'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look.

It's ironic that I know this Roger Cohen fellow, who's become a regular at the Wall Street Journal's OpEd page, and one of the three signees of the most recent example of Wall Street Journal's disregard for honesty and scientific integrity. He used to do lectures around town and he's very good at ignoring the science when presented to him - while continuing to repeat dishonest spins on what climatologists have been learning and observing.  In fact, Roger was instrumental in my become more activist and vocal about the lies being spread by folks who's only real interest is in protecting profits.

Thus, I dedicate this repost of a Skeptical Science article to another one of the over the hill cold-warriors who'd rather stick to ancient dogmas and who display a contemptible disregard for what we are doing to our children's future -

Here's to you my pal Roger Cohen, you old fraud.

=========================================

The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 24 July 2012 by Andy S One of the perennial Skeptical Science top ten climate myths is “There is no consensus” (currently at number 4 in popularity). Consensus means the elements of knowledge that research scientists tend not to discuss or actively investigate any more. Consensus is…

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong - PhD. Nordhaus corrects the WSJ 16

Not long ago I wrote about the Wall Street Journal’s latest action in their ongoing attack on science, a letter signed by sixteen over-inflated global warming contrarians.  My list of their lies can be found here.  In any event the WSJ letter included false claims regarding William Nordhaus’s work and conclusions.  

It turns out PhD. Nordhaus was not amused by the deception. He has recently published an excellently detailed review of the nonsense Lindzen, Happer and the other crazy-makers are trying to feed our politicians..  It appears in The New York Review of Books

In this continuing series of excellent and timely Denialgate articles I'm featuring a portion of Professor Nordhaus' article.   The words are untouched, the formatting is all mine. ;-)


I’m skipping a good deal of the article and focusing on the last of six points Nordhaus established.  It focused on the WSJ letter’s falsehoods regarding Professor Nordhaus’ own work.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
William D. Nordhaus
(scroll to the bottom for a short bio)

“{...}
. . . (what) I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets.

Then, I saw an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012, by a group of sixteen scientists, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” . . .

The basic message of the article is that the globe is not warming, that dissident voices are being suppressed, and that delaying policies to slow climate change for fifty years will have no serious economic or environment consequences.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.  [.1]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Professor Nordhaus identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and provides commentary about their substance and accuracy.
They are:

• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

{He goes on to explain. } 

   "... of these questions, the sixteen scientists provide incorrect or misleading answers. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, they have muddied the waters.   I will describe their mistakes and explain the findings of current climate science and economics.{...}

written by Dr. William D. Nordhaus
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


# 6.
A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:

“A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.”

On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums,   [.10]

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification.

Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.

The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. 

—February 22, 2012

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/#fn-1


Excepts from:

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
William D. Nordhaus
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/biosketch1.htm
William D. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Completed his undergraduate work at Yale University in 1963 and received his Ph.D. in Economics in 1967 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA.
Has been on the faculty of Yale University since 1967 and has been Full Professor of Economics since 1973.
Is also Professor in Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

It's Time That Climate-Change Deniers Were Exposed ~ David Suzuki

Getting caught up on the news this morning I read David Suzuki's article 
"It's Time That Climate-Change Deniers Were Exposed."  
It's another original that deserves to be added to this collection.  
His refreshing appraisal of Heartland Institute’s handling of this affair was an excellent counterbalance to the onslaught of the professional HI PR juggernaut and incidentals like Bud Ward’s nose dive over at Yale Forum.

Once again I tried grabbing key paragraphs, and once again, it don't work. 
With a twinge of trepidation {in advance, thank you David Suzuki} here is another essential-reading 
article for students of:

~ Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial ~
 
Chapter - Heartland Institute Mindset...  
Sub-heading - Puzzling over Heartland Institute's disconnect from our planet's realities? . . . 
{dare I say their Willful Ignorance? . . .}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's time that climate-change deniers were exposed

By  David Suzuki,  ~ February 21, 2012 ~ David Suzuki Foundation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

When hackers broke into an Internet server at East Anglia University in the U.K. and selectively released massive amounts of correspondence from the world’s leading climate scientists, folks at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute were quick to exploit it.

Heartland president Joseph Bast wrote: “The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position.”

He may have been correct, although “reconfirm” would have been a better word than “reconsider” as seven independent investigations cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing and confirmed the credibility of their research.

Now the tables have been turned on the libertarian “charitable” organization, which devotes its resources to questioning the reality of climate change and the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke, among other issues.

Heartland is just one of many organizations dedicated to spreading doubt and confusion about legitimate science. These groups share a lack of transparency and an agenda to promote corporate interests at the expense of human health, the environment, and even the economy (if we believe the economy should function primarily in the interests of citizens rather than corporations).

Recently, someone—since identified as climate scientist Peter Gleick—sent documents from the Heartland Institute’s board of directors’ January 17 meeting to a number of people and organizations, including Desmog Blog, a website devoted to exposing the spin around climate change denial. The documents confirm much of what we already knew about Heartland, although they provide interesting details about its connections and motives.

Not surprisingly, the Heartland people don’t see this as “an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others” to learn more about the secretive group’s agenda. Instead, Heartland posted a statement on its website saying, “honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours.”

Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, including the David Suzuki Foundation, the Heartland Institute doesn’t publicly reveal information about where it gets its money and what it does with it.

These documents indicate that Heartland has offered U.S. weatherman blogger and climate change denier Anthony Watts close to $90,000 for a new project. They also reveal that Heartland funds other prominent deniers, including “Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals..."

The papers also confirm that the institute’s primary mission is to discredit the established science of human-caused climate change. And even though it has received funding from wealthy individuals and corporations in the fossil fuel and tobacco industries, including the Koch brothers and RJR Tobacco, it gets most of its money from a single anonymous donor, who has ponied up as much as $4.6 million in a single year, 2008.

If these groups were truly engaged in questioning the science, using valid scientific methods and principles, it wouldn’t be a problem. Science is strengthened through scrutiny and challenges; that’s how it works, and that’s what the peer-review process is about. But these organizations are engaged in secretive and dishonest lobbying and public relations efforts aimed at stalling measures to protect the environment and health.

Gleick has admitted that he made a mistake in posing as someone else to obtain the documents. The unidentified East Anglia hackers were also wrong to have stolen the emails, and the Heartland Institute is wrong when it lies about the most serious threat to humanity.

Three wrongs don’t make a right, but there are some differences. In the East Anglia case, the investigations turned on those who were hacked and ultimately proved that the climate scientists, although human, are engaged in sound and verifiable science and that they have been subjected to years of harassment and bullying for their work. The Heartland documents show that the organization is using its taxpayer-supported status to spread lies and misinformation.

It’s about time these “merchants of doubt” were exposed. It’s time to get back to real science as practiced by scientists. We must get beyond the false debate about the reality of climate change and into the real debate about what to do about it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.straight.com/article-612156/vancouver/david-suzuki-its-time-climatechange-deniers-were-exposed

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation
Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Text is 100% David Suzuki, formatting is all mine.  ;-)

Climate Denial In The Classroom ~ LATimes Editorial

News packed days.  
Unfortunately most people don't care and the media is doing little to change that.  
That's why I'm thinking, Jeez someone should be bearing witness.  

For the record after I posting the text of an article, I send the authors an email with a link.  Response has been supportive, no one has asked me to remove my reproductions of their work and I'm encouraged to continue, so, here it is.

I'm starting to think this may turn into a running feature, at least while the DenialGate things is running hot.  A select collection of timely articles. With the passage of months, it'll become a record of these events as they unfolded. The following is highlights from an LA Times editorial:

====================================================

LA Times Editorial ~ February 20, 2012

Climate denial in the classroom
It's bad enough that we're doing so little to fight climate change; let's not ask teachers to lie about it too.

The culture wars {...} The latest skirmish, by contrast, is centered on a scientific issue that has nothing to do with religious teaching: climate change.

{...} Heartland Institute in Chicago, one of many nonprofits that spread disinformation about climate science in hopes of stalling government action to combat global warming, reveal that the organization is working on a curriculum for public schools that casts doubt on the work of climatologists worldwide. Heartland officials say one of the documents was a fake, {...}. According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, {...} "whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy."


{...}

On one side of the "controversy" are credentialed climatologists around the globe who publish in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals and agree that the planet is warming and that humans are to blame; on the other are fossil-fuel-industry-funded "experts" who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truths. These are quickly debunked, but not before their findings have been reported by conservative blogs and news outlets, which somehow never get around to mentioning it when these studies are proved to be badly flawed.

{...} battle over classroom instruction {...} won't go on for decades, {...} impacts {...} already patently obvious. 

Seven of the 10 warmest years since global record-keeping began in 1880 have occurred in the 21st century. {...} Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which shows that temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century soared to their highest level in 1,000 years, {...} validated repeatedly.

 Last year set a record for the most climate-related disasters in the United States costing more than $1 billion in damage each — drought-fueled wildfires in Texas, Hurricane Irene, and Mississippi River flooding were among the 14 cases.

{...}
Sophisticated climate models show {...} going to get a lot worse. 
It's bad enough {...} gambling our children's futures {...} doing so little {...} fight this problem.

Let's not ask their teachers to lie to them about it too.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LA Times Editorial ~ February 20, 2012
Climate denial in the classroom

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-climate-20120220,0,3564279.story

{selections are unaltered, my emphasis & formatting}:

Heroes and Zeroes In The Heartland, by Steve Zwick

 

     In catching up on the news and Peter Gleick revealing himself as receiver of the Heartland Institute's "DenialGate" documents. 

     I was reading this article written by Steve Zwick and thought: man this guy really nailed it.  I've gone through it a couple times now, trying to cut out highlights to post here, but it's too good, in one piece.

     It deserves to be echoed in its entirety.  I didn't change any wording. But I have taken over formatting, all highlights and colors reflect my reading, and I've added some extra links to relevant information.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
Heroes and Zeroes In The Heartland: 

Why Gleick Was Right To Leak the Docs

Murdoch Media Ignores DenialGate News

 The following appeared at the  http://www.science20.com/chatter_box 

column by Patrick Lockerby.  I found it so relevant I've decided to print all of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Heartland Institute And Murdoch Media

By Patrick Lockerby | February 20th 2012 08:32 PM |

The Chatter Box

The Heartland Institute and Murdoch Media

The Heartland Institute story broke on February 14th.  The revelation that anti-science bunkum has been funded by corporate dollars was no surprise to those of us who have been investigating these propaganda mills.  Peter H Gleik has confirmed that he was the one who obtained the secret documents.  In confirming that he got them straight from the Heartland Institute he also confirms their authenticity.

The world at large also needs to know that Rupert Murdoch's media empire - which often cites the Heartland Institute as a source for "climate science" - has managed to block publication of anything relating to this denialgate story in all but two of its outlets.

WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part two)

Regarding the substance of the Wall Street Journal’s letter “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” signed by 16 supposedly “prominent scientists”

The letter can be found at here.

{Below the letter’s text is in black, with my comments in blue.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶ one:
Yet, if this is the case then way could they only muster 16 signees?  Worse only two have actual climatology experience and seven of the sixteen are directly connected to right-wing think tanks that actively opposed any action to address Anthropogenic Global Warming on economic grounds.

{please do read on}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Expert Credibility in Climate Change

It was suggested* I share this abstract from a study surveying publications by active climatologists. 
I think it's a good suggestion so here it is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:

{Published online before print June 21, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.
1003187107 PNAS June 21, 2010 }