Dr. Harrison Schmitt and Dr. William Happer attack science... again

The crazy-making never seems to end.  When ideology blinds rationality it's an ugly thing as we can witness in the latest 
(May 9th, 2013) broadside from Dr. Harrison Schmitt and Dr. William Happer, at the ever ready to mislead Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed pages {also here, here, here, to mention a few.}

It's another example of contrarian science in a vacuum - where you can get away with writing a bunch of impressive sounding stuff and present it to under-educated, politically scared people, desperate for soothing news, and ready to embrace anything that gives them the answers they want - rather than the truth they need.

Now if Schmitt and Happer had something serious to offer, they would write up a paper and have it published in a professional scientific journal where experts could judge the merits of the claims made.  But, they've never done that, believing that past glories is all it takes to establish their legitimacy.

Instead they write an op-ed filled with so much misdirection and misrepresentations we can drive a high school science class through it.  I don't have that, but I do have a review from those reporters of climate science over at SkepticalScience.com which is worth sharing.

With no further ado, I present a serious evaluation of their May 9th, 2013 article: 

Schmitt and Happer manufacture doubt (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 15 May 2013 by Dumb Scientist Dr. Harrison Schmitt and Dr. William Happer, who have scientific backgrounds but are not climate scientists, just wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. Despite their claims, global warming continues. This continued warming is confirmed by GRACE,…

---

'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.

No Need to Panic About AGW ~ important LINKS

This latest tiff regarding Wall Street Journal’s shameful distortion of science centers around a lead letter printed January 27, 2012 and signed by a collection of sixteen engineers and scientists titled:   “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop 
It repeats the “free-market think-tank” claims that there's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

In doing research on the signees I’ve come across an assortment of rebuttals to the various misleading and outright false claims made in the letter from a variety of sources. This post is a collection of those varied rebuttals.

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}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~