global warming is a hoax
By diana on Jan 7, 2010 | In poly-ticks, capricious bloviations
Wait. Really?!
I have heard but ignored this claim for a long time because--frankly?--it's inane. As far as I'm concerned, the person who utters such blather has just relegated himself to the ranks of conspiracy theorists, young earth creationists, and flat-earthers. These people do not question science except when its findings threaten their sacred cows.* As such, the ongoing claim, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that global warming is a hoax demonstrates the willful pigeon-holing of information, the scientific ignorance of the speaker, and signals the rest of us from the outset that he has just excused himself from rational discourse.
* And these same people praise scientific endeavor as soon as it seems to bolster their beliefs, as is the case here. Irony is delicious, isn't it?
So I haven't bothered until now.
Why now? you ask. And why the snarky tone?
I'll tackle the second question first: I've become somewhat adept at taking a polite, charitable approach to argument, but I still must occasionally stifle the urge to just tell people, in excruciating detail, how stupid they are. I only really struggle with this choice when faced with unrelenting ignorance, as is the case here, and as my Marine so aptly said regarding the conversation which spawned this post, "Sometimes, the only proper response is ridicule." In this case--which is not unlike taking the time to explain that the Western dating system does not prove Jesus existed*--a serious, thoughtful response only leaves such people with the mistaken impression that their claim is worth being taken seriously. The only other reasonable response I can imagine is unapologetic scorn.**
* No kidding. I've had conversations which hinged upon a bonehead claiming that "anno domini" counts from Jesus' birth and therefore proves he existed.
** Which makes them happy in a twisted, martyred sense, so we both win. See?
Now, in response to the first question I posed: the final straw for me was yet another link on Facebook to yet another spurious claim that global warming is a hoax. (I urge you to read those links carefully. This is "the other side," as far as I know. If anyone has a better link about global warming where the conservative columnists don't so brazenly flaunt their imbecility, please share.)
We've all heard the "original" joke, when it is cold out: So much for global warming! Hahahahaha.* It turns out that the average scientifically illiterate American--and we have gaggles of them--apparently thinks this "joke" is actually a good argument that global warming is a hoax. (I wouldn't have believed it, either, but Gladnick seriously uses this argument in his column. If there were any question, his supporting links make his ignorance regarding global warming [emphasis mine] crystal clear.)
* You have to laugh after making a "joke" like this so others know to laugh. This is because the joke isn't actually funny (or original, for that matter), and you know it.
I've grown weary of this "joke," and the fact that people seriously believe that North America's recent record low temperatures proves global warming is a hoax simply flabbergasts me. I mean, really, people?!
So I commented to the friend who posted these links in a way that I felt was polite and not condescending in the least. I quite like her, so perhaps I should have said nothing, but if someone has his fly open or a booger on his shirt, I feel obliged to say something, y'know? ("Check the gate: your cows are getting out." Or something.) A common verbal equivalent is repeatedly hearing someone misuse a word, and eventually commenting, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
So I said, "You do realize that global warming assessments are based on averages over decades, and cold years are par for the course but don't disprove anything. Right?"
This is so basic to understanding what global warming is that I feel as though I'm insulting my audience simply by uttering it, but then...you have to start somewhere. Global warming is a trend over decades and centuries, and it is backed by scientific data. (Or as Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post points out, it's about climate change, which isn't the same as weather.) What it isn't is people saying stuff like, "Wow. It's unseasonably warm this year, and it was last year. The polar ice caps must be melting!"
Global warming skeptics then say, "But the data has been fudged! The suppressed data proves global warming is a hoax! It came out in the news in November!"
Let's talk about that, because I've once again been accused of "choosing" who I believe* in this "debate."** My friend, who'd provided the original links laughing at scientists who still maintain, however unpopularly, that climate change is occurring, responded with a news report from a Washington Times 24 Nov 09 op-ed claiming the alleged "hiding/deletion" of crucial temperature data which prove that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by scientists.*** Well, those were the allegations, at least--but in politics, you don't need proof; allegations are more than enough to sway the unwary.
* This sort of comment rankles me because it manages to suggest that competing opinions on the subject are of equal merit--which they aren't--and that I'm just selecting the one that supports what I've already decided is true--which I'm not.
** The debate is political, not scientific. Like the scientific debate about evolution, there is no debate about the theory itself--just the particulars. This confuses the scientifically inept and easily swayed so they believe that it means the theory itself is in question. It is not.
*** But--this is something I just don't get--to what end? What do they have to gain besides staggering unpopularity and professional embarrassment/suicide when other climatologists prove they were wrong?
Other than the fact that op-eds, being tertiary sources, are not acceptable proof of anything other than the strong possibility that you didn't do your own thinking, the glaring flaw in this this data is that it is outdated. Has there been any news since then on this big "hoax"?
Yes. Oh yes. First, let's note the Open Letter written/endorsed by 25 leading climatologists and oceanologists in response to the "hidden email" proofs. Bottom line:
Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.
Emphasis mine.
Another person who was considerably less polite (and considerably more condescending) toward me in that conversation made a series of claims about how more scientists don't believe in global warming than do. Not surprisingly, she could not provide any substantiation for this comment when asked. She eventually linked me to this Time article as proof that the notorious leaked emails prove global warming is a hoax.
I urge you to read that article. It's excellent. It's well-written, informative, and it's painfully clear that she didn't read it. In addition to it being literally studded with links to stories about how global warming is effecting our world, here are a couple of quotes:
The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.
Again, emphasis mine.
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," said Mohammed Al-Sabban, Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator, according to the BBC.... [W]hen it comes to climate-science analysis from the representative of the world's biggest oil-producing state, it's wise to be suspicious.
And, in my opinion, the quote that sums up the whole "problem" perfectly:
What scientists view as healthy debate, critics tend to see as evidence that the scientific case is still open — and the American public, large portions of which are all but scientifically illiterate, are not equipped to make the distinction.
The "global warming is a hoax" claimants seem to be making the same argument that creationists use to "debunk" evolution, carbon dating, etc. In a nutshell: I don't understand it so it must not be true.
I really don't get it. People in the petroleum business have a vested interest in convincing us, for as long as possible, that global warming is a hoax. That much I get. But why do so many people who have no such connections insist upon buying the crap they're shoveling uncritically and passing it along? The people who are selling you on the "global warming is a hoax" myth are counting on two things: your desire to believe them and your crushing lack of research and critical thinking.
Perspective:
(The cartoon is by Joel Pett and appeared in USA today. Source: http://www.cartoons.nytimages.com/portal/wieck_preview_page_208831)
d
7 comments
Diana Black: Becky, you remember how I wrote “These people do not question science except when its findings threaten their sacred cows,” “And these same people praise scientific endeavor as soon as it seems to bolster their beliefs, as is the case here"?
Thank you for providing such an unparalleled example.
Also, please explain how you expect to find the TRUTH (emphasis yours) if you only read conservative information on the subject (particularly, I’m guessing, Rush and the info he digs up to bolster his position while he ignores or distorts all information which disproves him).
Here’s a good rule of thumb: before you get all holier-than-thou, make sure you’re holy. Otherwise, embarrassment and possibly public mortification is yours. (My notes and commentary on them are open to the general public, btw; they will come up on the Google search.) (14 minutes ago)
Here’s more good information on climate change: PZ talks discusses the problems with James Randi’s support of the climate change deniers.
James Randi, for those of you who do not know, is a professional skeptic. PZ is a biologist.
d
as my Marine so aptly said regarding the conversation which spawned this post, “Sometimes, the only proper response is ridicule.”
–quite correct. should be quoted here I feel…..
More stuff, as I’m reading more about climate change:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
(Cited earlier in the discussion, but I’m including it here in the interest of consolidation) Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science
Here’s an interesting side-by-side comparison of what the deniers claim and what science says (note the disclaimer at the bottom)
d
Time to catch up on the FB conversation because, even if I’m the only one reading it, I want it preserved:
Becky Worley Hunter: I’m a slow learner, but I try to be thorough. :) I did read the part about the deforestation for biofuels in Al Gore’s book myself. It was front and center at a bookstore and I picked it up and thumbed through it. Couldn’t bring myself to buy it. I was surprised by his admission that their “preserve the earth” intentions had caused otherwise. (Sun at 4:03pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: Of course scientists can’t do climate-wide experiments. That was a side-ways comment to make the point that their predictions are all computer models, based on interpretations that vary from scientist to scientist. I fumbled that one.
Yes, it’s best if scientists can replicate their “findings” . . . but as recent scandals have shown, some of those scientists destroyed their raw data, so those findings cannot be replicated. What are they trying to hide?
(Sun at 4:09pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: btw, I’m not holier than anyone. Yes I have biases, I admit it. So does everyone, including scientists. They are just people, like you an me. The label “scientist” doesn’t make them holier than anyone else, either.
It was just a few decades ago that “scientists” were predicting another ice age. Also a few years ago, a lot of “scientists” said that whites were more evolved than blacks, and Aborigines were hunted and killed for scientific museum displays.
“Scientists” also promoted eugenics in the name of evolution to improve the human species. A remnant of that ideology lives on today as Planned Parenthood clinics.
Sooner or later, we will know if “climate change” is happening like “they” say. Their models didn’t predict the cooling over the past decade, How can they predict a century from now? Especially since the “hockey-stick” graph was proven to be a fraud.
If warming is true, even the “climate scientists” agree that there’s very little we could do about it anyway. Why screw with the world’s economy and make everyone poorer than they need to be, while making only carbon-traders rich? Everything produced needs energy. Make energy more expensive, and you make everything more expensive. Therefore everyone will be poorer. You know who will be hit the hardest? The ones who are always hit the hardest, the ones who are already poor. (Sun at 4:26pm)
Diana Black: “I was surprised by his admission that their “preserve the earth” intentions had caused otherwise.” I’m responding as I read, so I don’t forget things.
Two things. No, three.
1. Jeff already addressed this.
2. Read the entire book, and place the comment you quoted in context. (I’m sure you can get it at the library, so you don’t have to pay. :) )
3. Serious treatment of ANY debate will acknowledge shortcomings of both sides–particularly theirs. I actually REQUIRE my students, when writing an argumentative essay, to find one or more serious points made by their opponents to concede. This demonstrates that they have done their homework AND that they are willing to be fair.
Hint, hint. ;)
d (Sun at 5:29pm)
Diana Black: “but as recent scandals have shown, some of those scientists destroyed their raw data, so those findings cannot be replicated. What are they trying to hide?”
I addressed this in my blog. Please read the Time article. I think your information is out of date. (Sun at 5:30pm)
Diana Black: “It was just a few decades ago that “scientists” were predicting another ice age…. [etc]” When you have a moment, please explain to me how you THINK science is supposed to work. I’m intrigued. (Sun at 5:34pm)
Diana Black: I still await your thoughtful response to this question, as well:
Can you tell me (1) what your standard of proof is, and (2) how climate researchers test their theories now?
Please–you know so much. Educate me. (Sun at 5:35pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: I’m taking your hints. :) I’ll look at your blog.
Science should work by questioning everything, and so should we. I know you do. It should not work by using scare-tactics to push an agenda. Also, follow the money. Not just big business, but also big government. (Sun at 5:52pm)
Diana Black: I do follow the money. I also don’t see how all the various sciences–long before any of this was political–were being swayed by “big government” to tell us climate change is a fact.
Might I suggest to you that your position employs and arises from scare tactics itself.
I think we should start with how you think science works. Then we can talk from there. (Sun at 6:00pm)
Matt Griffin: Hi d,
Becky is hilarious. If you made her up and told me she existed I wouldn’t believe you.
Your Marine (Sun at 6:22pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: Yes, she made me up. I’m her alter-ego. :) (Yesterday at 10:34am)
Becky Worley Hunter: Why did “global warming” get switched to “climate change” in the media? (Yesterday at 10:39am)
Matt Griffin: Why did the Jews kill Jesus? Why did heterosexuals do 9-11? (Yesterday at 10:40am)
Becky Worley Hunter: Why are you changing the subject? (Yesterday at 10:41am)
Matt Griffin: I’m not. You posted an inane question pretending that you’re actually interested in honest inquiry and I’m treating the question with the respect it deserves. (Yesterday at 10:43am)
Diana Black: Interesting question, Becky. I never thought about it before. :)
linky: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Also a good read, dumbed down to our level: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/01-02/global-warming-vs-climate-change.htm (Yesterday at 11:10am)
Diana Black: “Yes, she made me up. I’m her alter-ego. :)” Be careful, Cuz! That would make ME YOUR alter-ego, you know. ;) (Yesterday at 11:22am)
Diana Black: Since I’m interested in doing more research this morning (and it seems you are, too), I’m going to tackle some other comments you’ve made.
“I’m not confusing scientific endeavor and government programs, I’m looking at the fact that governments will ONLY fund research with a foregone conclusion . . . that man is causing climate change.”
I’m not sure where you get this. Scientists all over the world submit papers to the IPCC on a volunteer basis, and that organization does not do any of its own research. Our NAS and NRC are non-profit organizations, which work “outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine.”
“Just one example: R. Newell, an MIT meteorologist lost NSF funding for research that failed to show net warming over the past century.” I’ve been unable to locate any report or blog about this, pro or con. Can you link me to your source, please? (Yesterday at 12:04pm)
Diana Black: “Besides, I thought “replication” of research findings only applied to experiments.”
It also applies to observation. As we’ve already agreed, not everything can be experimented with.
“Are those experiments done in multiple locations? Do the outcomes match?” Yes and yes. Overwhelmingly.
The evidence for global climate change derives from several disciplines (much like the evidence for an old earth) which have reached their surprisingly consistent conclusions independently. We have “sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences” (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm) and dendrochronology. (Yesterday at 12:11pm)
Matt Griffin: Reginald Newell is a fairly interesting reach being that he died in 2003. (Yesterday at 12:15pm)
Matt Griffin: Here’s some fun - http://www.skepticalscience.com/ (Yesterday at 12:16pm)
Diana Black: Becky, I’m intrigued–but not really surprised–that you pick out one “wronged” researcher out of the tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who insist that climate change is a reality, and imply that ALL OF THEM EVERYWHERE ARE AFRAID TO BUCK THE SYSTEM.
Doesn’t doing such things give you cognitive dissonance? No. Wait. I have a better question: HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHO TO BELIEVE?
I really want that one answered, please. (Yesterday at 12:22pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: Di, thanks for the links on the difference between “Global warming” and “climate change.” (Yesterday at 1:41pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: More on the manipulated peer-review process. http://sppiblog.org/news/a-response-to-michael-mann
and:
. . . the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), was generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.
Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous “hockey stick” article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent “Little Ice Age", leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.
Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn’t like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The magnitude of the warming in CRU’s own data was not as great as in the models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” he wrote in one of the emails. “We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn’t toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones’s line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.
This happened to me and to the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob.
The above is from a professor of environmental science, full article here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html (Yesterday at 1:42pm)
Matt Griffin: I’ve changed my mind. Let it warm up a bit. I have no kids so I really don’t care about the future after I’m dead, and it’s been 20 degrees for like a week, that’s waaay too cold. Bangladesh has no oil so it doesn’t matter if they drown…….be a shame about Amsterdam if that goes though. (Yesterday at 1:45pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: Matt, I liked your skepticalsicence.com link. It had a lot of varied data and comments. :) (Yesterday at 1:53pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: PDB, your question “how do you decide who to believe” is a good one. It’s easier to say whom we should not believe . . . those who have been proved to have manipulated data. Of course, not all of them do that, but when it is known that some of them did, you should reject just about anything they say, and any conclusions based on their research. (Yesterday at 1:56pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: @JB about population growth: It’s not population growth that causes poverty . . . it’s poverty that causes high birth rates.
In my Jan 2010 issue of Discover Magazine, pg 44: Fertility rates generally decline as development rises, and this has indeed been happening in most industrialized nations. Italy, Germany and Japan have dipped to fewer than 1.3 per woman. . . . Projections are that the global population will level off by midcentry (Hans-Kohler, Univ of Penn) In fact, birthrates in most highly developed countries are still too low to maintain the national population.
So don’t worry about overpopulating the earth anymore . . . unless you increase poverty world-wide. (Yesterday at 2:29pm)
Diana Black: Becky, that begs the question, though. How do you decide who has the manipulated data? In other words–please pause to be as honest with yourself as possible here–where do you START getting your information? (There is a single answer to this one the majority of the time, isn’t there?) Why do you start there?
I ask the question because the data you gravitate toward tends to not–never?–be balanced, which suggests (strongly) that you’ve already made up your mind, before you begin reading the data, what you want and expect the data to say. This is a huge flaw in a person’s search for TRUTH. You’re practically drowning in confirmation bias, and I rarely get to see you get your head above water. This is not because you’re ill-informed. It’s because you’ve chosen to be blind to the other side of the argument before you’ve heard it.
My question is: why? (Yesterday at 4:25pm)
Diana Black: “It’s easier to say whom we should not believe . . . those who have been proved to have manipulated data.”
And…how do you know the data has been manipulated? Please explain this one. (Yesterday at 4:36pm)
Diana Black: What I mean is, what constitutes “proof” of manipulated data, in your opinion? (and again, whose “proof” do you believe, and WHY?) (Yesterday at 4:38pm)
Diana Black: “It was just a few decades ago that “scientists” were predicting another ice age.”
If placing that word in quotations you mean they weren’t real scientists, you’re right. Please read this carefully: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ (Yesterday at 5:42pm)
Matt Griffin: According to Ben Stein, the last time his family saw scientists was on their way into the gas chambers. So, there you go. (Yesterday at 8:43pm)
Becky Worley Hunter: Good point, Matt! Those scientists were trying to improve the world, too. :\ (14 minutes ago)
Diana Black: That’s it, Becky. You win. The fact that the Nazis were, in their own way, trying to improve the world proves that all scientists are evil. (9 minutes ago)
Matt Griffin: THANK YOU D THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!!
Just like the fact that Hitler was christian means……….oh wait……… (7 minutes ago)
Becky Worley Hunter
PD, the “realclimate” link is a good attempt at revisionist history. They admit it’s true that scientists predicted a cooling trend. It’s only in hindsight that they say the 40 year observation trend was too short.
From a link in your link, 4/28/1975 “A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”
Numerous other references to meteorologists, agricultural scuentists, and “studies” are quoted.
I guess they’re not proper scientists unless they publish in journals the current critics think are “real” scientific journals. (5 minutes ago)
Matt Griffin: http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/instrumental_temperature_record.png (3 minutes ago)
***
As you can see, that is never “it” with us. :)
More to come.
d
Global Warming is a misnomer, especially this time of year when all the mouthbreathers come out to say things like “warming?? this is the coldest winter in years!!"…
What we have to worry about is drastic climate/temperature/weather fluctuations, which are clearly caused by the human impact of the last 50 years and what will eventually lead to mass species extinction. So when people say “global warming is bullshit, this cold spell is proof of that,” they’re usually too stupid to understand that they are supporting the very phenomenon they think they’re contradicting.
http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/310772-who-still-believes-global-warming.html#post2889403
also:
Global warming is manmade. When we talk about global warming we mean the warming of the seas by a few degrees in the last 200 years since industrial revolution. It has nothing to do with being 40 degrees below in Wahoo Montana this year.
| « argument with a creationist |
