WSJ Launches Luddite Attack on Climate Scientists and Al Gore

The bar for Wall Street Journal editorials, in the journalistic equivalent of limbo dancing, keeps dropping. In a piece titled, "The Science of Gore's Nobel" (UPDATE: Open access link), Holman W. Jenkins Jr. of the WSJ ed board, manages to slander the media, Al Gore, the Nobel Committee, and all climate scientists -- without offering any facts to back up the attacks:

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science".... Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

Why would the media blur the Nobel Peace Prize with a science prize when Gore isn't a scientist? They wouldn't, of course, but this imagined media blunder allows Jenkins -- a journalist -- to make the subject of his piece climate science.

What is especially bizarre about the WSJ piece is that Gore shared the Nobel Peace Price with thousands of scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- but Jenkins never mentions that fact at all. Again, that's because he wants to attack the Nobel committee for "promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis."

In fact, the award was not given for promoting "belief" -- a pejorative word as Jenkins uses it -- but for promoting "knowledge" -- as the Committee said, the award was given for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

By omitting mention of the IPCC, Jenkins can ignore the tremendous scientific evidence for the theory of human-caused global warming and the urgent need for action. Jenkins attacks the international scientific consensus without providing a single piece of counterevidence -- or any understanding of either the nature of the consensus or the difference between "belief" and "scientific knowledge."

Because the consensus is so important, and now, so alarming, it is worth understanding what it is -- and what it isn't -- since conservatives must either ramp up their attack on it -- or accept the clarion call for immediate government action (something most of them cannot stomach politically no matter what the science says).

Let's start with what the consensus isn't -- ably set out by Jenkins:

What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe.

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

Uhh, not even close. The scientific consensus is most certainly not established by counting heads (although, strangely enough, that is how we elect our leaders). Scientists do not devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses they've chosen to believe (although that would be a good description of the people who study "intelligent design").

In fact, scientists are paid skeptics who actually make a name for themselves disproving widely-held theories and adding new knowledge -- when they do reach a strong consensus, it usually is something everyone else should start close paying attention to.

What is the consensus? In the case of global warming, the nations of the world realized the subject was so complex that they needed high-level, independent scientific advice -- so they asked the top scientists in the world to examine the entire scientific literature on a regular basis, issue reports, and then summarize the state of scientific knowledge -- not belief -- for policymakers. That is what the IPCC does every 5 or 6 years, including 2007. In the summaries, the governments of any member country -- including, say, Saudi Arabia, China, and the United States -- can strike out anything they like.

So it is very safe to say that the IPCC "consensus" as reflected in the widely-read summaries typically represents a somewhat watered-down/conservative version of the state of scientific knowledge that, if anything, underestimates what we face. That was the point of my posts: Are Scientists Overestimating -- or Underestimating -- Climate Change (Part I and Part II and Part III).

What is stunning, therefore, about the latest IPCC summary, is how strong it is:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

And 40% to 70% of the world's species could go extinct! The report finds that, based on observable evidence gathered by scientists, climate change is accelerating. The head of the IPCC, the normally understated Rajendra Pachauri -- a scientist and economist -- said

"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

Fortunately, the IPCC synthesis report makes clear that a review of the peer-reviewed literature -- and real-world experience -- concludes that avoiding catastrophic outcomes is very affordable, and would slow global GDP less than 0.12 percentage points a year. In fact,

Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.

Yes -- a 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits using existing or in-the-pipeline technology. That is the consensus. Jenkins and the WSJ assert, however, that action to stop global warming are "policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent" (and fear of this "fraud" is supposedly what keeps Gore from running for President). But is any evidence for this stunning assertion offered? No. The piece ends with no facts being offered at all, but just these absurd claims:

Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile -- liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions -- because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.

Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.

Seriously. The WSJ has gotten so desperate to fight the overwhelming evidence that humans are the main cause of recent warming, that the warming is accelerating, and that it could ruin the well-being of the next 50 generations -- so desperate that they simply assert that the climate will cool at some indeterminate point in the future. The science on this is very clear: Barring a series of massive volcanoes, it won't be cooling. [Note to anyone who happens to know Jenkins: You can make and bundle of money from him betting that the next decade will be hotter than this one and that the decade after that will be even hotter.] Why can't conservatives like Jenkins accept the massive evidence and remarkable scientific consensus that human emissions are now for the foreseeable future the driving force behind our changing planet -- overwhelming the kind of external forcings (like changes in the Earth's orbit) that used to cause (much slower) climate variation? The answer is found in those two key words "redistribute resources" from Jenkins' penultimate sentence. Conservatives can't abide the solution to global warming -- strong government actions to promote clean energy solutions of the kind the Senate is considering and that have been proposed by Al Gore and Senators Obama and Clinton. Because they can't stand the solution, they are largely immune to scientific evidence about the problem. But while conservatives may -- if they so choose -- be able to block progressives and others from taking the political actions needed to stop global warming, they can't stop catastrophic warming by mere assertions. If they stick to their obstructionist denial, it won't be the "current age of global warming politics" that will "end with a whimper" -- it will be the entire conservative movement, which will rightly be blamed for the destruction of our livable climate. The WSJ's journalistic limbo dancing may serve only to leave conservatives in political limbo.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

And the question as to whether or not the IPCC is supporting a vigorous campaign to test the results of their findings when they challenge the majority assertions? I haven't heard much about that part of it yet. Among the thousands of scientists, surely there isn't complete unanimity. I'm not lookin' for a wedge but without a difference in position and the difference in perspective I get a little worried about cyclops vision, lack of depth and loss of peripheral vision.
To hear would-be experts on climate change accuse Freeman Dyson of being a "denier" really undermines the position of objectivity so vital to making science work in the real world. Would it be wrong to diversify the approach we're taking to prepare for this battle so all our eggs are not in a single basket? Not unless we embrace genuine alternatives as possible expanations and begin testing them too.

[Aramingo]

For those who are in the fact based community:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=B1182F51-E7F2-99DF-30CB2EAAC975FE93

It's a couple of bucks, but comparing it with the WSJ editorial is like night and day. Isn't it strange how the predictions made 20 years ago about the impact of greenhouse gases are comming true yet still you see nonsense like the WSJ editorial?

[mamacat]

The Wall Street Journal is no longer a responsible newspaper.
One can observe the consequences of the buyout by Mr. Murdoch, and they appear to be what one would expect from the man who turned Fox News into what it is today, a propaganda machine for the neo-con apparatus.
It is questionable whether our democracy, such as it was, can continue even in a diminished state without a free press. The problems with this article from the WSJ are so vast, one can compare them to trying to get real news out of something written by the Nazi or Soviet regimes. The time is coming when we may have to automatically assume that the Republicans, and the news sources under their control, are publicly stating "facts" that are opposite from the truth.
What the WSJ has done in this article is not to question global warming, under the guise of "climate change," but like the run-up to the Iraq war, they are cherry-picking their supposed facts so that they support their pre-chosen conclusion. This is not the way journalism is supposed to operate, but it is the way one form of propaganda works.
From here on out, not only will I not buy a copy of the WSJ, but I will assign anything coming from the WSJ the same gravity that I assign anything coming from the Fox News Network. I hope the time never comes when we can only get our news by relying on journalists writing in other countries. The BBC, the Globe and Mail in Canada, the English edition of Der Spiegel, and other news sources are still available to us over the internet. I worry, though, how long it will be until the Republicans do what the Chinese have already done, and limit access to non-controlled news sources.

[certainot]

the bulk of the groundwork for this kind of denial is done on the GOP talk radio monopoly which reaches 50-70MIL Americans with a 24/7 uncontested repetition of lies, distortions, and attacks.

everyday limbaugh dedicates a part of his show to global warming denial, much of which consists of crap like "if global warming is real how come it's still freezing" and reading the latest missinformation from the coal industry.

jenkins piece may help reinforce the denial at some small level of WSJ readership but like many of today's lazy MSM he is really just another tick on limbaugh's talk radio ass.

[clr2]

"Science" is all about questioning. Why can't global warming be questioned? If it is truely scientific it will hold up. There is something wrong when "scientists" don't want to have their "discoveries" and "hypothesis" questioned.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

The WSJ and "conservative" morons would crack me up, if their stupidity was not so tragic.

If I were interested in promoting business, or the health of our economic system, or the infrastructure of the USA, I would say the best way to do that is to accept and attack the global climate change issue.
Why? Because US business needs a catalyst. More IT innovation is coming from overseas. Our manufacturing base is deteriorating. American scientific and engineer base is evaporating. The USA graduated more people in Sports Physical Therapy last year than engineers and scientists. Where is our technological advantage going to come from? The CEOS of companies like Intel and Microsoft keep banging at Congress on this idea and are ignored.
SO, use global climate change as a rallying point for our economy, like the space race was in the 1960's. IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER if the global warming trend is manmade or not, as long as most of the world believes it is (and it does). Put our efforts into science education, and the creation and manufacture of clean energy technologies. IT DOES NOT MATTER if China and India and Africa pollute more. If we achieve cleaner, cheaper energy sources, the US can sell them the technology. And those kids who study science but don't go into alternative energies could go into something else we could develop and sell to the rest of the world. No, conservatives want kids to study business, shuffling papers around. Like Chinese kids or Indian kids could not do just good a job of it at a cheaper price.

But the "conservatives" work so hard to destroy the USA. And they are succeeding.

[eddiestardust]

realpolitick,

No that's not quite true at all...

The argument with is using EMBRYONIC Stem cells not other Stem Cells.

The argument is killing unborn children too.

These ARE NOT conservative views but they are Christian views.

Now, if one individual or a group of individuals claim to be Christian with these viewpoints and consistently violate all other Christian viewpoints such as feeding the poor etc. then they are only Christian in NAME ONLY because they are not emulating Christ.

For a Christian or for any human to do anything bad, we are doing it to Christ too.

[wayoutleft]

american political institutions will not survive the changes neccessary to protect the habitability of the environment. the implications for simplistic political philosophies based on the primacy of individual interests are clear: these philosophies and the resultant social instutions are untenable- just as kingship is untenable.

the wall street journal is the most over-rated, over-quoted journal of commentary on the planet. americans venerate it because it is the money-tracker- therefore the new bible- for the greedheads. all americans associate wisdom with money reflexively.
pumping up the pinstripe new york greedhead house organ into a bible means it takes the front line against management of the human environment for survival.
the real existential questions is whether enough of us will fight christianity and capitalism for this planet.

[dgscol]

I must weigh in. This well-written article is exactly right, and Mr Jenkins is couragous for telling it the way it is.

Mr. Gore is the world's unelected first premier. He is unbounded by national boundaries. He has big global visions. CO2 gas roams about just like Gore, haven't you noticed? It also has no boundaries and is basically a pretext for a coordinated world government. To make it fly, we here back in the old world USA must make concessions to the new global reality. Thus, Kyoto is a gift to the Orient and the Hindus. They like this, but is a bad thing for us. CO2 as an idea sweeps this real issue away from your concern, and under the guise of a global toxic shock from CO2, we are told we ought to go along with this.

Hillary Clinton does not discuss this because she knows Americans would hate this. It amounts to taking the food out of your baby's mouth and giving it to someone else. She has said that globalism is a done deal. She takes campaign contributions from global contributors. Haven't you noticed? She may be running for pres of the USA, but she is already operating within the purview of the Gore's global government. Haven't you noticed Hillary is always wearing Chinese-styled clothing? To Hillary this is some kind of neoreligion. She is beyond being rational on this subject. To her it is not a political issue, it is a done deal. This novel approach to international activity is hazardous, problematic, most likely infeasible and possibly destructive. It ought to be a political entity.

This same movement is taking jobs away from the middle class and placing them in China and India. They are building a dependency on Chinese goods, just like the oil pipeline leading to the middle east.

You do not get to say anything about it. This is the nature of the new global government. Just put up and shut up. You get is a bag of CO2 gas for your trouble. Wasn't that nice of you?

[mamacat]

Since Mr. Murdoch has purchased the Wall Street Journal, it should come as no surprise that he will do with it what he did with Fox News, and turn it into a disinformation machine.
As time goes by, I expect we will see the WSJ become less and less reputable, and more and more ridiculous.

[WorkingClass]

The WSJ is a Murdock rag now. Not worth talking about.

[mamacat]

There are some people who may never admit that global warming is occuring. Those of us that do believe the scientists (or at least 99.9% of them) should try to do something about it. Of course, it might help if those who are in control of media outlets would let the scientists be heard. Anyway, we can't wait until we've got a 100% consensus before we start doing something about the problem.

[realpolitic]

Precious few of the arguments of modern conservatism stand on their own merits, like a heavyweight fighter past his prime who can no longer answer the bell for the final round.
Conservatives argue against stem cell research and man-made global warming. The public at large supports both these concepts. On the other hand, conservatives support tax cuts for the wealthy, 'intelligent design', and systematically eliminating our civil liberties to protect us. In short, science and civil liberties are enemies to conservative dogma, as science was the enemy in Galileo's time, as well.

Therefore, conservatives must obfuscate, change the language (inheritance tax becomes the death tax), and simply lie to convince the public of the supposed merit of their faulty positions. Even with this giant, nonstop marketing campaign for their bad ideas which is perpetuated by Fox News, conservative talk radio, and a few publications, the public is beginning to dismiss conservative propaganda and ideas. This dismissal of bad ideas is good for America and bad for conservatives.

[lungfish]

Since when is the WSJ qualified to comment on science? Sorry that the message isn't business friendly by their estimation, business got us into this mess. Business will have to change if we are going to get out of it.
We were told in the late 1970s that this was coming and everyone on the business side chose to ignore it, argue with it, avoid it and now they have to face it. Too bad. They could have led instead of having to be dragged.

[terrilian]

Gosh, after reading these comments I can't decide whether I prefer the religious right intruding into my life for the good of mankind, or the fearmongering left intruding in my life...for the good of mankind.

How to choose? How to choose?