Not content with printing op-eds by John Lott, the LA Times has published a piece of disinformation by Nick Schultz. The LA Times fails to disclose that Schultz works for a public relations company that has ExxonMobil as a client. The central message of Schultz's piece is that science will never resolve the question of climate change:
At some level, science probably will never resolve what to do about global warming. Climate change is complex, with scores of variables and time-frame considerations of decades and even centuries. Both sides have substantial data that support their points of view. Both sides also believe that to the extent the science is "settled," it's settled in ways that undergird their respective policy prescriptions.
Do you like the way that Schulz pretended that the two sides were equal? On one side we have the top climate scientists in the US (including sceptic Richard Lindzen), published by the National Academy of Sciences, who concluded:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.
While on the other side we have folks like Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer, published by Nick Schultz, who conclude:
So, to all who worry about global warming, to all who think that people threatening to blow up millions to get their political way is no big deal by comparison, chill out. The science is settled. The "skeptics"---the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end---have won.
So is it really impossible for science to resolve the dispute, as Schultz claims? Well, I'm not a climate scientist and I don't really know that much about the subject, but even I was able discover that Michaels and Singer's claims were based on blatant cherry-picking and confusing degrees with radians. It's no wonder Schultz wants to change the subject from science to "art and myth making".
The Poor Man has a few choice comments on Schultz here.
Submit a commentary to the LA Times, which is how Singer, et al do it.
Tim, Of course there is global warming - to balance global cooling. By definition.Is it human caused? No. Simply from a mass balance calculation, but from such molehills you and your fellow Quigginist propose that the successors of King Canute can not only move mountains, but also the earth's climate.The hubris is palpable.
Oh Tim,Your piece criticising the "degrees versus radians" issue is a bit short of specifics. Care to amplify that?
Tim Lambert quotes a publication by the National Academy of Sciences that says:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century."
He also quotes Patrick Michaels:
"So, to all who worry about global warming, to all who think that people threatening to blow up millions to get their political way is no big deal by comparison, chill out. The science is settled. The "skeptics"-the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end-have won."
I don't understand, Tim. I don't think those two blurbs are incompatible. And neither of those two blurbs is incompatible with THIS scientifically provable statement:
"The projections of methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperature increases, in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science."
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
P.S. And I *do* know a fair bit about the subject.
The piece seemed quite amply supplied with specifics to me, but I suppose our requirements differ.
In any event, there is no need for Tim to amplify his criticism, since Profs. McKitrick and Michaels have
acknowledged the error
and
corrected it.
In the
notice of correction
we find the following statement:
Is that specific enough for you?
I picture Louis reading one of Tim's posts, then trying to control his apoplexy by turning that energy inward, channeling that vast power into yet another Galileo-like devastating argument. Too bad the results look like grasping at straws.
Louis, do you think about what you wrote before hitting 'p0st'?
Anyway, Schulz is just rearranging the talking points for yet another nuanced product of the astroturf operation. The Schellenberger/Nordhaus paper Nicky refers to is buried in an essay criticizing enviros for hitching their bandwagon onto climate change, when they should be focusing on clean energy; in fact, if Schulz' rubes were to actually follow the link and click around, they'd find a site dedicated to clean energy, surely anathema to those who employ Schulz and Glassman. The quote Schulz used was the same one Glassman was told to focus on earlier in the week.
Just goes to show that these people don't expect their target audience to actually do research for themselves. The fact that so many fall for this strategy should give one pause.
D