Grist tells readers how to talk to a climate skeptic, matching your misinformation with theirs

Larry Kummer, Editor

12 years ago

Summary: A new work of climate propaganda sweeps through the Internet! It shows activists preventing political dialog by pretending their opponents’ views are entirely wrong. The price paid for this is political polarization, often causing paralysis in public policy. As we see in the lack of action in the US, and the unraveling of policies enacted in Australia (and perhaps in Europe).

A brief look at

“How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming”
A series by Cory Beck at Grist, undated

This series of posts is sad on two levels. First, that so much effort by an obviously smart person should be expended to mislead rather than inform. Second, that so many people take this stuff seriously.

But it is a wonderful example of climate propaganda — and its apparent function not to convince people, but keep believers in the flock by carefully directing their thinking — so that they believe opponents are always wrong, should not be listened to. As such it deserves a little attention except as a source of political polarization. And a reminder that political paralysis is the price we often pay for polarization (as climate activists would see today, if they were willing to learn).

Let’s see a few of the indications that the people who take this material seriously (rather than relying on accurate sources) should not be taken seriously.

(1) Who is Cory Beck?

Before we read Beck’s analysis, let’s see his qualifications: “Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer.” That background more than suffices to report climate news and research — as routinely done by journalists, both professional and amateurs (moi). It seems quite a weak basis for many of his statements, such as this:

I believe it was Richard Lindzen who first made this argument [PDF] about climate sensitivity. The numbers he uses don’t add up. A 35% increase in CO2 should correspond to 43% of the forcing from two times CO2 (ln(1.35)/ln(2)= 43%), which is not three-fourths.

Perhaps Beck does not understand how the numbers add up because Beck is not a climate scientist. Whereas Lindzen was Professor of Meteorology at the MIT and a lead author of Chapter 7 — “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” — of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. This is a very common trope of activists on both sides, laypeople dismissing the work of scientists.

Beck cites no evidence in his rebuttal to Lindzen. That’s sad since there is growing literature about climate sensitivity, a subject of great importance, actively debated among client scientists (see section 9.7 of the IPCC’s Working Group I report).

(2) Beck often provides no evidence of people saying the things he attributes to “deniers”

“Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.” (source)

The objection is of course daft, and Beck’s rebuttal correct. CO2 contributes “9% – 30% of the overall greenhouse effect” (Beck neglects to mention that the wide range of estimates shows the immature state of climate models). But a quick Google search shows only one such claim: at the website Plant Fossils of West Virginia, dated 2007.

Becks lists many such obscure, absurd claims. They provide implicit support for Beck’s message that “deniers” are fools.

(3) Beck does not state the skeptics’ positions, and his rebuttals are often weak

“Objection: Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end.” (link here)

He does not accurately state the skeptics’ analysis, and his rebuttal is weak.

“In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations…”

He cites no evidence for this, since in fact the increasing Antarctic Ocean ice was not well-predicted — e.g., “the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea ice extent during the satellite era with robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion (and increases in GHGs).” from Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, in press.

“The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north.”

While true, the shrinking Arctic Ocean ice also largely influenced by local geography: the interaction of winds and the enclosing land, plus the soot from China deposited on the ice. See the many supporting citations from peer-reviewed research listed here. We only have reliable data on changes in area of polar sea ice since the satellite record began in 1979.

(4) Beck never acknowledge that his opponents’ view is correct, even when he admits it

“Objection: The Kyoto treaty, even if fully implemented, would only save us about a tenth of a degree of future temperature rise many decades from now. What a waste of effort!” (source)

Beck’s defense of the Kyoto accords is to concede the fact, but assert that Kyoto might begin a process that leads to effective limitations on emissions. Beck’s reply also ignores the high cost of implementing Kyoto (already felt by Europe and Australia).

This could be an opening of dialog, where Beck acknowledges the legitimacy of the opposing view — then explains his faith-based alternative. Instead his reply is belligerent assertions, and nothing but.

(5) Beck considers activists’ assertions as gospel

Beck often cites authoritative sources, but often cites activists’ — whose words he accepts as definitive answers.

“Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the ’70s. Now it’s too much warming! Why should we believe them this time?” (source)

As stated, this is perfectly true. Instead Beck’s rebuttal addresses a different question: the degrees of consensus among scientists in the 1970s and now, not the statements of alarmists — which then and now largely ignore the consensus of scientists.

Beck correctly states that there was no consensus among scientists in the 1970s, but then grossly understates the degree of concern at that time about cooling:

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight.

As evidence he cites two blog posts by climate activist William Connelly, at RealClimate and his own blog. Neither accurately describes the evidence. Such as his derisive reference to the “not very famous US National Academy of Science 1975 Report” — the well-known “Understanding climatic change: a program for action” (large PDF copy).

Connelly casually dismisses the peer-reviewed research of the 1970s about cooling, examining only a select few papers. He ignores the two CIA reports expressing concern. He forgets to mention the official NOAA history, which describes how fear of cooling resulted in a letter to President Nixon in 1972 (modeled after the Einstein–Szilárd letter to FDR), leading to the creation of NOAA’s Climate Analysis Center (CAC) in Spring 1979 (described here, with supporting links).

For a more accurate timeline of articles, see this post about the history of fears about the climate.

(6) His most serious failing: Beck hides scientists’ work when contracts his beliefs

“Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.” (source)

Beck replies “‘Global warming stopped in 1998′–Only if you flagrantly cherry pick.”

There is an apparent consensus of climate scientists that warming of the global surface atmosphere temperature paused sometime in 1998-2000 (depending on the dataset and analytical method used). For 4 years climate scientists have discussed the pause); in recent years they have moved to analysis of its causes and probable duration (all of these posts have a wealth of links to peer-reviewed research and reports from major climate agencies).

The UK Met Office published a large report about the pause in July 2013:

Beck — like most climate activists — does not want you to know this, and his rebuttal goes to great lengths to conceal it from his readers.

(7) A few important things to remember about global warming

While cheering for their faction of scientists, laypeople often lose sight of the big picture — the key elements for making public policy about this important issue.

(a) The work of the IPCC and the major science institutes are the best guides for information about these issues.

(b) The world has been warming during the past two centuries, in a succession of warming, cooling, and pauses. Since roughly 1950 anthropogenic causes have been the largest driver. Warming paused sometime in 1998-2000.

When did we start global warming? See the surprising answer., 18 October 2012
Still good news: global temperatures remain stable, at least for now., 14 October 2012 — Scientists analyse the pause
The IPCC sees the pause in global warming!, 18 December 2012

(c) There is a debate about the attribution (causes) of past warming — which probably varied over time — between natural drivers (e.g., rebound from the Little Ice Age, solar influences) and anthropogenic drivers (e.g., CO2, aerosols, land use changes). The IPCC’s reports make few claims about attribution of climate activity, as this remains actively debated in the literature.

Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, perhaps the most important research of the decade, 17 January 2014

(d) There is an even larger debate about climate forecasts, both the extent of future CO2 emissions and the net effects of the various natural and anthropogenic drivers.

One of the most important questions we face: when will the pause in global warming end?, 25 August 2013
Possible political effects of the pause in global warming, 26 August 2013

(e) For the past five years my recommendations have been the same:

More funding for climate sciences. Many key aspects (eg, global temperature data collection and analysis) are grossly underfunded.
Wider involvement of relevant experts in this debate. For example, geologists, statisticians and software engineers have been largely excluded — although their fields of knowledge are deeply involved.
Start today a well-funded conversion to non-carbon-based energy sources by the second half of the 21st century; for both environmental and economic reasons (see these posts for details).

(f) Posts about preparing for climate change: