Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible
MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change and criticizing Republicans’ ‘agenda of denial‘ and ‘anti-science stance.’
Not touching this one with a ten-foot pole — just wondering what the motivation is for yet another Emanuel article, which get more and more political. Enjoy the article written by Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau, with character witness Michael Mann. Article Links to the LA Times.
Update more about hurricanes: The Team at RealClimate can’t score on an empty net and are being disingenuous about the “global tropical cyclone record lows”. Let me help them: their colleague Dr. Emanuel produced a 2005 Nature paper and used a metric called Power Dissipation, which is analogous to ACE. I use ACE — I could have used Power Dissipation. The data is publicly available, and I am simply updating Emanuel’s work. Also, this work is already published back in 2009 for the Northern Hemisphere, when the global ACE was tanking. See Maue (2009), but then again, why bother with that peer-reviewed literature.
Fact: 2010 produced the fewest Tropical Cyclones globally on record — and it has NOTHING to do with global warming. The Team only can look at the Atlantic — but did they talk about 2009 being one of the quietest seasons on record?
[also, a note to RealClimate: Larry Bell was absolutely correct about global tropical cyclone activity record lows. You owe him an apology.]
[Follow up note to Ryan: RC’s apology really doesn’t matter, since nobody is paying attention to them anymore anyway, see below – Anthony]
Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/forbes.com
I really like that traffic rank graph. Cutting off the lower bound where you did, Anthony, and leaving RC to spike into view only now and then reminds me of a swimmer in grave danger.
REPLY: Actually the cutoff was automatically imposed by Alexa.com in the plot they make…you see they don’t plot data fro websites that are below the top 100,000 in rank…hence the blips. However, your point about a swimmer is accurate in this context. – Anthony
“Emanuel said. “The parallel to that is saying, ‘You won’t buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.’”
Where I come from that would class as a direct threat against me, mine and my house. It would label the speaker as a thug with a gallon of gas in his car and a lighter in his pocket. And my next move would be (at the least) to run him off with a shotgun.
Most conservatives I know deny evolution. Just saying.
“Political views may be hard-wired into people, according to a study that suggests those with right-wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.
Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond-shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions, London’s Daily Telegraph reports.
They also have smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life, than those from the opposite end of the political spectrum.”
Absolutely opposite of the positron brain scan results (UCLA) of “hard core partisians” done in 2004 before the election. The areas of the brain associated with “emotional response” lit up like a Christmas tree when shown pictures of Kerry and Edwards. Fear areas lit up when hard core (Democrats) were shown Bush/Cheny pictures.
There was “normal brain processing” for images of both Kerry/Bush in the “hard core conservatives”.
I think I’d trust the “live observations” more than the speculative “brain volume assesments”.
But then because of the potential “politiziation” of this matter, I’d rather have some “quality assurance” done on the researchers too! (Maybe like vote counting, one Democrat matched with one Republican..)
I am a scientist, and consider myself a good conservative scientist. That means I “conserve” the scientific principle and adhere to its method. The Laws of Conservation of Matter, and so on, state the conservative position. Any scientist who is liberal with these principles may expect apples to fall up one day, and can be led to believe anything any fool tells him. These liberal scientists now seem to believe in a pack mentality that asserts that burning coal and hydrocarbons causes the earth to heat up out of control. This idea, or whim, or hypothesis (not a theory) has been tested and retested repeatedly by many outstanding scientists using the conservative scientific method, and AGW has been summarily falsified. It only took the falsification of one premise, but they all fell!
My conclusion: a liberal scientist is not a scientist at all. A scientist is by definition, conservative.
Heh – I’m always amused by political generalizations.
Look, nobody (that I know) ever said that left/right = belief/disbelief in cAGW. What does tend to happen, though, is that the left tend to believe more easily that we mere humans are damaging the planet and (here’s the important part) WE NEED TO CHANGE EVERYTHING TO FIX IT.
Any discussion about political affiliation is going to deal in generalizations. Not unlike your astrology sign (I’m a Scorpio). I don’t believe that horoscopes can predict, however my personal experience is that people tend to follow their signs, whether they like it or believe it or not. We Scorpios think that way, you see.
The very definition of left/right varies by region. Different states/provinces/districts of different countries/continents will have a different set of priorities, but overall the left/right difference can be summed up, somehow. Sometimes a group will all be so far off in one direction that the only difference is the degree.
My personal simplification:
The left emphasizes feelings and emotions, and collectivism.
The right emphasizes thinking and self-reliance.
Obviously, the left feels that they think more than the right, which eliminates their ability to critically analyse that simplification.
Anyway, the real issue is single-issue. Anyone who defines their belief system and their entire life on a single issue is going to see the world in a bizarre black/white left/right up/down way. One example is gay people, who tend to define themselves more as gay (as opposed to straight) than male/female/white/black/asian/intellectual/artist or whatever else we use to define ourselves.
I’m firmly on the RIGHT in my political outlook, but it wasn’t always that way. I also recognize that many people who associate themselves with the Right (or conservative, or Republican, or whatever) really have no idea what they stand for. Just because you agree with one or two policies or ideas that you think are “conservative” doesn’t mean you ARE a “conservative”. Heck, I like a few of the things that the left endorse, but I wouldn’t be caught dead associated with any leftist/democrat I’ve yet met.
Oh, and those who think the zeroBama “health care” thing is a good idea are really not well-informed on the subject (although I think you feel you are). I’ve lived most of my life watching the dismal failure that the canadian system has become. You really don’t want to screw up your country this way. Really.
RE: Larry Bell was absolutely correct about global tropical cyclone activity record lows.
Hm, it seems what Bell actually said was “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.” True, global tropical cyclone activity is very low by some measures, but “no 2010 U.S. landfalls” is not relevant, and “average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years” would refer to Atlantic activity, and Atlantic activity was nearly at a record high.
[RyanM: Bell was lamenting about the lack of media interest in good climate stories: how is he wrong again, and how do you dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity again?]
Mike Haseler says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:50 am
“And to be honest, I think when Barack Obama drops the global warming rubbish as he is bound to do (he’s not exactly enthusiastic is he!), he’ll be the best president the US ever had … but then again, he’s not exactly left of centre!”
I’m not going to argue about all of his policies, but I think it is pretty obvious that Barack is a global warming true believer. He banned offshore oil drilling against the recommendation of a panel of scientists/engineers/whatever and even though he “repealed” that ban under pressure he left in a de facto ban on oil drilling by requiring permits to drill – and then not issuing any permits.
Add a few other things to the mix like John Holdren (his science advisor) and his views beome quite clear indeed.
six million dollar man says:
January 7, 2011 at 1:56 am
I’m currently writing a book called ” As bad As Each Other: Comparing stupidity on boths sides of the fence” – Who made up these arbitrary divisions anyway? Why can’t we vote on every single issue via computer? We have the technology
——————————————–
The USA is a representative republic. Your idea doesn’t seem very compatible with that concept. It also would be susceptible to fraud and manipulation on scale that even the Chicago political machine never dreamed of.
Let’s please use this graphic each time the media tells us how much our current climate sucks.
Christopher Hanley says:
January 6, 2011 at 11:04 pm
‘A person can’t be an “oxymoron”.’
Yeah, someone who believes that a person can be an oxymoron will also believe that a person can be the truth. I wonder who that could be?
Jakers said -but “no 2010 U.S. landfalls” is not relevant- seemed very relevant to Gore.
Can’t you see the major down-trend in the WUWT traffic since the very beginning of 2o10? At this rate, WUWT traffic levels will be “under water” within… (well, can we get Mann/Hansen to extrapolate the death-knell rate?)
Benjamin P. says:
January 7, 2011 at 8:38 am
Ben, I guess you do not know many conservatives.
As for the left/right = AGW/Skeptic comparison. That is usually caused by the prominent solutions being proposed to the (non-existent) problem. For conservatives that do believe in AGW (or A any of the other names they have come up with), taxing is an anathema, but taxing is the lifeblood of the left. Conversely, those on the left that are skeptics may very well support another tax – but for purposes of raising revenue, not treating a problem they do not believe is one.
For those that are well versed on the subject of AGW, ACC, or AGCD, the ancillary issues of taxes or restrictions is secondary to the science. So left and right do not matter in that respect.
EFS Junior said:
Here’s a link to the Forbes article, which you left out of this post;
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell_print.html
“Record Low 2009 and 2010 (methinks GLOBAL TROPICAL would have been placed right aboot here) Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”?
Cyclonic Activity? Tropical? Polar? Extratropical? Subtropical? Mesocyclone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone
Note first that in your WIkileaks link, it describes Cyclone as such:
a cyclone is an area of closed, circular fluid motion rotating in the same direction as the Earth.[1][2] This is usually characterized by inward spiraling winds that rotate counter clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth.
The term cyclone refers to BOTH hemispheres. If Bell would have said “Record Low 2009 and 2010 Hurricane Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”, you and RC might have a point… But he didn’t. He said Cyclone
Nice bait and switch.
“Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?”
Hurricanes?
U.S. 2004 season?
Note that he’s talking about the media brouhaha that occurred that year. I must ask – how many instances can you find in the media where SH Cyclones were specifically hyped, as Al Gore often reminded us “that is a sure sign of global warming”. If you look, I think you’ll find there aren’t many.
“Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years
RC noted that this year was busier than usual… OK. But, Bell said seasons, and, with this year being an outlier, not to mention the influence the El Nino had on building up latent heat to fuel the hurricane engine, Bell is correct. And, as RC is so quick to remind us during one cool year, or one (no two, no three) unusually cold winters – one year does not equal climate!
before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.”
Hurricane landfall is a game of chance, so this quibble is neither here nor there.
OK. I’m done. Have to go work now.
Otis Chandler (owner of the LA Times 1960-1980), who dragged the LA Times out of the partisan and yellow-journalism gutter and turned it into a respected world-class newspaper, would roll-over in his grave then rise up and fire the reporter and editor responsible for such a blatantly partisan, non-journalistic piece, which should have appeared, if at all, in the editorial or opinion section.
His lack of understanding about the purpose of insurance and fire risk is so elementary as to make me question his reasoning ability in any area.
I think a person’s political principles will (if a person is logically consistent and has some rational discipline) be based on that person’s ethical premises. The weirdness starts to occur when, for whatever reason, a person does not have consistently rational thought processes; randomness of political affiliation (independent of ethics) would occur then based on emotion, belief systems and/or herd instinct. This weirdness would be the expected case for followers, but not likely for the leaders of an ideology like CAGW. The leaders may actually have relatively consistent ethics and politics . . . does anyone know of an individual leader of CAGW like this? I do not know of any.
All that aside, a person could also be purposely attempting misdirection (for whatever motivation) regarding their actual ethical and political principles. In my view that is one of the likely cases for some key leaders of an ideology like CAGW; based on the issues surrounding climate science credibility.
This is all wonderful to consider as we blog about MIT professor Kerry Emanuel. Is he a leader or follower? I think it is likely that he is a reactive follower; leadership does not spring to mind when discussing him.
John
Actually, my dissertation work involved extratropical cyclones as well. It appears that explosive extratropical cyclones are at a record low as well.
2010-2011 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season is 80% below normal.
nc says:
January 7, 2011 at 10:07 am
Jakers said -but “no 2010 U.S. landfalls” is not relevant- seemed very relevant to Gore.
Ha ha, talk about “not relevant”…
I’m a Liberal sometimes, I’ve voted for Liberal Prime Ministers in Canada (sometimes). I think CAGW is a follow the money scam, many of my sometimes Liberal friends also think CAGW is a scam (not all of them). CO2 alarmism and skepticism is not politically orientation specific.
It’s too bad the US didn’t do that when it had a chance, isn’t it? Instead they passed that ObamaCase monstrosity which primarily seeks to redistribute wealth.
Why is it that liberals think the way to create equality is to tear down other people?
I don’t care if he thinks he is a conservative or not. I am not. Heck conservatives have lots of really dumb ideas too. I have a much bigger problem with referring to Kerry Emanuel as a scientist. We have now long passed the point where a scientist, that is at all current on the issue, can still support a CAGW hypothesis as anything other than a mental exercise.
[RyanM: Bell was lamenting about the lack of media interest in good climate stories: how is he wrong again, and how do you dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity again?]
dismiss the record-low global tropical cyclone activity? I don’t. Yet Bell never says global tropical cyclone activity. He says “Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season?” Hm, US season. Follows up with “Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.” Is this referring to global tropical cyclone activity? Are there global tropical cyclone activity patterns noted for the past 150 years? And what of U.S. landfalls? Is that relevant to global tropical cyclone activity?