A brief guide to denial arguments.
Back in 2012, I reviewed a book by James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science (Columbia University Press,2011). Powell received his doctorate from MIT in geochemistry and taught at Oberlin College for two decades. My review, entitled "Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry" appeared in the May 2012 issue of Monthly Review, and can be found online.
James Lawrence Powell has described the highly effective corporate-funded propaganda campaign to alter the public perception of climate science.The global denial industry includes corporate funders, toxic think-tanks, and PR flacks. For example, the Heartland printed and distributed 150,000 free copies (in fifteen languages) of The Skeptic's Handbook. The author is a pseudonym. Looking back at my 2012 article, little has changed in the essentials. The case for global warming science is even stronger now than it was a few years ago.
Posts
13 comments:
It would appear that sufficient numbers of people are convinced and we will get action, finally. Unfortunately I thought that was true when "An Inconvenient Truth" was released in 2006. A decade of stasis has not been good for the planet. For example, the Arctic sea ice minimum has dropped another 20% since then.
This is the time to keep the pressure on.
Arctic sea ice is doing much better now than in 2007, and now we know the models are running a bit too hot, over predicting temperature. CO2 emissions are also lower than projected even though most nations don't pay attention to their Paris climate meeting pledges. The main problem i see is the refusal to expand use of nuclear power and hysterical proposals like the "New Geeen Deal", which sounds more like the "Red Ruin Deal".
Welcome back John :) and well said
What's Monthly Review's take on Institute for Policy Studies fellow and Democratic congressional wannbe Caleb Rossiter gainsaying AOC in last week's climate policy hearing on the Hill?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/05/skeptical-scientist-hijacks-aoc.html
Ok, I will bite, where does Fernando get the idea that "arctic sea ice is doing much better now than in 2007. eg arctic sea ice
Maybe global sea ice is better. graph er, no.
I refer to the Danish Institute of Meteorology data. It shows the record low ice extent minimum reached in 2007 has not been seen again, and that ice volume is doing much better. Having worked in the Arctic I realize that ice observations require a bit of human interpretation, and it seems to me that DMI has the best products.
I keep an eye on both time series as well as the observations and reanalysis, and I've noticed that recently the Barents is a bit cooler than in previous years. And a lot of the ice cover reduction has been in the Barents. So the cooling trend is quite encouraging. This cooling is probably caused by clouds, which as you know are very hard to model. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a cloud cover time series therefore I have to add I'm just guessing.
When guessing it is usually better to guess about values in the middle rather than extremes. In this case that means you should be guessing about the trend rather than any particular daily max/min or the occurrence of successive mins/maxes. This is Stats 101.
It is also best to guess that present trends will continue for at least a short period of extrapolation relative to the variability of the phenomenon you are guessing about. That is, the best guess is that BAU will continue for at least a short while.
Lastly, the most extreme value observed in a time series on one day is hardly ever the relevant thing to even be guessing about in the first place as that isn't even a relevant data point climatologically speaking. WAAYYY more error and way less an effect to be guessing about than guessing about the far more important trend.
On a different point, anyone who has worked in the Arctic for any period of time and who hasn't observed any ice changes just hasn't been looking around.
Link to DMI's graphs of successive mins/maxes. The trends are clear as is their "human interpretation". http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
FL: Arctic sea ice is doing much better now than in 2007,
BPL: Yes, folks, the trend for one or two years is better than a minimum 12 years ago! Therefore there's no problem!
FL: and now we know the models are running a bit too hot, over predicting temperature.
BPL: Except that they're not.
FL: CO2 emissions are also lower than projected
BPL: First I've heard of it.
FL: The main problem i see is the refusal to expand use of nuclear power
BPL: Yes, that would be the main problem you'd see. Not global warming.
FL: and hysterical proposals like the "New Geeen Deal", which sounds more like the "Red Ruin Deal".
BPL: Environmentalists are Commies! Environmentalists are Commies! Environmentalists are Commies!
Coming soon to better theaters in Caracas:
Earth Day: Its Role In The Evil Empire's Downfall
That is hilarious. 2012 didnt happen either apparently? Just for record, what has to happen to the trend before you are prepared to admit to a problem? Or are you determined to try and see the world only through a political lens and no data would change your opinion?
"...doing much better now than in 2007"
OMG, what happened to the days when the "global warming stopped in 1998" meme was every deniers favourite?
Same "reasoning" and "logic" in both cases. Start your "analysis" from a local min (or max if that is the "better" direction for the denier position) and claim that going from there on for a short period means something concerning the overall trend.
Statistical/probability theory nonsense of course, but good enough for propaganda purposes with the statistically uneducated. And propaganda is the purpose, as is totally obvious to any unbiased observer.
Post a Comment