The United States was founded by scientists, based in large part on the principles of science, and science is why we have become the world's leading economy. So it is shocking to see mainstream politicians denying the validity of science for political reasons -- a practice long associated with authoritarian regimes, not the United States.
Two U.S. senators rebuffed that troubling trend on the floor of the United States senate, in a move that may signal the beginning of a new thaw in the paralysis the United States is facing on climate change and a host of other issues.
Al Franken (D-MN) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) argued that science is the best basis for public policy, a view we haven't heard a lot of in Congress lately, and they blasted fossil fuel industry-funded propaganda on climate change as a major cause. The two senators emphasized the ridiculousness of climate denialism, and the patriotism of science-based policymaking.
Franken on why this is important
"I asked Sheldon to do the colloquy because I saw that too many of my colleagues were either ignoring the science on climate change or flat out dismissing it," Franken told me.
"As a society, we have to understand that science is a way of understanding the truth about the way things actually are in the physical world independent of how we wish they would be, and if we want public policy that actually solves problems we've got to start by basing it on what we know from science."
Scientists are our best allies
Franken began by reminding colleagues that scientists are their best allies. "Scientists are the people who gave us antibiotics, for example," he said. "Do you like being able to use antibiotics? Well, then, thank scientists."
If we are to progress as a country, he told senators, "we better put science right at the center of our decision-making. Yet, right now, foundations and think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry are spreading misinformation about the integrity of climate science." Franken said that "Ignoring or flat out contradicting what climate scientists are telling us about the warming climate and the warming planet can lead to really bad decisions on national energy and environmental policies here in Congress."
Climate change is real, despite the Twinkie Doctor
Franken and Whitehouse both scoffed at the idea that there was any real doubt about man-made climate change, which at least 97% of climate scientists say is occurring. Imagine, Franken said, that you went to a doctor who said you're horribly overweight, you have to start exercising and lose 300 pounds or you're going to die. You say thanks, but I want a second opinion. The next doctor tells you the same thing, and the next and the next. Finally you have, ridiculously, gone to 24 doctors who all say the same thing. "The 25th doctor says 'It is a good thing you came to me, because all this diet and exercise would have been a complete waste. You are doing fine. Those other doctors are in the pockets of the fresh fruit and vegetable people.' He says 'Enjoy life, eat whatever you want, keep smoking, and watch a lot of TV. That is my advice.' Then you learn the doctor was paid a salary by the makers of Twinkies, which, don't get me wrong, are a delicious snack food and should be eaten in moderation. Am I making sense here?"
Whitehouse listed corporations and phony-science front groups that have been spending billions of dollars to influence congress and public opinion with phony science and propaganda.
"As Senator Franken has pointed out," Whitehouse said, "despite the efforts to mislead and create doubt, the jury is not out on whether climate change is happening and being caused by man-made carbon pollution; the verdict is, in fact, in, and the verdict is clear."
Climategate-gate
The senators attacked what they called "climategate-gate," the illegal hacking of thousands of private emails of climate scientists. Climate deniers posted them on the internet in an attempt to confuse the press and draw attention away from the peer-reviewed science of fifty years that shows the climate is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are the principle cause.
One famous email from climate scientist Phil Jones referred to his using climate scientist Michael Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.'' Deniers claimed that showed scientists were trying to "trick" the public and "hide the decline" in world temperatures, a claim many media outlets parroted uncritically.
"That sounds very bad," said Franken. "Trick' and 'hide the decline.' That went viral in the conservative media -- evidence that the scientific consensus on climate change was a giant hoax. We had a member of this body who said the science behind this consensus 'is the same science that, through climategate, has been totally rebuffed and is no longer legitimate, either in reality or in the eyes of the American people and the people around the world.'"
But Franken pointed out that by using Mann's "trick" Jones meant he was going to use the most accurate data available. Scientists correlated tree ring density with global annual temperatures, and then used very old trees as a record of temperatures going back 1,000 years. This was the basis for the "Hockey stick" graph Mann and colleagues published in Nature magazine -- "Mike's Nature trick." But after about 1960, because of changes in the atmosphere, the tree ring density was less reliable, so Mann did what any reasonable person would do: he substituted in actual thermometer measurements instead, indicated below in red.
"There are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of measurements of the temperature around the Earth every minute, every day," said Franken. "So this was the 'trick' -- a technique to use the most accurate data available of global temperatures from things, again, called 'thermometers.'"
Whitehouse agreed. "The studies that looked at whether the climate science was phony or whether the climategate scandal was phony have all come down supporting the science and pointing out that climategate should properly be known as climategate-gate because it was the scandal that was phony."
The religious quality of climate denialism
Then Franken and Whitehouse got into the issue that is driving much of the climate problem in politics -- the difference between skepticism and denial.
When I speak to nonpartisan audiences on science and politics I am often confronted by climate deniers, who have come to view climate science not as facts, but as a partisan political position.
They are uniformly emotional as they give me one of several common denialist arguments: the medieval warming period, for example, in which they claim that it was so warm 1,000 years ago that Greenland was green. This is false. Measurements show Greenland's ice cap, which covers about 85% of the island, is hundreds of thousands of years old.
Or they argue that increased solar radiation is causing the warming. This too is false. Satellite measurements taken since the 1970s show that solar radiation has actually slightly declined since then.
As one argument is debunked they move on to any of several other bits of disinformation that have been neatly packaged out of context to fool otherwise smart people. Many of them have been ginned up by the Marshall Institute or the Heartland Institute. In fact, I wrote a book about this mindset, in part, called Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.
I often ask these emotional deniers "how many papers would it take to convince you that the scientific consensus is right?" The answer -- which hangs in their silence for all to see -- is that nothing will convince them because their contrarianism isn't driven by data -- it's driven by belief. They cite the medieval warming period in the same way a fundamentalist might quote a Bible passage.
"Now, let's make a distinction between people who are climate skeptics and people who are climate deniers," said Franken. "This is kind of an important distinction. There is nothing wrong with skepticism. In fact, we love skeptics. Scientists are, by nature, skeptical... On the other hand, a climate denier is someone who would not be convinced no matter how overwhelming the evidence. And, as I pointed out, a lot of these deniers are being paid by polluters to say what they want."
A renewed corporate citizenship
Franken and Whitehouse should be applauded for taking a principled stand for liberty and science, a stand for America's greatest promise and highest aspirations -- and a stand for her children, because while we bicker, the science shows they will pay a mounting price.
But hope is, perhaps, dawning. As Franken is quick to point out, there are several leading US companies who disagree with the disinfomation and propaganda of the fossil fuel companies and their allies. Coco-Cola, for example, says that "The consensus on climate science is increasingly unequivocal -- global climate change is happening and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a crucial factor."
Other reasoned companies include American Electric, Bank of America, Chrysler, Cysco, DuPont, Duke Energy, eBay, Ford, Google, GM, General Electric, John Deere, Nike, Nishiland, PepsiCo, Siemens, Starbucks, Toyota, and Timberland.
A lesson in civics
With a renewed corporate citizenship, and with senate leadership of the kind demonstrated by Franken and Whitehouse, perhaps we can begin to shake loose from the policy paralysis gripping the nation and resume control of our own economic and political agenda -- and with it, our destiny -- on climate and a host of other pressing problems.
Franken and Whitehouse have provided us a lesson in civics.
You can download their entire address here. Franken and Whitehouse have delivered a striking colloquy that is an outstanding resource for civics and science teachers nationwide.
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Visit him at shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
Where do you know that from. The climate model is so complex. It is a thermodynamic equilibrium of so many gases and water vapor and continuously changing emissions. Actually we don't need heavy storms - one minor storm with continuous impact and/or with a domino effect would 'do the job' ( uproot the vegetation and convert large areas into fallow land, subjected to erosion).
In the 500 MYA-CO2/Temp. diagram there are large periods of time during which the million moving average is saturated at 24-25°C. How does the planet look like in that state?
IMV it is something like the planet of Joda (Dagohah) from Star Wars - damp, stuffy, and muggy.
The global annual average surface temperature is a very broad-brush metric. Consider instead something like the average summer temperature in a region instead. In Texas, for example, this average summer temperature typically varies no more than a few degrees. The extreme Texas heat of last summer (or so I heard) was "only" 5 degrees Fahrenheit greater than the average.
Some preliminary studies show the local summer averages, when measured as the number of local standard deviations from the local average (e.g. comparable to saying, "last summer was much hotter than usual") follow a normal curve. That's not surprising; quantities that are the result of many different factors often follow the normal curve.
As global temperatures increase, it surely means local averages are rising somewhere, and in fact it should not be suprising if the result is a steady march to the right of the normal curve of local summer temperatures.
What will be suprising to many people is the result: summer heat that used to occur very rarely will abruptly become very common. If the distribution of all the local summer averages is normal, and the curve is shifting, this effect is basic mathematics.
That's what I see in my crystal ball. How about you?
Answer: more storm energy, heavier rains, stronger ocean currents. For a great kitchen experiment in global warming, put on an open kettle of luke cool water. Then turn on the heat. Depending upon one's powers of observation, there are all sorts of little effects that build up in there. A great observational scientist like Michael Faraday could write a volume on this.
What about rotational storms like tornadoes and hurricanes? The energy goes as the cube of velocity, so the categories of storms aren't going to raise very much. But don't be deceived, these storms will be more destructive.
It's invigorating to have high ranking elected officials speak for The People and The Public Welfare instead of the richest lobbyists.
Keep up the excellent work and hopefully one day all of our elected officials will put the people before profits or their own pockets.
"BP Position on Climate Change
1.Accepts findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2.Requires global collaboration of all parts of society
3.Governments will need to make tough decisions, balancing with growth and energy security issues
4.Policies will be required to drive emission reduction and low carbon technology investment
5.Energy efficiency will reduce use of energy and emission of CO2
6.Innovation required for advanced technologies "
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/china/bpchina_english/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/press_share_0427_EN.pdf
“Global population growth and economic development may double energy demand by 2050. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of people’s needs. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2 emissions, governments and industry will need to work together. As Shell increases its gas and oil production to help meet growing demand, we believe the best way to help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency in our operations.”
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/
"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. Emissions scenarios and results from climate models (see Figure 1) estimate that, without policy intervention, temperatures could increase 1 to 5 º C by 2100.
The IPCC also examined a number of stabilization scenarios in which global emissions grow more slowly, peak and then decline in coming decades. In these scenarios GHG concentrations and projected warming stabilize at levels lower than would be expected without policy intervention. Stabilization scenarios rely on policies that place added costs on GHG emissions to reduce future energy use and stimulate the deployment of more efficient technologies. Scenarios resulting in lower concentrations result in reduced climate risks, but, as described below, they require stronger policy intervention.
GHG stabilization in the policy debate
In recognition that GHG concentrations influence long-term risks from climate change, the climate policy debate has shifted from a focus primarily on targets to limit near-term emissions to also include consideration of long-term emissions pathways that ultimately stabilize GHG concentrations.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt_report.aspx
Jim Mulva, Chairman & CEO, ConocoPhillips
New York, September 22, 2008
"Our Position on Energy and Climate Security
Our company has taken a well-defined position. We are very concerned about the potential impact of climate change. Last year we became the only U.S. integrated energy company to call for a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions.
We now regularly measure and forecast our emissions. We are improving the energy efficiency of our refining, conducting R&D on carbon capture and storage, and producing renewable fuels. We were already a leading producer of natural gas, which is clean-burning and low in carbon.
We also belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. USCAP includes leading businesses and environmental groups that are concerned about climate change. It calls for strong national legislation that would slow, stop and then reverse the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroom/other_resources/pages/cdp_speech_text.aspx
"We are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while expanding our energy supply portfolio to meet the world's energy needs. Chevron climate change advisor Arthur Lee is an expert in carbon capture and storage. He has participated in industry workshops and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
Guided by our Seven Principles for Addressing Climate Change, Chevron is working internationally and at the U.S. federal and state levels to contribute to climate change policy discussions. Our stance reflects a balanced approach to addressing climate change through short- and long-term measures. As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth of the global economy. We believe that a successful climate policy will be one in which the reduction of GHGs is accomplished equitably by the top emitting countries of the world through long-term and coordinated national frameworks."
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
"...The existence of divergence casts doubt on the uniformitarian assumption that underpins a number of important tree-ring based (dendroclimatic) reconstructions..."
Wow. A chief 'scientist' expressing 'doubt' about climate 'assumptions'.
How can that be.
The science is settled.
If the science is settled how can their be any doubt?
An obvious misstatement. It's not climate assumptions, it's paleoclimate assumptions. You understand the difference, don't you, O Frank of the Many Accounts?
And where does this quote come from? It comes from a summary of a major study that Briffa et al are currently in the midst of. They are studying this issue in order to clarify what problems it might present with paleoclimate reconstructions.
This is what scientists do, and what you so-called "skeptics" claim climate scientists never do.
[The science is settled. If the science is settled how can their be any doubt? ]
The FACT that a radical increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase global temperatures and affect global climate is settled. Paleoclimate reconstructions have nothing to do with this.
Shame that the real world doesn't fit your 'fantasy climate world'.
Now you have to get a real job.
Not even very subtle. Just desperate denier tactics by Luchan. Luchan, you got yourself banned just days ago, and here you are right back at it. Who do you work for? Heartland? SPPI? CATO?
At least Fleischman and Pons HAD all of their data and released all of it along with their actual methods so that other 'scientists' could PROVE that cold fusion was, how do I put this delicately, not based upon sound scientific methods and principals.
The reason that Phil Jones refuses to release the details of his work are as follows:
a)primarily because he no longer has the algorithms and methods that he used to adjust the data. He has admitted deleting them because he thought ‘he would never need them’.
b) even if he could release them, he is obviously afraid that the scientific community as a whole will determine that his ‘methods’ for adjusting station data won’t meet even the most rudimentary of scientific standards.
As a result, ‘non-believers’ in the Church of Climatology, are now left to accept your supposed truth that ‘current global warming is unprecedented’ based on ‘faith’ that the good Dr. Jones got it right.
Sorry, I’m an atheist in your Church of Climatology.
Much like you refuse to have ‘faith’ in God, we simply don't have ‘faith’ in your climate gods.
We demand a validation of Dr. Jones and his conclusions. Unfortunately, you nor Dr. Jones can provide ANY proof.
Maybe the drought in Texas is because GOD is punishing them for voting in Republicans.
http://whitesharktrust.org/pages/surfshooter.html
Best to count its teeth before taking action to avoid it, don't you think?
(Ask Al Franken if you do not understand.)
Oh well, so much for using 'science' to base policy on.
No one ever said the IPCC was based on science anyway. The IPCC is a political organization that authors a report that is only loosely based upon science.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/16/thirty-three-temperature-update-well-bel
Roy Spencer incorrectly analyzed NASA satellite temperature data for years until corrected by independent scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://tinyurl.com/5r47ed
Roy Spencer has been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/spencer-braswell-2011-proof-that-global-warming-is-exaggerated-or-just-bad-science/
Roy Spencer is a Board member of Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which preaches that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming:
-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...
We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (pdf)
Roy Spencer is a Creationist.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
Roy Spencer's repeated failures to have climate science conform to his fundamentalist religious beliefs notwithstanding, climate science deniers parrot what Roy Spencer says with zero skepticism.
Senators Franken and Whitehouse describe in detail the way the deniers behave and the reasons their many arguments don't hold water. Then in the comments the deniers respond by behaving exactly as the senators have described and use exactly the arguments that were just debunked.
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The deniers are unswayed because they have been effectively targeted by the most effective PR campaign in history. The fossil fuel lobby's PR campaign to deny climate change targets a conservative, authoritarian, me-first mindset and taps into decades of propaganda from the right wing. I love this quote from Jim Hoggan:
There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.
And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.
That’s what is happening today, and I think it’s a disgrace.
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam