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
“[Follow up note to Ryan: RC’s apology really doesn’t matter, since nobody is paying attention to them anymore anyway, see below – Anthony]”
You know Watt? That was just rude! It was also factual and deserved!! 8>)
bubbagyro says:
January 7, 2011 at 8:55 am
“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. ….”
======================================================
Worse, as was noted by Voltaire “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says:
January 7, 2011 at 1:38 am
I’m a SKEPTIC (on multitudinous levels) and I’m damned proud of being one. It beats the word ‘PATSY’ any day of the week!
Thank you Cynthia, I think you’ve just given us *the* word to use to describe those who have fallen for the AGW hoax – “PATSY”
@PhilJourdan says:
January 7, 2011 at 10:33 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
Here is a crash course on the difference between liberals and conservatives:
Conservatives want freedom;
liberals want control.
Conservatives want to decide their own fate;
liberals want to decide everyone else’s fate.
Conservatives believe in the power of the individual;
liberals believe in the power of the State.
Conservatives want laws repealed;
liberals want laws passed.
Conservatives believe a higher authority is possible;
liberals believe THEY are the higher authority.
Conservatives know agw is a wealth redistribution scam;
liberals pretend agw is about the magnaminity of a trace gas.
Conservatives point to historical data as proof that climate change is natural;
liberals point to gigo computer projections as proof that climate change is manmade.
Get the picture?
“Well, the data is subject to interpretation. Over the longer term, the planet has warmed. 2010 is the second warmest year on the satellite record. Arctic sea ice is at a record low for the date. There is a reasonable basis to argue that the world is warming, if one is so inclined. And CO2 is increasing. So in terms of philosophy, one could reasonably believe that CO2 is contributing to increasing temperatures.”
That’s not the issue. The issue is i) whether the change is even material (+0.18 deg C anomaly for December–please); ii) whether change in climate can be reasonably linked to CO2, iii) whether CO2 can be reasonably limited by intervention, and iv) whether the cost of intervenion can produce commensurate benefits. In terms of policy–as opposed to personal belief–there are mountains of uncertainty. There is little basis to undertake material sacrifices now on the basis of the information available.
…waking to coffee (in my WUWT mug, of course) and reading these comments from truly OUTSTANDING ‘Real Scientists’… I keep forgetting to bring along my ‘biro’ (blue Bic pen, for Americans) and writing pad…
I enjoy scooping up ‘truly life giving & inspiring’ quotes that you guys post. Some from yourselves – some from other truly great humans from the past. Like, Voltare. (I personally enjoy that guy who traveled America and said ‘she is Great because she’s good…’ he was cool because he was HONEST.)
Do any of you know of a book that ‘in a nut shell’ gives Voltare’s ‘best thoughts’?
There’s also a plethora of great stuff from Einstein, that most of you know – and over the past few weeks I’ve already read a couple of books on Jefferson because of what ‘Smokey’ shared months ago…
Geez! Who KNEW that by reading ONE WEB SITE that ‘one’ (being ME in this case) would be privy to such mind expanding stuff? Perhaps (now, this is JUST a Theory – so please cut me some slack…) ‘as individuals’ – when we come together – this…this ‘Synergy’ happens and I leave this computer better off than when I first sat down to it…?
‘Wowie Zowie’ she so ‘scholarer-ly’ exclaims.
No wonder governments in 2011 want to regulate this thing! Does that mean that Cass Sunstein has been wantin’ to keep all this good stuff to himself?
Com’ on, Cass! (is that short for ‘Cassity’? as in Butch, mebbe? where’s… Sundance?)
You wouldn’t want the rest of us to go ‘without’ would you??? she ‘skeptically’ inquires…
I just BET that all of our government’s ‘collective individuals’ so very much need a ‘real boost’ from great places like Watts Up!!! So… I heartily suggest that they log on and read on… but you ‘government-types’… if you do that – AT LEAST promise you’ll keep the Marxist/Behaviorist/Skinnerism-ing crap to yourselves. Jus’ for our continuing enjoyment – you understand. I mean, jus’ cause I like to smoke…doesn’t mean I’m so rude as to blow it in YOUR faces…like you guys foist your secularist garbage in our faces all the time…
Ohhhh… Why waste a great mood? – I’m currently writing down James Sexton’s quote from Voltare and then goin’ out to tend the sheep… p.s. the weather in the Southeast is overcast and cool… Have any of you thought of getting fellow Scientists
to just ‘check thermometers outside their homes to ‘accurately’ log this ‘climate change’? …Methinks it’d be a whole lot more ‘accurate’…or mebbe lickin’ one’s finger to test just which way ‘the wind’s gonna blow’…? A Farmer’s Almanac, even…???
Inquiringly – your lil’ Sis in the Southeast –
Cynthia Lauren
ooooohhhh….Charles S. Opalek, PE says!!!
I’ve just swooned again….how do I find my 4-wheeler now…?
Gotta keep on writing your comments down… THANK YOU CHARLES!
An Invigorated ‘Thorpie’
A conservative in Cambridge is a Marxist radical when viewed from South Carolina and the most of the rest of fly over country that make the world work.
His views on Global Warming give you a hint of what the rest of his political views are.
Jakers said:
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.”
He’s discussing the media coverage of 2004, and the lack of media coverage in the years after that. Again, the MSM almost never covers Southern Hemi cyclones, so he can’t criticize them for that. Probably might think about not taking quotes out of contest. That always gets people into trouble.
And, as I said on my blog-post, RC assumes they know what Bell was thinking. They would have done much better to have, I don’t know, maybe called him, ask him what his sources were, and see if they could write a response for Forbes, instead of being snarky and stupid about it.
Steve in SC says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“A conservative in Cambridge is a Marxist radical when viewed from South Carolina and the most of the rest of fly over country that make the world work.”
Well, don’t forget that Freeman Dyson has lived in Cambridge for many decades now and he is a terribly nice man.
@ur momisugly Charles S Opalek, good list, validates what I’ve been saying for years, Republicans can’t be considered conservative.
@ur momisugly Cynthia Lauren Thorpe, I think Voltaire would appreciate it if you could spell his name correctly. Not trying to be snarky, just pointing out it has an ‘i’ in it.
I consider myself a traditionalist rather than a conservative, largely because conservative has become as meaningless as ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’ these days. People just tend to mean ‘that lot who think differently’.
Oh, an’ to Alexander K the New Zealander ‘in the UK’…
Sorry if you don’t enjoy my ‘soliloquies/rants’ – I’ve gotten a lot out of yours .
I’m also currently ‘displaced’. An American business woman learning to live ‘in the Outback’. It’s ‘tough’ at times – culturally speaking. I somehow ‘found’ WUWT which ‘for me’ is a forum within which to read and to conscientiously debate with others on a myriad of germane topics.
When ‘ranting’ about Country Clubs – I was just demonstrating that I came from a privileged Conservative background (showing I wasn’t just talking ‘outta my a**, you understand) that ‘I knew of which I had spoken’… – and when I sniffed ‘hipocracy’ (which one can find ANYWHERE) – I left and kinda did a young ‘David Horowitz’y thing – became a ‘useful idiot’… till life’s school of ‘hard knocks’ brought a tried and true Conservative into being. That’s all. ‘No Dramas’, Alexander.
And, now, I’m even a Capitalist, too!!! So, the next time I go into a Country Club it’ll be under my OWN merit…NOT my ‘folks’…and, I’ll bring anyone of ANY COLOR I so choose, ’cause that’ll be ‘my right’ if I am paying ‘the dues’. C apish?
But, your ‘Gone With the Wind’ thing intrigues me… ’cause I loved Rhett’s character and thought Scarlett embodied all that was truly FATAL in females…
Be Blessed and KEEP WARM – my Kiwi Bud…
Cynthia Lauren
io’debatebate us’ don’t don’t read them.
[Careful now. Ya gotta watch out for them there “hipocracies” all the time – particularly when making observations about their weight. 8<) Robt]
In for lunch…and need to MAKE IT rather than keep reading…!!!
Thanks, LB! I stand corrected and I’ll remember.
Now, do you know of a good book that kinda ‘encapsulates’ his thoughts & life?
C.L.Thorpe
hahaha….thanks Robert!
hahaha…gotta make Ian’s ham sandwiches!
Here he comes now………ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Sonicfrog says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Jakers said:
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.”
He’s discussing the media coverage of 2004, and the lack of media coverage in the years after that. Again, the MSM almost never covers Southern Hemi cyclones, so he can’t criticize them for that.
OK — so what is Bell criticizing them for, when the Atlantic season was well above average this year?
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
January 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Here is a crash course on the difference between liberals and conservatives:
Conservatives want freedom;
liberals want control.
Conservatives want to decide their own fate;
liberals want to decide everyone else’s fate.
Conservatives believe in the power of the individual;
liberals believe in the power of the State.
Conservatives want laws repealed;
liberals want laws passed.
Conservatives believe a higher authority is possible;
liberals believe THEY are the higher authority.
Conservatives know agw is a wealth redistribution scam;
liberals pretend agw is about the magnaminity of a trace gas.
Conservatives point to historical data as proof that climate change is natural;
liberals point to gigo computer projections as proof that climate change is manmade.
Get the picture?
I get the picture. You. Clueless.
I am a conservative, and simply because Kerry Emanuel says he is one doesn’t mean he is. L.A. Times tends to define anyone to their right as “conservative” even if the one they are describing is a liberal.
If he is wrong on AGW, it doesn’t matter to me what he is otherwise.
LOL @ur momisugly “JK”
Care to expound on your brilliant summation of those facts? Really? Prove any two of those points wrong (I’m giving you that because one is wrong).
bubbagyro says:
January 7, 2011 at 8:55 am
… 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.
Someone here the other day said a person cannot be an oxymoron, two completely opposite words describing the same, but seems you just found one… liberal scientist!
Understanding the genesis of a Kerry Emmanuel may be helped by the remarks of Richard Lindzen:
“…I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our
side of this issue. First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist. Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.
“For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition….” [from his presentation at the March, 2009 ICCC]
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
@Benjamin P. says:
January 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Benjamin – #1, you know all of those people? (your claim was who you knew)
#2 – 4 in 10 of ALL Americans. Liberals included. Given their proclivity to believe in anything religious, I would say the AGW crowd is disproportionately represented. But that is just IMHO.
Links should be used to buttress an opinion, not to add irrelevant information.