Swift Boating the Truth
by BradfordMichelle Malkin wrote All the president’s ClimateGate deniers. The reaction of too many politicians and scientists (the distinctions blur when the latter group becomes political) to ClimateGate has been to ignore or deny a credibility problem. Malkin:
My syndicated column today looks at the global warming cultists in the Obama administration who are working overtime to paper over the ClimateGate scandal.
Cultists are those for whom global warming has become more than a climate issue. For them it's a movement that has all the trappings of the political climate currently pervading Washington. It's an opportunity to adopt a feel good moral position necessitating little self-sacrifice but requiring much from others. You can rail at all the bigs- big business, big corporations, big money and probably include big Pharm and big insurance for good measure. Every big except big gov. There has to be a sacred cow somewhere and you don't want to defecate on a source of funding.
Where are the concerns about integrity? If upcoming investigations show culpability or indicate that the portfolios of climate researchers are heavily weighted toward enterprises, whose profits are enhanced by fudged figures, then we should be treated to some moral outrage coming from the research community. But don't hold your breath and don't be surprised if you see wagons circling.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
LOL. There's a book out now with Swift Boating in the title.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Left-Swiftboated-America-Conspiracy/dp/0061792896/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
Comment by Mung — December 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
I will start believing there's something to all of the global warming hullabaloo when the celebrities who are so self-righteous about it begin to flee their soon-to-be-underwater Malibu mansions.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 3, 2009 @ 12:12 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
angryoldfatman:
Match up actions with values. So far what we see is a response by establishment politicians and the better part of the scientific community indicating that a hidden agenda is fine as long as it aligns with the preferred ideology.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 1:37 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
(Psst. They hid the data here.
Briffa et al., Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes, Nature 1998.
Dastardly. No one will ever think to look there.)
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 8:41 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
How many climate researchers have been messing with the numbers?
Since in any given situation, we can always count on there being at least a few people willing to be dishonest or greedy or… etc, the issue to me doesn't seem to be "integrity" at all (and I'm not sure what that even means really), but instead that we should work at creating a better process that disarms these tendencies. which leads me to my next comment…
How do you suggest we organize the complex beast that is human society so that we can have oversight on issues that effect massive amounts of individuals who don't really want to do anything to fix the problem cause they don't see that it will ever effect them? An unaccountable unelected purpose-is-profit organization doesn't seem as decent to me as an accountable elected purpose-is-policy organization. Sure, you'll still get those same few people willing to be dishonest or greedy in both cases, but at least in the second organization, we can road-block them a little. I don't see why anyone would choose big business over big government. Anything other way to organize things?
Seriously Bradford, what are you trying to get at with these posts, that some scientists haven't had strong enough emotional reactions to climategate as you'd like? If so, what do you see as the appropriate emotional reaction to these events?
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 10:09 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
dantedanti:
They each have their roles to play but the latter should be kept small. The latter has amassed too much power at the expense of individual Americans. Big (and small) businesses incidentally, not only bankroll themselves and their employees, they foot the bill for governmental expenditues as well. That ought to tell you who generates real wealth.
It's not about the science. It's about leftist ideology. If it were strictly about science the scandel would be condemned and not reluctantly. If it were really about science the focus would be on the scientific data relevant to predicted legislative solutions and not on repetitive global warming slogans.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 10:32 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Here's a statement for you Zachriel. True or false:
The melting of Antarctic ice can be attributed to an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 10:35 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
I should have added one more thing to the dantedanti response. One reason the blogosphere has devoted the attention it has to ClimateGate is that the mainstream media is not doing its job. Journalism has been compromised.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 10:50 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Antarctic ice shelves are becoming unstable. Snowfall is apparently increasing in some areas and not others. Most models have predicted increased snowfall mitigating some of the expected rise in sea levels, but the models just don't have the precision necessary to resolve these questions.
There are a large number of open questions with regards to climate change. Though it is clear the globe is warming, regional effects are much more difficult to determine. The Earth is in the midst of a great extinction event, and climate change will accelerate this process. That doesn't mean the extinction of humanity. They'll adapt (unless mass migration leads to germ warfare or something).
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 11:19 am
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I don't really have a stand on the Global Warming Issue. I just find it interesting that a conservative would use the term "swiftboating the truth." Apparently this is an admission that the Republican sponsored accusations leveled against Kerry were false. A little late, but glad to hear it.
Comment by Bilbo — December 3, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The disparity in proxy tree-ring data is not in question. It is the selective use and non-use of tree-ring data when it suits an agenda.
Lord Monckton put it this way.
Comment by chunkdz — December 3, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
This site throws in some light about Climategate:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/missing-the-main-arguments.html
Comment by neddy — December 3, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Assume for the sake of argument that AGW is true. (I, mean. It has to be true, right?)
How do we get from is to ought, and what does that have to do with science?
Comment by Mung — December 3, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Thank you Mung. I've been trying to point out to the GWers that besides the honesty issue there is another one which has to do with connecting the dots to show that proposed legislation would reverse global warming. If you assume GW, for the sake of argument, you still need to make a separate case, based on different data, showing that proposed policy changes would alter climate.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
BTW Bilbo, in addition to the honesty issue swift boating has become a metaphor for a destructive political tactic. Destroying the political viability of a candidate or an idea can be a form of swift boating. As Mung pointed out there is a book published which uses the term in its title. I believe its author's views are to the right of center.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Bradford,
You didn't really seem to actually answer my questions, and even skipped over one. So, I'm going to repeat them a little in the hopes of getting answers.
you seem to give the impression that this issue involves a vast majority of scientists. Perhaps you do not mean to imply this, but I'll ask again, how many climate researchers have been messing with the numbers?
That wasn't a quote, but I blocked it off anyway.
Now, now. I don't think you're playing fair here. First you sound the integrity alarm, then you say well, really you're sick of leftist ideology and sloganeering. Every side and issue has ideology-mongers and slogan-runners…
It seems to me that basically you just don't like what the other side has to say, period. I don't seem much content in your recent posts aside from this. I like you Bradford, really. I just see these posts as slightly ideologue-mongering on your part… sorry. Seriously, that's said out of love.
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
theres something wrong with the posting, always wants to screw up the order of my new posts, this is one of them
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
another screwed up post
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Tree-ring density data is consistent with temperature until the last few decades, then it diverges for reasons unrelated to temperature.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
From shared values.
A warming globe will disrupt agriculture, cause flooding of coastal areas, change disease patterns, and lead to widespread extinction. Different areas of the globe will be affected differently, but large populations of humans may be forced to migrate. This will further stress ecosystems, economy, agriculture, the social fabric.
To avoid this human suffering, there are a number of reasonable measures that can be taken.
Science is the imperfect tool used to predict the effects of various actions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
dantedanti:
There are investigations underway. Let's await the results.
The government has an obvious role as I already indicated. But before the government acts to restrict liberty it needs a compelling case for action which includes the proposed remedies. We do not have that with GW. There is an inadequate match-up of data to legislative solutions touted as climate changers.
Not quite. I'm asking for what is falsely claimed to have been provided. More below.
There is a way to put this to the test. I have asked repeatedly at TT and at Tom Gilson's blog for one very reasonable missing piece of information namely, data which establishes a scientific case for the effectiveness of proposed legislative solutions like Cap and Trade and various international agreements. My requests have been ignored. Instead global warming advocates repeat that data has shown a warming trend. I'm willing to stipulate that but am unwilling to suspend critical judgment of proposed solutions. Non-critical endorsement of governmental policies in the absence of solid supporting data for its provisions can only be justified by ideological allegiance brought into the discussion at the outset. Blind allegiance makes supporting data unnecessary.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Then clearly tree ring data is not a reliable indicator of temperature.
Comment by chunkdz — December 3, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Bradford,
Ever heard of the cap-and-trade program in the states called the Acid Rain Program? please browse via http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progress/arp07.html Was that a limitation of your "liberties" too?
pwned
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
From dantedanti's link:
This serves to make the point I've argued for. Data is cited showing results expressed in tonnage and percentage. That's the type of result I'm looking for with GW legislation. Statistics, climate change data and a correlation between the two. In addition there should be sunset provisions at reasonable points in the future allowing for continued testing and reevaluations based on those test results. Climate change is a huge undertaking never attempted before. Proceeding with it without continued reexamination of data and readiness to adjust legislation accordingly is irresponsible.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
im lost… so did i pwn you or not, and if not, how did i fail?
Comment by dantedanti — December 3, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
JJS, that merits an echo on this thread.
From: here
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The data concerning climate change is found in journals. You've been pointed to a number of studies. The effectiveness of market-based solutions at reducing emissions has been demonstrated with other pollutants.
Here are some graphs that might make the predictions based on human responses (scenarios) easier to understand.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Which sidesteps my point. C&T utilizes taxes and other measures to discourage CO2 emissions. What journal correlates a tax rate to climate change?
Then I take it you agree that the predictive models represented in graphs that extend to the year 2100 should be tested against actual data and legislation based on those predictions revised accordingly. All the more imperative to not make predictive models foundations for laws but rather provisional guides for laws that sunset. For as Professor Hulme rightly observed:
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
You're not making any sense. There is a cap on total emissions. Those are the numbers used to generate climate predictions.
Of course. The science indicates that stronger action sooner will have the most benefit. If that prediction changes, then legislation should reflect the then current science. However, conservation and green energy have their own benefits beyond protecting the environment.
The entire energy infrastructure will have to be updated, a process that will probably take generations. Sunset provisions would be a poor solution. However, laws can be changed or modified as required.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I'm not referring to Cap and Trade policy but to climate legislation, known as Waxman-Markey which passed the House in June. 300 pages of the 1500 page bill were added in the morning on the day of the vote. In what is becoming a tradition it was voted on by those who did not read it. The Congressional Budget Office indicated it will cost $175 per household not the $100 figure reported in a Yahoo article. The CBO did not factor decreases in gross domestic product in their assessment. Higher energy prices are a tax in my book.
What specific climate predictions would result from the bill's enactment into law and why would this be preferable to a Copenhagen Treaty that would apply to the industrialized world as opposed to the USA?
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Sunsets are routinely used with tax laws. Why not with science based bills since data fluctuates?
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This is interesting. Climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimated that the impact of Waxman-Markey would mean a temperature reduction measured within hundredths of a degree by 2050. Not a big bang for the buck.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Waxman-Markey is a Cap and Trade Bill. I already pointed you to the EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey, so don't say that your requests have been ignored.
If the United States is the only nation that control emissions then the result would be minimal. Duh. If someone upstream dumps filth into the river, it doesn't matter how careful the people are downstream. The solution requires a political, as well as a technical, solution.
In May, Knappenberger said, "If supporters of large greenhouse gas emissions restrictions were really interested in 'saving the world,' they would be putting all of their effort into getting China and India to buy into their plan." And, of course, immediately after Obama's state visit, China pledged to dramatically reduce emissions.
Leadership from the developed nations is essential. By cutting their own emissions, they will create the new technologies the developing nations will need to continue their industrial growth while minimizing damage to the climate.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Waxman-Markey would only be binding on the USA. Double duh.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 12:11 am
December 4th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Most other developed nations have already taken steps to rein in their emissions. The United States has tended to avoid their responsibility, having already contributed about a quarter to total greenhouse gases over the last century or so. The point of contention is whether developing nations should be allowed to catch up by dumping as much per capita as the developed nations did. Unfortunately, this is a prescription for climatic disaster.
It will take international cooperation. The question is whether nations will continue to make excuses for inaction.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2009 @ 8:47 am
December 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
That's fear mongering. We do not know that based on the inexact science that is climatology. In any case with Copenhagen right around the corner passing ineffective Waxman-Markey legislation is a further indicator to the rest of us that science is not driving the movement. The lack of concern over the email disclosures is another indicator.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Calm down. The earth actually had a greater degree of global warming back in the middle ages – this didn't cause any "extinction event". The climate goes through various cycles. Ice ages, warm trends, etc. Right now the earth is cooling slightly.
Relax and enjoy it!
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
A warming globe will, at the least, disrupt agriculture and cause changes in the patterns of disease and infestation. Perhaps you define disaster differently. To avoid this human suffering, there are a number of reasonable measures that can be taken.
Completely ignoring the point raised. Perhaps if you restate the argument, it might focus your response.
There should be accountability. Nothing provided so far changes the underlying conclusions which have been confirmed by independent researchers.
Not necessarily (medieval warming may have been localized due to changes in ocean currents, rather than global in scope), but the issue isn't the current temperature, but the projected temperatures due to anthropomorphic climate change in a much more crowded world.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Yeah, I do. The WTC was a disaster. It actually took place. Assumptions of climate disasters based on predictions extending to 2100 are uncertain. There's a huge difference in the scenarios.
It's very simple. In a short time Obama will be headed to Copenhagen with opportunities to come to reasonable agreements which include China and India. There is no point to ineffective legislation preceding Copenhagen.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
It's not an assumption, but a scientific prediction based on multiple lines of evidence.
Waxman-Markey isn't law.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I received the following in an email. The author is Ben Lieberman and the issue is China and policies regarding climate:
We're dealing with ideologues on the American side who have tunnel vision on climate issues. As one prominent Democrat said during the Clinton years:
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
If it is not falsifiable by future data it is unscientific.
Thank God for that.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
That's before any cuts in emissions by China.
Of course they will. That's the whole point.
China does recognize the climate problem, but believe they have as much right to dump into the atmosphere as developed nations. As the United States has dumped 25% of current excess CO2 into the atmosphere over the last century or so in order to achieve its level of prosperity, China argues that it is fair that they be able to dump at least that much because of their much larger population.
China and other countries have a reasonable expectation of growth. The transition is going to be difficult for highly technological nations. It will be even more so for those nations just beginning their industrialization.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
And it may have been worldwide as some have suggested.
Yep. That's the issue.
The Earth is cooling right now. Has been for over a decade. The models that you refer to aren't even able to predict the present, much less centuries ahead.
Let's keep studying, keep learning, and eventually we may be able to predict climate trends with some degree of precision. Until then, eat, drink, experiment, and be merry!
(Oh, and keep the politics out of science!)
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Zachriel:
You've done a good job of explaining why we should be indulgent toward China's desire to maintain its CO2 output. I'm not surprised. But climate change should not be about apologizing for America. The provisions of any treaty are meaningless unless the earth's emerging industrial giant (China) is not fully on board. More evidence that the climate issue is political and not scientific.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
December 4th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
You might try to acknowledge China's point of view. Neverthless, China has a responsibility to work to contain global climate change.
After Obama's state visit, China pledged itself to substantial reductions. It will required continued effort to forge legally binding agreements.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Which is they should be allowed to play catch-up and not be held to the same standards or that if they are, they will not enforce those standards. The Chinese are not known for respecting constitutional mandates.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2009 @ 12:05 am
December 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
You have not fairly characterized their view. They believe it is a different standard to have allowed the West to industrialize by emitting carbon, then suddenly decide other countries can't do the same.
The Chinese do abide as well as most countries with international agreements on which they depend to maintain their economic engagement with the world.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2009 @ 10:58 am
December 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Zachriel:
Either this is a crisis or it is not one. If there is a crisis then the Chinese will have to clean up their manufacturing mechanisms along with the rest of the world. Their late entry into the industrialization process has some advantages. The longer these exchanges go on the more apparent it is that political rather than scientific concerns are the driving force behind policy makers and their supporters.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Of course they will. However, no progress can be made while ignoring reasonable concerns, including sustainable economic development.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The Chinese have continued to amass wealth during this contemporary economically depressed time. Their economic performance is better than Europe and better than that of the USA. Your depiction of a concern is subjective and political. My concern is jobs for American workers and a growing economy.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yes, but they are far less well-off than those in developed countries.
Bully for you.
But long term economic prosperity depends on limiting damage to the climate. That depends on international cooperation. And that depends on recognizing the concerns of various nations, including jobs in the U.S. and development in China.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Zachriel:
Let us know all the political compromises needed to further the science of climate reversal.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The science of climate change is the result of empirical studies. The political compromises will be negotiated and renegotiated by the world's people over the next years and generations.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
December 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Yes, apparently some very bad ones!
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2009 @ 6:32 pm