The Climate Skeptic Playbook
The Climate Skeptic Playbook
Jason Steort’s “clarification” of his misleading National Review cover story is accompanied by a letter-to-the-editor by Pat Michaels. Mr. Michaels is the one who told Steorts that 2002 was a “high-water mark for Antarctic ice†based on a grossly inaccurate interpretation of a study by Curt Davis.
In his letter, Michaels backs away from that claim, but offers a new argument:
Every modern climate model predicts that Antarctica will gain ice in the 21st century, resulting in a slight lowering of sea levels (which will, nonetheless, be largely compensated for as slightly warmer surface temperatures cause ocean waters to expand).
This argument is technically correct, but highly misleading.
Most of the ice loss in Antarctica is occurring in the coast. It’s not happening in a regular, linear fashion that can be captured by existing models. As a result, most of this ice loss is getting missed by the models. Richard Alley, who is writing the upcoming IPCC report on these issues, explains in a 2005 paper published in Science magazine:
[T]he models used in these projections lack some of the physical processes that might explain the rapid rates of ongoing coastal changes and lack the oceanic forcing responsible for inducing these changes…
Michaels’ shift is a good example of how climate skeptics operate. Throw out an argument and see what happens. If that doesn’t work, try something else. The goal here is not to win the argument, but just to keep things in doubt.
Fight back with the facts. Pledge to see An Inconvenient Truth:
(Note: Even if you’ve already seen the film, make sure to pledge and be counted.)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We went to see An Inconvenient Truth last night. I live in a blue zone of a red state in the south. Tuesday evening in the summer - one wouldn’t necessarily expect a big crowd, but the theater was packed (and it was not opening night for the film locally).
The movie is excellent. Every poster here should see it if they get a chance.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:34 amI just pledged. No sign of the movie in my area yet, but I have hope!
June 21st, 2006 at 10:36 amNew web page for me from now on.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:36 amI wonder if they will say the same things AFTER this hurricane season…
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
June 21st, 2006 at 10:38 amThe government run by Rove and Co. does the same thing. A big part of Rove’s strategy is the use of confusion. He distracts and destroys. He keeps the fires stoked..keeps libs and cons fighting. You know how our government sends in destablizing forces to third world countries to overthrow governments we don’t like from the inside? That’s what our government is doing to the American people. Count on it. A weakened populace is more easily controlled. How do you think all this hatred between right and left has blossomed so beautifully. We had help folks….BushCo. It’s in their interest that we fight because our force is in our unitiy as Americans, not our divisions. You think chimpy and friends don’t know this? Sometimes I wonder, seriously, just how organized the troll force on liberal blogs is for example. Disrupt, confuse and destroy. Much more than half the time the trolls are just spouting vulgar provocative stuff. From this administration….nothing about building, solving domestic problems together, - help for the middle class. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THIS PRESIDENT ASK THE CONS AND LIBS TO STOP FIGHTING? NO. THEY DON’T WANT THAT. Remember all those presidential speeches in the past about Americans coming together, sacrifice for all Americans…etc? We don’t hear that anymore….just FEAR FEAR FEAR. Bush has punked us folks - turned us on each other. The laugh is on us.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:42 amI won’t be seeing it. We have one theater with two screens in this town.
But I’ll be buying the DVD.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:43 amDoes this Steort guy ever tire of TP calling him out? Apparently he has no pride.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:47 amGlobal warming is mostly bad. I do like that we don’t get as much snow up in Minnesota the last 6 years though. Plowing snow sucks!
June 21st, 2006 at 10:47 amYou know, I am no big fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I will say this for him. at least he is leading the great State of California in reducing emissions. He seems devoted to this whole issue and for that I am grateful. Maybe there is hope after all. I just learned that he will be backing Diane Feinstein instead of the republican candidate (don’t remember his name).
June 21st, 2006 at 10:48 amI also don’t know who the skeptic “climate scientists” who write for the National Review are, but for me, I tend to pay attention to the EXPERTS, with CREDENTIALS.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:51 amA weakened populace is more easily controlled. How do you think all this hatred between right and left has blossomed so beautifully…Bush has punked us folks - turned us on each other. The laugh is on us.
Comment by s — June 21, 2006 @ 10:42 am
agree - and want to add: even the “left” has been divided, this talk of 3rd party at a time like this can only benefit the riechwing interests…
June 21st, 2006 at 10:52 amIf you have a warmer atmosphere, it will hold more water vapor. Hence, there will be an increase in humidity in the air. The Antarctic air mass will hold more moisture, and you will have an increase in precipitation. However, it it warms too much, the ice melt will increase also. One will expect an increase of the ocean level. Good bye Miami.
Bad news for penquins, good news for seals.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:59 amI agree - and the way things are going and will continue to go, I don’t really see having a Green party any time in the near future. The only way to start building a new party, is to ELECT them LOCALLY. Then branch out….
June 21st, 2006 at 11:00 amI believe this is what we in the Financial Advising business call a ‘dead cat bounce.’ A stock falls 50-60-70-80%, then stops and gains back 5-10%. If you were the Bush adminstration you would look at this and say “See! Look at how great the company’s doing! We’ve made back 10% in the last 2 days!” But the fact is the stock is still WAY below where it was when it started, and really has no hope of ever getting back there.
It seems the question Mr. Steorts must answer is how high will this glacial dead cat bounce? Does the study claim that Antartica will gain back more ice than it has lost? Or is it simply a temporary normalizing of arctic ice before a complete meltdown?
June 21st, 2006 at 11:01 amfrom November Rolling Stone - Global Warming - Planetary Emergency (November 2005)
The Up and Comer - Zhao Hang
If China fulfills expectations as the world’s dominant industrial power, its explosive growth could heat the planet to catastrophic levels. China currently has only 20 million cars on the road — but at its current pace, that number will surpass 300 million by 2030. That’s why Zhao Hang, director of the China Automotive and Technology Research Center, has fought so hard to implement what one U.S. analyst calls “the most important energy policy adopted by any country in the world in the last thirty years.”
Working with advisers in California, Michigan, and Japan, Zhao devised fuel-economy standards for China that are twenty percent tougher than those in the United States. He then steered the measure through the central government, where it was approved unanimously. The new standards, which went into effect this summer, will reduce climate-warming emissions in a country that is already home to sixteen of the world’s twenty most polluted cities. They will also save more than 1 billion barrels of oil by 2030 and force automakers to clean up their act: By 2008, ninety percent of the SUVs currently build in America will no longer be legal for sale in China.
China has also implemented a landmark law requiring the country’s utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. “China understands that climate change is a very big challenge in human history,” says Zhao, 43, speaking in his native Mandarin. “It is a matter in our own interest to ensure that our growth is sustainable–and to impose limits on our contribution to this problem.”
Even China is way ahead of the game.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:54 amI have heard that enacting the Kyoto (spelling?) treaty would increase gas prices by $.60-$.80 per gallon. Is that true?
June 21st, 2006 at 11:55 am#15 So China is going from 20 million cars to 300 million and is reducing the emissions of each car by 20%? HAHAHAHA. Say each car currently produces 100 units of pollution. That is 2 billion units of emissions right now. Once they reduce the emissions by 20% and increase the amount of cars to 300 million they will then produce 24 billion units of emissions. Seems like they are getting much worse at polluting, not better.
Going from 2 billion units to 24 billion isn’t a decrease in emissions in anyone playbook.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:59 amMy point for posting that was THEY ARE WAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE against our own STUPID COUNTRY.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:02 pmHow is China way ahead of the curve? Did you just say that China has 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities? Sounds like they are the world leader when it comes to polluting.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:09 pmGoing from 2 billion units to 24 billion isn’t a decrease in emissions in anyone playbook.
You can see why we have a problem. The Kyoto treaty was trying to hold things down to just below 1990 levels, and even that level was upping the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:11 pmSounds like they are the world leader when it comes to polluting.
China’s on its way to becoming the world’s biggest CO2 emitters. But per capita, we are the world’s biggest:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science/ each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
June 21st, 2006 at 12:14 pm#21 We also are 25% of the world’s economy. No wonder we have the highest emissions. The only way to really get us a better rating is to reduce the size of our economy. Is that what you want for the US?
June 21st, 2006 at 12:18 pmhttp://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ why-should-us-join-kyoto.html
June 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pmWhat is up with this ad campaign to “pledge” to see AIT? I don’t get it. Plus, since the ad runs at the bottom of the article, did it pay for the article? Isn’t that the sort of thing the oil complnies do to spread their words? Don’t get me wrong, I have seen AIT. There IS global warming. We ARE being scewed and duped by the oil companies. I DID vote for Gore. But the connection between the article and the ad makes me uneasy.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:21 pmThe only way to really get us a better rating is to reduce the size of our economy.
No, we have to retool. We have to start producing clean technologies instead of polluting ones. And when we do that, we will actually provide opportunity, because we will sell cleaner, more efficient technology to the rest of the world.
Check this out from across the pond:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ climatechange/ story/ 0,,1791534,00.html
June 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pmRR - AT LEAST THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WTF are WE doing in this country? And you want to talk pollution - I live in Washington State, and the freakin’ federal government is ignoring the initiative that passed overwhelming on our ballet to STOP DUMPING NUCLEAR WASTE AT HANFORD - until what is there is CLEANED UP FIRST. They said it was unconstitutional. Unbelievable.
Strip mining, burning of coal, factory waste in our water and our air, fish full of mercury, SUVs. We are country of GLUTTONS.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pmYou want a real answer to global warming and how it “could” get better?
Simple. In the real world, reality, we will never stop using Oil unless a cheaper energy source that is equally powerful and usable is found. This new energy couldn’t rely on government to hold it up or it to will die in the long run.
In the real world, our use of Oil will start to stop the day the price proves that Demand is outstripping supply. That day hasn’t come yet as we still have a good number of untapped oil reserves. The reality is that we as people (by human nature) will continue to consume Oil until it becomes a luxary or we find a cheaper fuel that is equally as usable and equally as powerful. That is reality and no government regulation will really change that.
I personally think it is unfortunate, but it is also a reality.
So, will we find a cheaper and more powerful fuel source in time to stop Global warming? I don’t know. Will Oil go from a commodity to a luxary in time to stop Global warming? I don’t Know.
All we can really do it hope.
Remember, the faster we use up our Oil, the faster demand will surpass supply and the nature of Oil will shift to a Luxary item like Gold and Diamonds. Today is not that day.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:31 pm# 24 — The ad is just a flash widget that bloggers can put on their websites:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/
Probably Judd (or someone at TP) just pasted the code into the blog post.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:34 pm“American’s energy demand is financing terror.”
Jim Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, earned degrees from Stanford, Oxford, and Yale.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:35 pmIn the real world, reality, we will never stop using Oil unless a cheaper energy source that is equally powerful and usable is found.
It doesn’t help that our oil patch-friendly government subsidizes the oil companies:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=4267&method=full
I mean come on. We’re not even trying.
In the real world…
Last time I checked, Britain was part of the real world. And the rest of the real world did sign Kyoto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
I think we need to get with the rest of the real world….
June 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pmRR - YOUR ARE SO WRONG. We can continue financing wars for oil, and at the same time promote terror - OR we could wean ourselves off NOW instead of later.
It is NOT beyond reach. Our buses in my town run on biodiesel. I have had the pleasure of being transported in a Toyota Prius - who by the way LEADS THE AUTO INDUSTRY in INNOVATION.
“Among the techno-fixes Wooley promotes: producing ethanol from prairie grass and corncobs, harvesting biodiesel from farm waste, and adding a battery to existing hybrid cars. “Plug-in hybrids could get up to 150 miles per gallon”, he says. “And since electricity is comparatively cheap, you would get the functional equivalent of fifty-cent-a-gallon gasloine.”
Wolsey’s primary goal is to bolster America’s national security. But his energy-independence strategy would also curb global warming, create a market for clean energy providers, cut the deficit, and generate international good will.”
I will take the words of a former director of the CIA over yours any day.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pmThe inconvenient truth about the “An Inconvenient Truth,†the movie is that it has become really inconvenient for the oil industy. The oil companies had pour tens of millions of dollars to spin the truth about climate change to suit their bottom line. They are quite aware of the realities of the dangers of climate change on our planet. So why are they resisting the truth that can get them killed along with the rest of us? They know when out world hit the fan these guys will be long dead. Yeah, that’s right: they want to die in their sleep in their billion dollar mansions—and the hell to the rest of us. That’s your typical Republican power broker.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pmthe free market priciple for renewable energy won’t work in this case. The oil companies are making more money then they ever thought possible. They won’t won’t change. Why would they?
Government funded change in energy sources is tied not only to our future well being, but also our national security, and the continuation of our very way of life. RR’s post is par for the short sighted thinkers who have gotten us into this mess in the first place.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pmthe free market priciple for renewable energy won’t work in this case. The oil companies are making more money then they ever thought possible. They won’t won’t change. Why would they?
It depends on us - THE PEOPLE.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:56 pmyeah, we’re really doing something about it….
New EPA Rule Gives Refineries, Chemical Plants Free Pass for Toxic Air Pollution
June 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pmEnvironmental, public health coalition challenges illegal rule in federal court
Of course the Oil companies will spin the truth. I would to to protect my investments and promote better profits for shareholders.
And what if we stopped the 20 billion in subs to the Oil industry? It wouldn’t do a damn thing. The subsity is pointless, but removing it won’t change our use of Oil. I am very opposed to giving the Oil companies subs, but I am equally opposed to government spending on other fuels as well. Government should just stay out of it period.
And to the guy that says your bus’ are using BioDiesal. Is Biodiesel better for our envirnment? I kinda thought it was pretty much just as bad for the envirnment. With the pretext of global warming being the problem, wouldn’t you guys be very opposed to yet one more thing wrecking the envirnment?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pmWith the pretext of global warming being the problem, wouldn’t you guys be very opposed to yet one more thing wrecking the envirnment?
Believe it or not, the environment (as you’d normally think of it) is a secondary consideration here. Certainly, it’s terrible that we’re seeing the species extinctions and disappearances of ancient forests and reefs. If we had the right priorities, we wouldn’t let that happen.
But this is a problem for human beings, not just an environmental problem. Just look at this document prepared by the insurance company Swiss Re:
http://www.climatechangefutures.org/ pdf/ CCF_Report_Final_10.27.pdf
June 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pmComment by Roger_Roger — June 21, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
that’s right, keep spewing the same old rhetoric - but like I said, I will LISTEN TO the EXPERTS with CREDENTIALS, over the likes of someone like you.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:16 pmAnother thing is that the federal government is presently trying to block even states from enacting limits on greenhouse gasses. So much for the Republicans’ supposed states rights philosophy, right?
Bush’s EPA is proposing to block California and other states from regulating tailpipe CO2 emissions under (ironically) the Clean Air Act. Other states want to follow suit with California but may not be able to if the EPA gets its way. (Nice “Environmental Protection”, no?)
Senators from these states and Governor Schwarzenegger have written to the EPA to get this straightened out:
http://www.net.org/ warming/ docs/ pavley-letter-060331.pdf
http://www.net.org/ warming/ docs/ pavley/ president_bush_exempt.pdf
http://www.net.org/ warming/ docs/ pavley/ president_bush_arb.pdf
June 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm#38 What did I say that was wrong? I agree with the experts 100%. I agree that global warming is a very bad thing. I am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment. I am also saying that trying to simply regulate or subsidize Oil and other fuels is not the answer (IMO). Biodiesal and E85 sound like really bad investments (especially our government) as they are just as bad for the environment.
Why the Dems support such fuels is beyond me as they both release Co2 just like Oil. It is all political and it is all pointless.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:46 pmThere are really two problems. There’s the fact that we’re dependent on oil, which has its effects unrelated to CO2 emissions–At some point oil will become too scarce for the world’s population to consume economically, and also it comes from politically volatile parts of the world.
And then there’s the CO2 problem.
The government is (supposedly) trying to respond to both.
I’m not sure how much the agriculture based fuels help from any perspective. You have to run a tractor to farm the crops (it seems a really inefficient way to go). And from a climate point of view, again, you burn fuels to farm. And the crops would absorb CO2 in order to grow, but I have no idea how much they’d absorb. I would guess it’s not that much.
You might be right, RR. Some of the hype behind biofuels might be related to politics. It’s certainly helpful to farmers, which you can tout to Iowa farmers during the presidential primaries. But I’m afraid I’m out of my depth on this one…
June 21st, 2006 at 3:21 pmAs reported earlier, and enunciated by Krugman in the NYT, Michaels did much the same to James Hansen. Michaels is a scientific pygmy–in his whole career 310 papers have cited his work. By comparison, the single most cited paper of Hansen’s out of 50 has been cited by over 1000 other papers.
Michaels also lives off the soft money from his benefactors as a research professor at Virginia.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pmI am simply saying that the Oil compaines are simply defending and protecting there investment.
Investments for who? Who ultimately benefits? It is certainly not humanity. I like to think of a world without war. And our dependence on oil is the number ONE reason for the whole issue of war and terror.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:50 pmI’ve not seen any reference or comments, by any blog supporting action
on mitigateing Global Warming, on the recent article on
CanadaFreePress.com by Tom Harris,
‘Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warnings of Climate Catastrophe’.
I’d be very interested in seeing a reasoned rebuttal from someone
June 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pmwith a broad grasp of the issues.
We also are 25% of the world’s economy. No wonder we have the highest emissions. The only way to really get us a better rating is to reduce the size of our economy. Is that what you want for the US?
Comment by Roger_Roger
If we don’t plan for the future, if we continue guzzling gas and don’t develop for the day it runs out, then that certainly will reduce the size of our economy.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:07 pmOh, we will research other fuels. The time, in a free market sense, just isn’t here yet. Oil needs to become to become close to a Luxary item first. At that point, our free market will start to invest heavily in different fuels simply because they group that finds the new fuel and figures out how to market it will become the next Bill Gates. Letting the free market get it straight is always a good thing in my book.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pm#46 That is exactly the wrong approach. Think about the research required to develop alterative sources of energy. That research itself requires tremendous amounts of energy. The longer we wait, the more energy costs, the higher the price to develop alternatives. Eventually we will reach a point where energy is too scarce to put into research. What then? Global economic collapse and a return to agrarian society.
Now think about the last major new source of energy developed: nuclear. That was 100% developed by the federal government, as it should be. Would you want something with that kind of power in the hands of the highest bidder?
June 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pm#47 The Free market wouldn’t wait until Oil was that scarce to start research. I am sure research has already started to be proposed. We currently have lots of Oil which will scare alot of research away however. To be sitting on the AnWAR oil supply in Alaska alone is problematic. We also know that the shores of Florida and California have solid stocks of Oil. Canada may have the futures largest supply of Oil once we figure out how to economically get the oil out of the massive fields of Oil Shale. These things will take care of themselves as we eventually use them (we will regardless of what the environmentalist think).
Either way, the research will be more then complete before we ever run out of Oil. We will actually never truly run out of Oil BTW. It will just get so expensive, normal people will just stop using it. The research will be complete and the company or compaies will start to market it. Don’t think for a second that our free market will simply run out of energy. There is to much money at stake for that /wink.
Our approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing. I feel that will ultimately fail since those situations almost always do fail. The Free Market will produce a fuel, we know that. It will just be down the road a bit.
Besides, if the government started a large substidy for some “other” fuel, a funny thing would happen. Big Oil would certainly fight back. One of there firt tricks of course would be to reduce the price of Oil to make it more atractive. They could do this by simply ramping up Oil drilling even more (and they would). Heres the deal: You can’t give the Oil companies a chance to beat down a new product. The only way to do that is by making sure that the Oil companies don’t have Oil they can drill. That merely means we need to wait for the free market to use up more Oil so it is closer to a Luxary item instead of its current commodity status.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:16 pm# 44– Tim Lambert does a good job with that article:
http://scienceblogs.com/ deltoid/ 2006/ 06/ an_embarrassment_to_australian.php
Lambert addresses Harris’s science as well.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:18 pmOur approach to the situation is just different. YOu want our government to fund research and substidize the production and marketing.
No, I just want our government to fund research. Private companies can choose among the results of that research. Just like the vast majority scientific and technological advances of the past 100 years.
Look into the energy requirements for nuclear fusion research, and tell me any entity other than a consortium of governments can afford it. As energy prices go up (supply & demand) the price of research goes up.
You won’t get there without federal funded research.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:39 pmHey Judd,
206 pledges so far, but only 50 comments.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:43 pmExcellent lurker detector you have there. ;)
There’s a good interview with NASA scientist James Hansen (the one that was muzzled by the Bush administration) and author Elizabeth Kolbert that aired yesterday. They’ve got a podcast you can listen to with Realplayer or Windows Media:
http://www.onpointradio.org/ shows/ 2006/ 06/ 20060621_b_main.asp
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:30 am*** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling…
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it…
The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth…
That makes as much sense as a “scientist†telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science†to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system…
That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling…
PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath…
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:42 am# 53– Answered this comment in this thread:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 06/ 22/ earths-temperature-highest-in-400-years
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! BHDCszRZ9u1v0
January 12th, 2007 at 1:25 amvgkgg
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm