Post by Dr. Ryan Maue
Distinguished MIT Professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel, who has waded gradually — but head-first into the politics of climate change, showed up on NPR’s Talk of the Nation last Friday to expound upon his previous LA Times interview/opinion editorial. As a refresher on January 6, Emanuel uniquely declared his particular political allegiance in the article, something very few scientists in any field dare do (see John Tierney’s piece on Social Psychologist liberal bias). As a lifelong Republican, Emanuel admired Reagan, opposes gay marriage, backs a strong military, yet voted for President Obama. [See WUWT Cambridge Conservative…] Why do we need to know any of this quite personal information? Simple: using his self-ascribed conservative credentials and the helpfully crafted straw-man argument encapsulated in the headline “Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible”, Emanuel could position himself as a unique entity in the field — a Republican that supports doing something about climate change. In the follow up interview on NPR entitled “Take the Science Politics out of Climate Change”, Emanuel accomplishes the exact opposite: he applies a “litmus test” to political candidates based upon their “belief” in climate change:
Prof. EMANUEL: My feeling is that at this point in history, if a politician simply denies that there’s any human influence in the climate, in face of all the evidence, it so much casts doubt on that person’s ability to weigh evidence and come to a rational conclusion that I can’t see myself voting for such a person, no matter what they say about other issues.
Aside from Dr. Michael Mann who launched a preemptive broadside attack [October 8 Washington Post editorial] on the incoming GOP Congress prior to the November election tsunami, which has subpoena power, it is unusual for an internationally renowned and well-respected scientist in any field to publicly declare their political ideology AND then turn around and ask that we delicately separate politics and science when we consider policy prescriptions on global warming action. If you indeed do that with this interview, one can find much scientific agreement between Emanuel and another outspoken scientist Dr. Judith Curry.
Read the NPR transcript or listen to the interview with Dr. Kerry Emanuel.
—————–
In my opinion, climate science has been mixed with politics since Al Gore declared that the “debate was over”. Furthermore, when the policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from the economic platform/goals of the left, it is very difficult to gather much in the way of bipartisan energy to legislate — especially from a recession-weary populace that wants to see government shrink. Did anyone in the media or on the left ever figure out the Tea Party. No.
Prior to the election of number 41, fellow Massachusetts conservative Scott Brown, President Obama and the Democrats completely controlled the Senate with a filibuster proof 60-votes, had a supermajority in the House, and could literally pass anything they wanted — assuming they stuck together. The problem was that so-called moderate or blue-dog Democrats from coal producing states looked at the economic destruction on the horizon from the “necessary bankruptcy” of that industry, and balked at passing Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman’s House bill. Currently, other Senators are looking towards 2012 and in no way want the burden of a climate change vote around their neck. Alas, Obama and the EPA are trying to implement new rules in spite of bipartisan opposition.
The November 2010 elections ended the dream of (federal, not state) cap-and-trade — and what did liberals get out of the last two years for their faithful and America: a failed stimulus bill, 9%+ unemployment, exploding deficits as far as the eye can see, and a health care law that is on life support without a Supreme Court ruling. But don’t take it from me, Joe Romm at the ClimateProgress does an excellent job summarizing: “The Failed Presidency of Barack Obama Part 1 and Part 1.5 and Part 2. Odds are in November 2012, part 3, 4, or 9 will be forthcoming.
Joe Romm laments, “The country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and [large] Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun.”
Note: this post is an analysis of the politics of climate change which has been inextricably linked with the actual science. No personal attacks will be tolerated!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Aside from Dr. Michael Mann …, it is unusual for an internationally renowned and well-respected scientist in any field to … .”
Please note, Dr. Maue, that you have referred to Dr. Michael Mann as “an internationally renowned and well-respected scientist.”
Whoa!
Over-generalize much?
.
Re: Jim & MTBE,
MTBE was a disaster for the state of California and poisoned ground water all over the state. Another policy by the brainiacs at CARB who had not the ounce of common sense to realize that putting billions of gallons of a water soluble chemical into in ground tanks would be a bad idea. They were hustled by oil refiners who previously had to spend money to get rid of the stuff. Well, as usual, us poor working saps got stuck with the bill, while Mary Nichols drives her state provided car complete with gas card.
regardless of how one comes down on the AGW belief scale, this opinion coming as it does from someone highly credentialed should prove beyond any doubt that AGW science IS Politics, and politics IS now science. Thanks to those who relentlessly pushed to give this idea the power of law, the issue and science in general has now been irretrievably politicized.
Yes, this is very bad for science in general, but it’s too late to lament that. It’s happened. From now on, so-called “scientists” will be regarded by the public as nothing more than a self-motivated political interest group trying to score some extra funding, actors who will say and do anything to advance their own personal agendas.
And sadly, the public will be right to view them so.
I’ll start believing that this “unprecedented” warming, is apolitical, when they stop pushing one-world socialism as the only “cure”.
Considering that that this entire thing was initiated by the Club-of-Rome LEFTIST’S back in the 80’s, it’s no wonder the demarcation lines are where they are today.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
(Taken from http://green-agenda.com/index.html )
-This MIT “professor” needs some grant money. That’s why he’s abandon all principal.
John Brookes,
“The failure of skeptics to agree on what is known and what is not known about the climate is their key weakness.”
Only a weakness in the eyes of those who don’t understand science. The whole reason why sceptics are sceptical is because of the large uncertainties in measured climate values and because they recognise that the climate is a complex non linear chaotic system about which there is much still to be learned. So I, for one, would be very suspicious if sceptics all said the same thing – that would mean they were foolish enough to believe they understood exactly how the climate works.
This trait can be found on the other side of the argument however – a groupthink reinforced echo chamber that purports to know how the climate works and what the temperature will be in 100 years. The fact that they all agree points to their disingenuousness.
You know the really scary part of this and other similar things, is that the adherents truly believe they are on a crusade to save mankind, and they can’t understand why other people are non-supportive of that noble goal. True believers are the most dangerous of all, since there is nothing short of death that will dissuade them from pursuing their self-appointed holy tasks; and all means – including genocide – are acceptable to achieve their ends. It is truly a form of insanity.
Surprisinly, the problems with MTBE and groundwater are mentioned at the eia.doe.gov link above …
I also need to pause and give credit to the source where where I first heard about MTBE – Ed Wallace and his Sat. morning program “Wheels” on KLIF 570 here in the DFW area … he was all over this issue years ago.
.
The science is settled, no scientific critical thinking or debate is allowed! Sounds like the Dark Ages all over again when the Church told everyone that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Don’t theses people ever learn?
Bill
Bill Illis posts:
“I note in the model Dr. Emanuel presented in Nature in 2005, hurricanes should have gone way over record levels this year, since his ocean box areas were very high this year.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/emanuel_nat05a.pdf
Well, they didn’t so why would we believe Dr. Emanuel’s forecasts now?”
———
Well, I read that paper too, and it seems to me that Kerry’s methods and assessment is flawed at best if we look back on 6 subsequent years of observations. If he is shown to be wrong then, why should we believe he’s correct now?
What troubles me more than anything though is the introduction of politics into science. The science should stand on it’s own. I feel the problem is not unlike lawyers becoming politicians.
I must have missed when John McCain “denied” that there was any human influence on the climate. In fact I think he supported cap and trade.
It bother me when people are ignorant of what politicians view are but then support them (or not) based on their view. But I usually think of these people as having low IQs, I don’t think of professors at MIT as being this ignorant about a subject and yet having such strong views on it.
Alex Harvey
I think it isn’t posted because there really isn’t anything there. It isn’t ready yet. It seems that as the el nino event of 2010 is building we may have gotten a slight increase in ocean heat content. I don’t think that is a surprise but I don’t know if it is important.
“”””” The basic forcings (solar and aerosols) which they claim explains earth’s climate before the large increase in CO2 concentrations are almost certainly in error (by a sizable margin). “””””
Who in their right mind, would include “solar” in a list of “basic forcings”; now I am only interested in the 150 years or so since they had some sort of global measuring system, such as HADCRUT. So don’t get into orbital shifts and Milankovitch etc.
So TSI changes about 0.1% over an 11 year sunspot cycle; and I believe Leif’s position is that nobody has observed any 11 year cyclic Temperature variation linked to solar cycles, and the calculated BB Temperature change is about 70-75 mdeg C.
I’m of the belief that even larger changes in TSI are simply mopped up by cloud cover changes. As to the cosmic ray theory; while I believe the physics of it is real, I don’t know whether the CR fluz is enough to explain much; mayb, but maybe not.
So in my view, the sun is simply the power supply that runs the whole system; it is not really part of the signalling system.
Anyone who knows anything about analog systems; or even digital systems, knows that they are deliberately designed to be immune to power supply changes. Analog control systems in particular can typically tolerate all kinds of noise or fluctuation of power supplies; and I don’t think the climate sytem is much different when it comes to the sun; the H2O feedback cycle involving cloud cover modulation can deal with any solar output changs that we have observed since people have been systematically observing the sun.
So aerosols get involved in the formation of water droplets, and hence clouds; whoop de doo ! It’s that CLOUD SYSTEM that is important; not the aerosols.
Mother Gaia, knows just where all the clouds are all the time. Humans don’t, and they vary too fast for us to monitor them properly.
All the circulation cycles such as ENSO, AMO, PDO and all the other Os do perturb things; and I’m glad that people study those to help with weather reports; but in the end, I doubt that they are involved in any one way slide into an ice ball or the fires of hell. Study the physical, chemical, and biological properties of H2O, and you will pretty much understand what is going on with climate.
I always enjoy your essays Dr Maue! What a privilege for us all that not only are you credentialed, but you also have an independent mind. Most refreshing.
I am beginning to think that being republican or democrat, tory or dipper makes no difference any more. It’s now just a matter of whether one is even capable of telling the difference between fact and fiction. If you really believe drinking Bud Light scores chicks, then new and improved Global Warming® is for you!
You know the marriage is over when one or both partners say the matter is settled and there’s nothing left to talk about. When Al Gore declared that the “science is settled” and the “debate is over”, that’s when I realized that many climate scientists had left their love for science for the welcoming arms of politics.
The truth was that McCain was hardly a “denier” and had a similar position to Obama in accepting AGW, working with international organizations, and imposing cap-and-trade on the US economy; McCain’s proposal was a little more business friendly in that it would have allowed the CO2 emitters to keep the permits for use or sale, Obama wanted to force industries to buy the permits from the government, the funds which would be used to subsidize alternative energy schemes, etc. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/eveningnews/main4472851.shtml
A “conservative” would have favored McCain’s position on climate change and on many other issues. Whatever Emanuel’s positions in the past, he has become a rent-seeking statist whose involvement in the AWG racket means that his interests are aligned with a totally leftist, Democrat-party dominated government.
wes george says:
February 9, 2011 at 3:54 am
“…. Fact is, government can’t cope with the basic stuff, like maintaining the highways, securing the borders, balancing the budget or winning the peace in their various wars, but they want us to believe that they can legislate fine weather for our children, if only we surrender even more of our liberty??? Do we look that stupid?”
Elegantly stated.
John Brookes: “…Cherry picking is another technique that discredits skeptics. Choosing two data points that support an assertion, while totally ignoring a mass of data which doesn’t is not a good look. One can only assume that people who do this are trying to mislead rather than enlighten.”
The same argument could be applied to alarmists. Unfortunately, depending on your point of view, these tactics are contributing to public distrust among the general public and increased scepticism about catastrophic global warming.
“I can’t see myself voting for such a person, no matter what they say about other issues.” In my experience, single issue voters that I have known are exceptionally narrow minded.
FrankK says:
February 9, 2011 at 1:10 am
Mike Haseler says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:34 am
Problem is when you have both politicians and scientists talking this rubbish, with an effective one party state in science, no opposition allowed, anyone daring to question the supreme authority of the state denied access to information and then castigated as a holocaust denier.
=====================================================
i.e. An Orwellian Climate Society
###
An OCS (Orwellian Climate Society) to Gore?
sorry. I’ll go now ……
Maue: “…the policy prescriptions are indistinguishable from the economic platform/goals of the left,…”
When did the left support the expansion of nuclear power? The cap and trade concept came from free market economists not the left. The political left had nothing against carbon dioxide until scientists became persuaded of its dangers and initially some conservative politicians agreed on the need to reduce emissions. The latter flip flopped after being by threatened by well financed primary challenges from the Koch-Tea Party.
AGW “scientists”: The sea level may rise by 1m (1000mm) by 2100.
Skeptic: Tat would mean the sea level would need to rise 10mm per year. Has it risen by 10mm a year even once in the last 20 years? Has it risen by 9mm a year even once? 8mm? 7mm? Isn’t sea level on track to drop for 2010?
“Dr.” Emanuel: DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
George E. Smith says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:19 am
TSI is only part of the sun’s output. While TSI varies ±.2%, that is just the visible bands. High energy UV, X-Rays, gamma rays, etc., vary as much as 10% according to some sources. Perhaps more so, because this is just looking at it from our recent perspective utilizing modern equipment for a very short history.
As for politics, yes, let’s divorce it from science. If it were that easy. Sure, the majority of Republicans seem to be yet in the warm-earther bandwagon, but can anyone name just one Democrat politician who is a climate realist? One?
Bush was on the correct side of the science, for whatever the reason, since he threw obstacles in the way of Kyoto ratification. He took withering fire over this from Democrat and Republican alike, including Congressional investigations, but stood his ground. Climate alarmism was still a strong plank in the platform on which the Democrats were elected in 2008. Bush caused many of us conservatives to take a hard look at the science, realizing it was far from settled. This was before we had reasonable voices on the scene, like Lord Monckton and WUWT, to enumerate the proper scientific arguments.
As for Prof. Emanuel— I had taken recent courses at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and I can attest that this area is one of the most provincial I have ever seen. MIT is one of the most difficult places I found to navigate to (like an ivory tower island). I guess if one does not conform to the “Cambridge Way” of thinking, one can easily be ostracized, even attacked. My WAG is that Prof. Emanuel might be being cagey; perhaps he was feeling the heat for not being 100% “on board”, and this is his way of casting a red herring, and pointing out that he is not to be associated with the “infamous” Lindzen. Just sayin’!
Elizabeth says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:04 am
Please always keep in mind that the onus, the burden of proof, is always to be placed upon the alarmist. He must back up his hypothesis. He is the one proposing Draconian measures.
“Cap and Trade” did NOT come from “free market economists”. Cap and Trade is just a mechanism for more government control through tax policy, which is anathema to any true believe in free markets.
Cap and Trade was first dreamt up by Enron in the late 90’s, Yes, THAT Enron, who saw that it would be a fantastic way to game their way to even more billions of paper profits. It was a SCAM from the very moment of its inception!!!