just a local system and does not really tell us much about global warming,’ Tulaczyk said in an e-mail. ‘Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount Shasta as some kind of proof that there is no global warming.'”

FM reply:  As anyone following the mainstream media treatment of AGW has seen, the iron grip of othodoxy requires that climate change come in only two forms:

  1. change that demonstrates global warming — even if they don’t, such as Mt. Kilimanjaro (see this 3 part seriesin Der Spiegel about this frequently-cited but disputed example),
  2. change of no relevance to global warming (even cooling, like Mt. Shasta — or earthquakes).

(2)  You can easily apply this argument also to the “How not to measure temperature, part XXX“, even if X gets to thousands circumstances, and specially for the “reading stations” near parking lots. Of course, these biases pointed in the Anthony Watts blog, do not likely prove that climate change, or either global worming are not well identified and a valid scientific conclusion.

FM reply:  This misrepresents the skeptics’ case on several levels, and suggests little familiarity with the skeptics’ literature.

(a)  Nobody of sense doubts that our climate changes over time and that the earth is warming as we rebound from the Little Ice Age.  This is a classic strawman argument.  The debate is about causes and future trends.

(b)  About proof:  The pro-AGW folks recommend spending trillions of dollars — vitally needed elsewhere — to control CO2 emissions.  Which sidehas the burden of proof?  Obviously, the side advocating the expenditure.  This is no longer an academic discussion, but a matter of public policy.

(c)  BTW – the “skeptics” have stated endless times that they they are providing a rebuttal — not providing a proof of an alternative theory.  As Steve McIntyre said (source; one of his countless statements like this):

“Serious people believe that it {AGW} is an issue. There’s a lot of promotion and hype, but that doesn’t mean that, underneath it all, there isn’t a problem. No one’s shown that it’s not an issue. The hardest part for someone trying to understand the issue from first principles is locating a clear A-to-B exposition of how doubled CO2 produces a problem and I’m afraid that no one’s been able to give such a reference to me – the excuse is that such an exposition is too “routine” for climate scientists. That’s the first attitude than has to change.”

(3)  Specially when temperatures have been also measured by satellites, oceanic temperatures, ice nucelus samples, and in strong correlation to solar activity incidency and etc.

FM reply:  This is quite a grab bag of evidence.  Mentioning the solar cycle to support AGW is interesting, as the solar cycle is usually mentioned by skeptics as an alternative driver of climate cycles (in addition to CO2 levels).

Here are the most frequently cited data in pro-AGW climate science literature.  All have been shown to be highly problematic, both in the data and esp the adjustments (which tend to be somewhat ad hoc and often larger than the discovered signal).  The following links go to discussions of these issues intelligible to a general audience of educated people.

  1. Land surface temperature records — Discussed here, here, and at Surfacestations.org.
  2. Ocean temperature records:  Discussed here and here.
  3. Atmospheric temperature sensors (e.g., radiosonde data, inhomogeneous, ambiguous, and heavily adjusted.  Discussed here, and here.
  4. Satellite data — An archive here.  Esp note here, here, here, here, and here.
  5. Proxies (e.g., ice core samples) — Note these are only indirect measures of temperature.  Here is a large archive of discussions.

(4)  I would recommend to dig into the scientific consensus, to further clear that there is an anthropogenic climate change and global warming reality out there:

  1. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change“, Naomi Oreskes, Science, December 2004.
  2. “The Skeptics“, David Suzuki Foundation, no date or author provided.
  3. The U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, UCS, May 2008. A statement endorsed by more than 1,700 scientists and economists with expertise relevant to the understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions.

FM reply:  (a)  The first two articles are window-dressing (polemics), but the third reveals much about the “project” to convince the western world’s leaders and general population about the danger of anthropogenic global warming. Petitions — like #3 and the “Global Warming Petition Project” — are used in political campaigns — not scientific projects. Einstein and Newton needed no petition drives, nor did Watson-Crick-Wilkins (structure of DNA).

These PR tools are used to avoid dealing with the substantial weaknesses discovered in the pro-AGW case – both data and methods. It will be interesting to see if they prove effective, esp. if we enter a global cooling cycle (awareness of which is seen in the frantic effort to rebrand AGW as “climate change).

(b)  Petitions about science are inherently absurd, as if scientists who have not studied the AGW literature can judge its validity by virtue of their membership in the guild. As if truth can be proven by voting, as done by church conclaves.  The ease of gaining scientists’ support about such matters of public policy was discovered by Carl Sagan in promulgating his propaganda to prevent “nuclear winter.”  For more on this see “Nuclear winter: science and politics“, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, pp. 321-334.  It provides an excellent background description and bibliography, and essential background to understand the global warning debate).

(c)  As with so many aspects of our society, Jonathan Swift saw this tendency clearly in 1726.  Note this passage from Gulliver’s Travels, A Voyage to Laputa, chapter 2 (source):

“But, what I chiefly admired, and thought altogether unaccountable, was the strong Disposition I observed in them towards News and Politicks, perpetually enquiring into public Affairs, giving their Judgments in Matters of State; and passionately disputing every Inch of a Party Opinion.

“I have indeed observed the same Disposition among most of the Mathematicians I have known in Europe; although I could never discover the least Analogy between the two Sciences; unless those People suppose, that because the smallest Circle hath as many Degrees as the largest, therefore the Regulation and Management of the World require no more Abilities than the handling and turning of a Globe. But, I rather take this Quality to spring from a very common Infirmity of human Nature, inclining us to be more curious and conceited in Matters where we have least Concern, and for which we are least adapted either by Study or Nature.”

Second comment by Delmastro (source)

(5)  The likelihood of Anthropogenic Global Warming was drawn by IPCC Working Group in their TAR WG1. This work has been addressed in peer reviewed journals and also; endorsed by international scientific institutions (in either: PDF-B, PDF-A) by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (USA), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

FM comment:  (a)  Data trumps authority. That’s why science differs from theology. The data flow over the past ten years has been highly destructive to much of the case for AGW; there are tentative indications that the climate itself is turning “against it” (i.e., entering a cooling cycle).  Note the overwhelming fraction of pro-AGW comments on the FM site are appeals to authority; almost none discuss the actual evidence (or even show any awareness of the debate).

(b) Petitions signed by scientists who have not studied the issue mean nothing. Membership in the guild has no significance in judging work outside one’s field. Michael Crichton discusses what he calls “consensus science” here. This is just propaganda, a technique perfected by Carl Sagan in his “nuclear winter” agitprop campaign (see “Nuclear winter: science and politics“, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, October 1988 — Excellent background description and bibliography. Vital background to understand the global warning debate.)

(c) As has been clearly shown by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, “peer review” has failed in several key elements of climate science. The reviews of Mann’s canonical “hockey stick” articles had available neither his data nor methods (which were partially dragged into public view only after years of effort).  Even now work continues, attempting to make sense of Mann’s hodge-podge of code and data (see this and this).  Hence the “peer review” failed. Their review might as well consisted of sprinkling holy water on the text.

(6)  NOTE: The organizer of the “PETITION PROJECT” (in a comment by Erasmus) is Frederick Seitz: past president of the US National Academy of Sciences, which now TOTALLY ENDORSES the likelihood of “anthropogenic global warming”

FM Comment:  (a)  Most of this volleying back and forth of petitions is just hot air, a trivial commonplace of our era in which the growth of government power politicizes everything it touches.  Also, in what sense are the AGW-skeptic views of the late Dr. Seitz “negated” by a petition endorsed (vote of members or the board) of the NAS? 

(b)  The National Academy of Sciences (USA) appears on this list. But an actual review (a brief and sketchy review) by an NAS committee was unable to endorse those bold conclusions.  In fact, some of the testimony was damming about climate science practices (e.g. use of “cherry picking” proxy data). See “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS“, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES (2006) — aka The North Report.

(7)  Same conclusions of IPCC Report were backed by the following institutions:

FM reply:  I hate to be skeptical, but how do you know that these reports all come to the “Same conclusions of IPCC Report” or “backed” their conclusions?  Nothing you have written here shows any evidence of knowledge about the AGW debate, so I believe some additional evidence is required.

The level of “institutional scientific endorsement” is overwhelming. Given this situation it is totally awkward that 30.000 signatures -from Mr/Mrs Erasmus’ previous comment- have invalidated the likelihood of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

FM reply:  What does this last sentance mean?

Afterword

Please share your comments by posting below.  Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post.  Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

For information about this site see the About page, at the top of the right-side menu bar.

For more information from the FM site

To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:

 

To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:

 

Some posts on the FM site about climate science:

  1. An article giving strong evidence of global warming, 30 June 2008
  2. More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
  3. Two valuable perspectives on global warming, 4 August 2008
  4. Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008 – More evidence of cooling.
  5. Watching the world change before our eyes, 29 November 2008
  6. This week’s report on the news in climate science, 7 December 2008
  7. Weekend reading recommenations about climate change, 13 December 2008
  8. An important new article about climate change, 29 December 2008
  9. My “wish list” for the climate sciences in 2009, 2 January 2009
  10. Important new climate science articles, 11 January 2009
  11. Climate science articles which you might enjoy reading!, 18 January 2009
  12. How warm is the Earth? How do we measure it?, 28 January 2009
  13. Science in action, a confused and often nasty debate among scientists, 5 February 2009
Exit mobile version