Hypocrisy poisons the climate policy debate

Larry Kummer, Editor

8 years ago

Summary: We cannot make sensible climate policy because the public debate has become a food fight, with the stench of hypocrisy hanging over both sides. Here is another post in a long series giving examples. Perhaps public pressure will encourage at least one side to clean up their act.

“Temperatures in Greenland’s interior have ranged from -25C to -60C in 2018. Meanwhile, our top climate experts believe Greenland is melting, and are proposing geoengineering schemes to destroy the environment and stop the imaginary melting inside their heads.”

— From “Greenland Meltdown Update” by Tony Heller (see bio below).

As evidence, Heller shows the December – January temperature record for Summit Station, a research station on the apex of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Located at the center of Greenland, it is 3,216 metres (10,551 ft) above sea level.” That is 50% above the mean elevation of the Greenland ice sheet (2,135 meters). He could not have chosen a spot in Greenland less representative of its average conditions. It is pretty much the opposite of the conditions where Greenland’s ice is melting. Some parts of Greenland’s ice sheet are melting, some are not. Some parts are gaining ice, some are not.

Temperatures at Nuuk, the capital, are more representative of weather where the ice is melting. Located on the southwest coast, it has a population of 18 thousand. January temperatures typically range from 13 to 21°F (-10 to -6°C). As for melting, July is the warmest month — with a typical range of 40 to 49°F (4 to 9°C). See the data here. See this description of Greenland’s weather.

Heller’s post tells us nothing about the state of Greenland’s ice cap. It senselessly mocks scientist.

Encouraging ignorance: see his fans respond

This is propaganda of the crudest kind, but eagerly believed by his fans.

“Hmm? I suppose ice is melting at minus 60 C. Too cold for ice. Crazy scientists.”

“It’s hard any more for me to believe that they are that dumb, and easier to accept that they are ‘denying’ scientific evidence in order to pursue certain political power ends.”

Where to go for accurate information

About Greenland melting.

“…the imaginary melting inside their heads.”

Actual experts, like those at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), provide clear data about the nature and location of Greenland’s melting. Here is the action during 2017. First, a map showing where the melting occurred — the number of cumulative melt days. There were no melt days in the interior (Summit Station is near the center).

Second, here is a graph showing when the melting occurred — in terms of percent of melt extant (more useful than the usual almost useless melting as expressed in tons). Note that looking at January, as Heller does, tells us nothing. Unlike Heller’s graph, they show the full picture. Like Heller’s graph, they don’t tell us if Greenland as a whole is melting.

The real question is not about melting.

The important question is not is Greenland melting, but is the ice sheet growing or shrinking (see this page explaining the 3 key factors, of which melt is one). The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) provides some useful information. Turn to its Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet page for the bottom line about the trend (although it varies greatly from year to year) …

“Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr. {A Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water.}”

For more information see the chapter about Greenland in NOAA’s 2017 Arctic Report Card. Also, factors other than warming are involved. Deposits of soot on the ice increase melting (dark increases absorption of sunlight), mostly from China’s coal plants (see the papers in 3b here).

This is a frontier area in science, as research continues about the history of Greenland’s ice sheet, the many factors driving changes in its mass balance, and its internal dynamics. Lots of questions; many unknowns. For an introduction, I recommend reading “Reconstructions of the 1900–2015 Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance” by Xavier Fettweis et al in The Cryosphere (2017).

Conclusion — and a question

“Scepticism is the first step towards truth.”
— Denis Diderot, Philosophical Thoughts (1746).

Heller’s article is of a kind familiar to anyone who has followed the climate policy debate during the past decade. It is the kind of propaganda activists on both sides (however you label them) frequently use. It does not provide information (the context is misleading). It relies on mockery rather than logic. It is the opposite of skepticism.

Which side is worse in this respect? Determining that would take substantial resources. Why would it be worth the effort?

That so many activists on both sides adopt similar methods is natural, since both seek the most effective ways to influence the American public. Through trial and error over decades they have discovered our big weakness: gullibility (as has the US government). It is more of a moral failing than an intellectual one, affecting many people, from the best to worst educated.

A sad aspect of the climate policy debate is how both sides tolerate — often even embrace — “their” propagandists. Tactics condemned when used by their foes are ignored when used by their friends. This allows each side to rightly condemn the other’s lack of credibility. Worse, the stench of hypocrisy hangs over both sides. Neither can enforce standards on the other. Such discipline (or honesty) can only come from within each side.

As for America, nothing — not climate policy, economics, or national security — can be rationally discussed so long as we treat everything as a grade school cafeteria food fight. When we decide to value truth above comforting lies, then we will have taken a first step to reforming America.

What might make us change? When might that happen?

About Tony Heller

“Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of “Real Science,” a website he established to assert that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated. …Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog. He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master’s degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.” {From Wikipedia.}