Watch the Left burn away more of its credibility, then wonder why the Right wins

Larry Kummer, Editor

12 years ago

Summary: Both Left and Right in America have gone crazy. Each sees this about the other, but not about themselves. There is no reality-based community in American politics, unfortunately. Many posts on the FM website have documented this about the Right. Today we’ll look at the Left in action, burning their credibility.

The US has drifted to the Right since 1980, to the Left’s bafflement. Among the reasons why is their repeated adoption of doomster prophecies, such as:

The Population Bomb scare of the 1960s, forecasting massive starvation and social upheaval in the 1970s and 1980s (see Wikipedia).
The resources will run out scare of the 1970s, forecasting exhaustion of critical resources by 2000 (examples here).
The repeated rounds of peak oil scares from the 1970s through recently (a sample here, about the end of civilization)

For a summary see “Plenty of gloom“, The Economist, 18 December 1997 — “Forecasters of scarcity and doom are not only invariably wrong, they think that being wrong proves them right”

These are largely found on the Left (the Right have their own apocalyptic scenarios, mostly involving economic and social collapse). Generations of Leftists crying wolf, without scientific backing. Making forecasts that in hindsight look foolish. Each failure eroding away their credibility. In these debates the Right has repeatedly proven correct.

Now the Left doubles down, predicting doom from climate change — forecasts of disasters beyond anything in the consensus of climate scientists (e.g., forecasts by the IPCC). This might not end well for the Left, especially if the scientists are correct who forecast that the pause will continue for several more years, perhaps even one or two more decades (links here to papers).

Meanwhile they face the problem of maintaining the loyalty of their followers despite the lack of warming, and the falsification of previous forecasts. Such as predictions that Hurricane Katrina started a new era of frequent severe hurricanes; in fact the period since then has been one of multi-generational lows in activity (Washington Post). They’ve had to get creative, trusting the blind tribal loyalty of their flock.

Today’s example

“Polar Vortex Ripped in Half by Anomalous Jet Stream,
High Arctic Experiencing 32 Degree F Above Average Temperatures Over Broad Region“

By Robert Marston Fanney (fantasy writer; bio here), at his blog RobertScribbler: “Scribbling for economic, social, and environmental justice”
27 January 2014

He does an excellent job of working his flock into paroxysms of fear. The comments are fun to read! Such as SourabhJain’s (who is eager for the end times!):

“Nice post. Arctic like Death Valley!! What would Death Valley be like then? Volcano?”

A comment was posted citing one of the posts on the FM website about the pause in the increase of surface atmospheric temperature. Scribbler’s reply is typical of climate activists confronted with climate science:

This is classic poor representation of the science from a blog that appears to have been wrapped up in right-wing misinformation, at least in this case.

First, the IPCC isn’t talking about a pause in global warming. In fact, this most recent IPCC report provides the strongest case for warming of the bunch. IPCC itself claims that only those who falsely read the data find a pause in warming.

So in talking about and, perhaps unwittingly, promoting a fake pause, this particular blogger is going against the scientific consensus. Instead, he is siding with journalists who have wantonly misrepresented and misreported the warming data and misreading a few scientific reports that brought up the question of a potential slow-down in atmospheric warming.

Looking at the long term-record, atmospheric warming has been steady for at least four decades. Other measures of warming, such as ocean warming and ice melt are actually increasing (ocean heat content, rate of glacial melt). So, for there to be a pause we need atmospheric warming to stop (it hasn’t), ocean warming to stop (it’s speeding up), and glacial melt to stop (it’s speeding up).

In short, the best response to this nonsense is to tell the particular fool or duped person who spouts it that he is mangling statistics and misrepresenting the science. If he continues, refer him to this NASA GISS report: “NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend“, 21 January 2014.

The report shows sustained atmospheric warming. In other words no pause in this indicator. So given these facts, why is this individual continuing to misrepresent the science?

This is fascinating, since it almost entirely false. This is one face of the Left’s abandonment of science, of being a reality-based community — and perhaps of its public influence in its present form. (I submitted a reply, but was blocked and so didn’t follow the comment discussion. The person who cited the FM website says he was banned.)

(1) In chapter 9 (large pdf) of the final draft of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report is an extensive discussion of the pause: “Box 9-2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years” (pp 28-32).

(2) UK Met Office discusses the pause (these are large pdf’s): July 2013

(3) There is a large and growing body of peer-reviewed science discussing the pause. These posts provide lists and links to dozens of papers:

Still good news: global temperatures remain stable, at least for now., 14 October 2012 — Scientists analyse the pause
Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, perhaps the most important research of the decade, 17 January 2014
One of the most important questions we face: when will the pause in global warming end?, 25 August 2013

The NASA press release Scribbler points to does not even mention the pause (pro or con). It is a brief note discussing the 2013 temperature record, and its place in the long-term warming history — which the consensus of climate scientists believe continues today. As Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s AR5 says:

Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series …

The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 (high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST).

Significance of the pause

The pause has many levels of significance. It provides climate scientists with new data with which to improve their models. It provides us with more time to understand our climate and prepare for climate change (an ever-present on-going process, now complicated by our many influences).

— And it tests climate activists’ commitment to the truth (most are failing). Rather than explain the significance of the pause, and what it means to scientists and society, they take the low road of concealment. It’s not working. They are burning the Left’s credibility as a political movement in America.

For more about this see Possible political effects of the pause in global warming, 26 August 2013.

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: