Tag: global warming
A paper in the august science journal Nature,* on the oceans’ “thermal inertia” and the ominous temperature rise therein, has been corrected. But not before the BBC (and other media outlets) ballyhooed the results in the usual “climate change”/“global warming” narrative: “Climate change: Oceans ‘soaking up more heat than estimated’” (Nov. 1).
The paper’s initial new (and alarming) estimate, however, proved wrong.
Over at Real Climate, one of the co-authors clarified the changes that had to be made: “The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets . . . but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in” . . . well, I will let you make sense of it.
I am not a climate scientist, nor do I pretend to be one on the Internet.
What is important to note is that the “strong conclusions” reported on were found to be groundless.
Mistakes were made.
How were those mistakes identified?
They were caught at the ClimateEtc. — not an “august science journal” — published online at judithcurry.com.**
Nic Lewis, the astute blogger, identified a major source of the inaccuracy in the original paper as having arisen “primarily because of the inappropriate assumption of a zero error in 1991.”
We have just witnessed science in action — the public testing of published findings.
“The bad news,” Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us on his Global Warming blog, “is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists” — note the dig — failed to catch the error “before publication.”
The crucial science happened afterwards, online.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” by L. Resplandy, R. F. Keeling, et al.
** I have had occasion to mention climate scientist Judith Curry in the past.
» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.
We’re told of the scientific consensus on global warming. Whatever you may say about that consensus (I’ve expressed extreme skepticism), no such consensus exists for what steps would be best to take to deal with the identified problem — which is usually understood in terms of the “carbon footprint,” of carbon put into the atmosphere in excess of what is taken out.
Most proposals for curbing carbon emissions have been shown to be far more costly than efficacious.
Nevertheless, without such a consensus, activists in Washington State are pushing Initiative 1631, a measure to tax carbon.
They had pushed a very similar measure two years ago, as science writer Ronald Bailey notes at Reason. The measure failed, however, because environmental lobbies opposed it. You see, the collected funds were given back to taxpayers. Environmental groups didn’t get a cut of the action.
This time that defect has been alleviated, and those groups are on board.
Ah, money, money, money!
The Evergreen State, indeed.
Would the tax be effective? The goal of the measure is “to reduce, by 2035, [the state’s] emissions by 25 percent below their levels in 1990,” Bailey explains. The state had “emitted about 88 million metric tons that year, so that implies a reduction of around 22 million tons by 2035. Assuming today’s emissions, that would mean that Washington State’s planned reductions would amount to 0.42 percent and 0.06 percent of U.S. and global emissions respectively.”
Not much bang.
Sure, the measure may win on hope . . . and bucks.
But will it do any appreciable good? I mean, other than creating a constituency with the green of dollars.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
I know Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA; he replaced the egregious Drew Edmondson as Oklahoma Attorney General.
Pruitt seems like a good man.
But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) says different. “Mr. Pruitt’s record is not only that of being a climate change denier, but also . . .”
Wait: that “climate change denier” charge is everywhere. But all I’ve seen is assertion.
It would indeed be weird were he — or anyone — to deny the reality of climate change. Way back in my Seventies’ youth, I saw all sorts of climate change articles . . . predicting a new Ice Age.
Decades later, the headlines began to change: Global Warming was in.
But note: those Seventies’ articles usually mentioned that the world had been heating out of the recent Little Ice Age, with the thaw beginning before the dreaded Industrial Revolution.
I bet that what our new Trump pick really believes is that
- warm weather is generally better than cold weather;
- CO2 is not a poison as such (plants thrive with more carbon dioxide);
- every major climate model has predicted more warming than we’ve experienced; and
- stifling progress to offset poorly understood climate events would be disastrous, especially for the poor.
Betting aside, what does Pruitt believe? The Advocate actually repeats the disproven “97 percent of climate scientists” meme to pile on the abuse*, but did link to a National Review article Pruitt co-authored with Alabama’s attorney general.
They did not deny climate change, merely insisting that “the debate is far from settled.” More importantly, they argued that governments should not intimidate energy companies in service to the climate cause. Instead, they called for open debate.
Shocking!
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* The Advocate also irrelevantly charged Pruitt with “transphobia.” But then, Trump’s Small Business Administration pick, Linda McMahon, has also been tarred with the “climate denier” charge, which is as irrelevant to an SBA head as vegetarianism would be for a Secretary of Treasury.
Original (cc) photo by Gage Skidmore on Flickr
Categories
“Settled Science”
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher and professor. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.
“The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finallyverified, retires from the game.”
—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Don’t worry, scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., informs us. He is doing fine — he has tenure.
It is too bad, though, that he no longer works in climate science.
He was drummed out of that endeavor by journalists, big-monied foundations, and the White House.
Are you skeptical? Well, drill down into the Podesta emails on WikiLeaks. There you can read infamous billionaire Tom Steyer gloating, “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538,” a popular website. Pielke has not been published there at all since 2014.
Pielke had made the mistake of publishing the results of his research. He claims not to be heretical on the main points of the current orthodoxy. But Pielke ticked off all the wrong people with his demonstration that the evidence did not back up the climate change movement’s much-repeated charge that the weather has gotten more traumatic as the planet has gotten warmer.
Pielke relates all this in a fascinating Wall Street Journal commentary, “My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic.” Pielke is actually somewhat philosophical about the political and foundational forces arrayed against him — expressing more dismay at his betrayal by journalists and academics.
“You should come with a warning label,” jested one journalist who had merely quoted him. “Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”
This “hailstorm” is more widespread and damaging than the results of global warming itself. It effectively distorts both scientific research and the news.
Thus, a political orthodoxy rides herd over public opinion. Over us. By squelching good journalism and honest science.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
