From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Climate Science Weblog
There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.
Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
Comments by Climate Science
- “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years.
- After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.
This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.
- The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.
This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).
The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve Keohane said:
sod (12:01:20) You only showed nine years, here is your plot for ten years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
And here’s the trend for the past seven years: click
See what’s happening? Our planet is cooling off at an increasingly faster rate. No wonder the warmers are in a tizzy. Maybe all their frantic arm waving is causing an Earth-cooling breeze.
Benjamin P. (08:14:57) :
I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”
I find it humorous that you completely miss the point. It’s not about this being a consensus. It’s about the simple fact that this busts the myth of your consensus (your silly 97% figure). Read a little deeper, Benjamin.
Mark
Benjamin P. (08:14:57) :
@Burch Seymour (07:27:09) :
Thats the difference. The CATO folks are ideologues and have little interest in the climate debate beyond the politics.
Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong. For example, you could start by the failure of AGW predictions.
deadwood (08:08:48) :
You are 100% correct, deadwood. Even this late in the thread, folks such as Benjamin P hypocritically tout the ad hominem as some sort of proof the guy is wrong, while failing to address what Blick is actually known to be good at. Why? Because Benjamin P cannot address Blick’s salient points in a coherent argument. He has to hide his own failings behind an insult.
Mark
sod (05:22:09) :
you can NOT cherry pick, what a decade is. 10 years. period.
this is NOT ad hominem. this “beliefs” have an effect on the subject that we are discussing.
You can NOT pick your definitions to suit your own belief. Attacking the MAN for his beliefs is, by definition, an ad hominem. Get over it, sod.
Mark
Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :
Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong.
If he could do that he wouldn’t have to marginalize the CATO signatories as ideologues.
Mark
Robert Bateman wrote:
“If someone would back a plan to revitalize the railroad, modernize a clean-coal tech steam engine, the savings realized from cutting down on imported oil, increased tax revenue from new jobs (you have to transfer the cargo to local transport from rail), the reduced cost of transport reflected in the economy, and if that person had access to the President, …”
That would require new locomotives. A better plan would be to use a liquid fuel synthesized from coal. About ten years ago there was a Time magazine cover story on an innovative coal liquification process (involving ammonia) that did that successfully, but it collapsed due to business conflicts among the companies involved. I hope something similar can be reactivated.
I remember reading about that, at least, the liquification process. I wondered what happened.
Mark
Benjamin P.,
Economics is not your strong point. So before you start getting complacent about the deficits that these budgets are certain to produce, you need to look at the Congressional Budget Office’s projections [and note that the CBO is one of only two credible organizations left in the entire U.S. government — the military being the other one].
The CBO projects a twenty trillion dollar [!!] cost within ten years for the president’s currently proposed programs. Assuming a conservative 5% debt expense over next decade, that means U.S. taxpayers will have to pay an additional $1 Trillion per year in perpetuity, as just the interest on the runaway spending.
To add insult to injury, Cap and Trade is based on the completely false notion that an addition to a minor trace gas will cause any problems at all. Even the alarmist IPCC admits that C&T will not make more than a tiny fraction of a degree difference, and the IPCC always exaggerates. Anyone who believes that we’re getting any value for the Cap and Trade tax is surely deranged. Or maybe just an economic simpleton.
Since the bottom half of the American population pays zero federal taxes, that means the additional taxes required to simply pay for the interest on the president’s proposed new programs like Cap and Trade will raise federal taxes more than 50% from current levels within 10 years. Raising taxes 50% is sure to greatly prolong the current economic downturn. And those taxes will never go away. Think about that when you’re writing your check to the government on April 15th. Your taxes will soon be 50% higher.
In addition, Cap & Trade will add to the price of any goods and services that emit any CO2 as a byproduct in their manufacture, transportation, energy use, etc. So not only will taxes go way up, but costs of products will go way up; a double whammy. And for what? The result will produce an economy-smothering effect like the VAT in Europe, only more severe.
On top of this, the inflation created along with the newly created dollars will also jack up prices. We will have much higher taxes and much higher prices. That’s what happens when someone with zero real world experience gets into the critical job of president. It was completely irresponsible to hand the presidency to an individual whose main accomplishment was being a “community organizer.” Meeting a payroll, or even actually working in the private sector, should be the minimum experience necessary to understand the real world. Instead, we have an arrogant incompetent who talks tough. Yikes!
The Cap and Trade portion of that indebtedness is about 9% [that’s what they admit to, anyway; the real C&T tax will be significantly higher]. Anyone who claims that Cap & Trade is a one-off, single year expense is lying about it. Who do you think is going to pay the interest on the money spent on C&T? The tooth fairy?
You need to understand that this wild spending spree is based on a combination of borrowed and created money to an extent that would have sounded preposterous pre-0bama. Just a year ago a $Billion was considered a lot of money. Now they’re throwing around $Trillions like they used to talk about $Billions. In other words, we’re heading toward spending literally thousands of times more money — only three months into a new Administration. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of every thinking person, they must be comatose.
Your check won’t be 50% higher once per year, Smokey, what gets taken out of every paycheck, however, will be. 😉
What will happen, btw, is that more and more domestic manufacturing will move overseas to 3rd world nations that are exempt from the treaties that force CO2 regulation. That means the goal of deconstructing the US economy will have been achieved.
What angers, and saddens me, is that some of the people pushing for this know what it will do, and are in fact counting on it. Most, however, are incapable of seeing outside their blinders.
Mark
sod (12:01:20) You only showed nine years, here is your plot for ten years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
please count again. 1999-2008(9) is 10 years.
here is the data of my graph. helps counting..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend
See what’s happening? Our planet is cooling off at an increasingly faster rate. No wonder the warmers are in a tizzy. Maybe all their frantic arm waving is causing an Earth-cooling breeze.
our climate is NOT cooling. there is ZERO data supporting your claim.
Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong.
that is what i did. the “decade” claim is WRONG. fact.
For example, you could start by the failure of AGW predictions.
climate scientists don t make predictions and their projections were not wrong. you might want to check all your sources, because this claim was false on all accounts..
You can NOT pick your definitions to suit your own belief. Attacking the MAN for his beliefs is, by definition, an ad hominem. Get over it, sod.
if your believes have an effect on your results, then it is not ad hominem to point them out.
if the emergency doctor isn t in a hurry, because of his believes about the pleasure of an after-life, then it is NOT ad hominem to call him out on it…
sod (10:06:14):
our climate is NOT cooling. there is ZERO data supporting your claim.
Really? What was the mean change of temperature in 1998? What was the mean change of temperature in 2007? And up to date?
∆T 1998 = 0.51 K
∆T 2007 = 0.29 K
∆T 2008 – 2009 = 0.09 K
∆T + Tstd 1998 = 351.15 K
∆T + Tstd 2007 = 300.44 K
∆T + Tstd 2008 – 2009 = 300.24 K
(Data from AMSU2-UAH and satellites).
Is it warming or cooling?
Sorry! ∆T + Tstd in 1998 = 300.66 K
I reproduced the error from NOAA data. Sorry.
sod:
I don’t know about the planet you’re from, sod, but planet Earth is cooling:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
i chose my words very carefully: our climate is NOT cooling.
5 years is NOT climate. 1 year is NOT climate.
the “cooling” from 1998 is IRRELEVANT for climate, as there is warming when starting from 1997 (and every year before, for the whole period affected by by human CO2 emissions…) and 1999.
sod (11:44:04) :
i chose my words very carefully: our climate is NOT cooling.
Yes, that’s what you wrote.
5 years is NOT climate. 1 year is NOT climate.
What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
the “cooling” from 1998 is IRRELEVANT for climate, as there is warming when starting from 1997 (and every year before, for the whole period affected by by human CO2 emissions…) and 1999.
Thanks… Got two questions:
1. What “cooling” is relevant for climate?
2. Do you mean we humans have been here on Earth for the last 3.8 billion years emitting CO2?
sod (10:06:14) :
if your believes have an effect on your results, then it is not ad hominem to point them out.
Nonsense. Results are results, they live or die on their own merit. It does not matter if he thinks God told him how to work the formulas used to obtain his results, if they are correct, they are correct, if they are wrong, they are wrong.
You really need to learn a thing or two about logic… and science.
Mark
deadwood (16:27:18) :
“CATO, in retaining and publishing Professor Blick’s signature, diminishes the impact of the letter. It has allowed the alarmists to attack Blick’s creationist writings rather than discuss or debate the message in the letter.
I personally am disappointed in Dr. Michaels for not catching this.”
Sigh. Now you want your own version of political correctness. I completely disagree. Those such as SOD are spouting hate speech. This should be pointed out with no further discussion.
why is everyone answering SOD et al as if there is a valid argument to answer?
Because sometimes pointing out someone’s illogical, and quite frankly, unintelligent arguments is stress relieving. If he wants to behave as one, I will treat him as one. 😉
Whether we want to believe the ideal model of substance over style, the simple fact remains that these arguments are used by climate scientists and do sway the media and politicians. RC is nothing but one ad hominem attack after another and they truly think they are being scientific. It is shameful, but a true state of the world as it is.
Btw, nobody has yet offered a valid scientific reason Blick should be discredited, which speaks volumes for such a position. Sod thinks Blick’s beliefs affect his results, yet cannot show how, nor can he show they are wrong to begin with.
Mark
@ur momisugly Mark T (08:43:52) :
Mark my point was that consensus means little, read the paragraph I wrote above the one you quoted. I think it’s ironic that consensus seems a good thing when you are a member of that particular view point.
Man you folks go rabid if someone says something that does not fit your consensus!
@ur momisugly Smokey (09:34:18) :
Smokey, I am not an advocate of cap and trade. JimB said “900 Billion in the latest budget” I thought that was a bit high, which it was, that was 900 billion over 10 years. That’s all my question was. Thanks for the treatise though.
@ur momisugly Mark T (08:47:35) :
Listen Mark, its my OPINION that a person claiming to be a scientist has credibility issues being a YEC. Sorry if you don’t agree. He may be a great fluid dynamics physicists, but MY OPINION is still that I have a hard time taking him seriously. Does that make me a bad person in your eyes? Clearly it does based on your responses. I think you need to relax a little, maybe wipe some of that froth from your lips!
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :
I was simply saying that the folks are CATO are ideologues, which is true. They are likely the last place I would look for any thing on climate science.
I am not an “Alarmist” or an “AGWer” or a “Deiner” or any of those other fun labels we all come up with for each other. I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion, and I wish there was more discussion on the SCIENCE rather than the politics. Although I understand why the politics is brought into the discussion.
Ben
@Smokey (11:14:59) :
Why just the most recent years of data Smokey? Just curious.
What if the current trend reverses later this year and goes up for the next 10 years?
The “deniers” (what is a better term to use, non-AWGers?) love the most recent years of data and I have seen that data set, over and over and over here in comments. I just think its a bit disingenuous.
I was looking at the sun image this morning and I said to myself, “Look at that new sun spot!” and it turns out, it was just a some crud on my monitor.
Ben
Doh! sorry my comment above was meant for another topic! Mods can delete it if they want, and this one too…
deadwood (08:08:48) :
Just Want Truth… (17:29:54) :
i dont know why you said this to me.
Well Benjamin P., opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. (hehe, sorry, old joke)
Your opinion of a person you don’t know maybe valid in your own eyes, but from a scientific view point, we need proof and probability that his religious beliefs interfere with his science towards AGW, not conjecture.
People have different beliefs around the world, are you pointing out that any person with a belief system contrary to your own, can not have a scientific mind and their views professionally should be disregarded?