Drought, Wildfires Haven’t Changed Perry’s Climate-Change Views : It’s All Politics : NPR
Last week, I drove to College Station to talk with Andy Dessler about the renewed firestorm over global warming. This was the week before actual firestorms roared across Central Texas, killing four people, burning 1,000 homes, and forcing thousands to evacuate. The punishing drought played a major role in the wildfire outbreak, the worst in Texas history, and Dessler says there’s an unmistakable connection between the drought and climate change.
“We can’t say climate change is causing the extreme weather Texas is having right now. On the other hand, we can say humans have increased the temperature of the base climate state pretty much everywhere. And what that means is it makes the heat more extreme and increases evaporation from the soil. We can be confident we’ve made this hellish summer worse than it would have been.”
…
Dessler is not surprised anymore by the vehemence of the emails he receives from people who believe he is perpetrating a fraud.
“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science,” he says. “The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government. From what I understand, Perry’s position is that he doesn’t want government to interfere in private lives or industry. That means climate change — which calls for a government solution; there’s no way for the free market to address climate change by itself — that doesn’t fit anywhere with his political values. So he shoots the messenger.”
The messenger is Andy Dessler and the great majority of other climate scientists who believe human activity is warming the planet.
h/t to Tom Nelson
I posted this on another thread but it might go well here…. OK so like I am listening to peter b collins latest pod cast …it has some very good info about perry and the Koch brothers and a secret meetings where perry and others attended …peace
“Brad Friedman of BradBlog returns with a blockbuster: audio recordings reveal much from top-secret Koch brothers millionaire/billionaire confab held in Vail in June, breaking the news that NJ Gov. Christie snuck in and out to give keynote speech; Will Durst gives a snarky review of the GOP octet as they invoked Reagan as they ignored his invocation not to attack fellow travelers” http://peterbcollins.com/
The fact that Dessler uses weather to push his agenda is more than enough evidence that he is untrustworthy.
People who discount the uncertainly of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science. They do it because they have an agenda. Dessler gave aways his agenda. One day he will recognize he was driven more by his politics than he wanted to admit.
kim says:
September 10, 2011 at 9:08 am
Poor fella doesn’t understand that the free market is the most efficient mechanism to adapt to climate change. He’s as nitwitty as his naughty null.
Yes, that is a correct statement about the free market, but the government doesn’t want adapatation. They want mitigation, meaning they will tell us what we must do to “fix” the problem. That gives them more power to control the economy and us.
“The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government.”
Is this an accurate quote?!??? This is a stunning admission and should be the quote of the week. It speaks volumes about the CACC movement and its promoters.
“We can be confident we’ve made this hellish summer worse than it would have been.”
I recommend that Dessler audit the course- “Texas Extreme Weather: 1800-1950”. I think it is a 1 credit freshman class for non-science majors that involves just passively sitting in a lecture room 1 hour per week, listening to meteorologists and historians discuss the extreme weather events that litter Texas history prior to 1950. No equations. No climate models. No hand-waving hypotheses. No ad-hoc explanations.
“…there’s no way for the free market to address climate change by itself…”
Climate is always changing, and the free market worldwide has adapted, century after century, without government intervention. By denying that fact, Dessler does himself little credit.
“That means climate change — which calls for a government solution; there’s no way for the free market to address climate change by itself —”
Scientists shouldn’t call for anything all in the political arena. But “climate scientists” are even getting arrested to call for government action. That is one of the many reasons (in addition to reading the science) why skeptics doubt these “scientists.”
ANthony, you insultingly suggest that I have not read the science. In fact, I have very carefully read everything I can find on climate science and related matters. In fact, reading the “science” coming from outside the mainstream is very easy, because there is so little. Polemics, yes, science, no!
REPLY: Your collection of way-out jabs and one-liners here don’t suggest that you have read the science. You’ve offered nothing beyond that in your entire history commenting at WUWT, so please forgive me if I don’t believe you- Anthony
I live in Canada. My first wife and I planned on one child, but ended up with five (this included a set of twins) because apparently even the best birth control methods are not 100% effective. Aside from the cost of raising five children however, we were not burdened with the medical bills associated with either their birth or their later care (our youngest, having Cerebral Palsy, needed a LOT of medical attention).
That’s because of a government solution.
A couple of years ago my appendix decided to blow up and I spent a week in hospital after life-saving surgery. I lost a bit in wages, but the cost of the surgery and extremely effective medical care didn’t bankrupt me.
That’s because of a government solution.
I received 12 years of free education, which (at the time) actually included some real eduaction.
That’s because of a government solution.
In short, I have nothing against government solutions per se.
When AGW first started hitting the news, I was inclined to accept the premise. We’ve done some pretty horrible things to our planet, and on the face of it, the idea that we had also affected its climate seemed reasonable.
Having spent several decades in the writing industry, however, I have a certain sensitivity to words, and even from the beginning the words coming at me from the proponents of this theory bothered me. There seemed to be a lot of weasel phrases, generalities, and ambiguities in what they said. More distressing was the fact that when countering arguments against their theory, they tended to resort either to overly-technical explanations filled with unnecessary jargon designed to dun the reader into submission, or childish attacks on whoever disagreed with them. I compared this to other scientific controversies (such as Moon Hoaxers and Flat Earthers) in which the scientific communities involved had always tried getting their message across as clearly and thoroughly as possible. What I found was that when it came to the language and argumentative style involved, the AGW proponents had far more in common with the madmen trying to prove that we’ve never set foot on the Moon or that the Earth is actually one large disk than they did with scientists trying to stave off the madmen’s attacks.
So then I started looking at the science. I’ll never get it all down, of course, but I’ve looked at, analysed, and written about enough other scientific issues to have confidence in my ability to understand the basics, and to be able to spot obvious displays of bad logic and contradictions — all of which seemed abundant in the AGW “scientific consensus.”
When Climategate hit, it meant little more to me than confirmation of what I (and so many others) had managed to conclude through the already-existing evidence — that AGW was, at best, a seriously flawed theory held together by group-think and self-interest.
And so, Professor Dessler, I completely reject your statements, just as I do so many of your colleagues’ statements. You have once again succeeded in presenting me with an ad hominem attack upon my intellect, and woefully misanalysed my belief system (an analysis that seems to ignore its corollary — that if those opposing your theory do so because of their political beliefs, perhaps you hold to your theory for exactly the same reason. You remind me of nothing more than a belligerent Bart Sibrel yelling at Buzz Aldrin to admit that the Moon landing was a hoax.
When, or rather if, you and the rest of your crowd begin to treat me and other opponents with a modicum of respect (you might pick up some pointers from Judith Curry), stop trying to subvert publications of countering theories, and answer objections directly rather than throwing out a net-full of red herrings, then, perhaps, I’ll start paying some attention to you again.
But until then,[snip] and the government-subsidised horse you rode in on.
Personally, I started out believing the ‘science’ behind AGW but became skeptical the more I learned about the issue. Repeated studies have shown that skeptics tend to know more about climate science than AGW proponents, which suggests my situation may be quite common.
I absolutely GUARANTEE that this in NOT the worst wildfire season in the history of Texas, just the worst since we’ve paid any attention. Which is, at the very most, 150 years….
Oakden Wolf says:
In the mean time, (elections are a little over a year away) and we should expect many more messanger attacks from both sides. I hope the public will be able to see thru the use of subjective science for political purposes.
How utterly ironic that he would accuse skeptics of not reading the science in view of recent events. Let’s just say his recent science has been both read and found wanting.
Back in 1990, I believed the warmists. Then I started reading the science as given by people like Art Robinson and Willie Soon.
I stopped believing after I had read the science, after I’d noticed which variable is leading and which is lagging.
That was enough. Didn’t need to worry about correlations, feedbacks, statistics, and other miscellaneous details, and I think most people who spend time on those matters are wasting their efforts.
Good measurements and one good graph. All you need.
Climate change . . . or just cycles . . . . and how long have we known!
AMS Journals Online – Hydrometeorological Reconstructions for …
journals.ametsoc.org › Journal of Climate › March 2001You +1’d this publicly. Undo
by N Pederson – 2001 – Cited by 73 – Related articles
In 1999 a severe summer drought followed by heavy winter snowfall triggered …. size, exceeds 0.965 for every 30-yr segment over the lengths of record for both …. that has been hypothesized as having influence on drought cycles (Mitchell et al. ….. Schulman, E., 1945: Tree-rings and runoff in the South Platte River basin.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%2230+yr+%22+drought+cycle+platt+river&pbx=1&oq=%2230+yr+%22+drought+cycle+platt+river&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=390l390l1l1297l1l1l0l0l0l0l469l469l4-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2ea25270560d40fb&biw=1152&bih=562
The lunar cycle and golden number
http://www.freefictionbooks.org/…/24043-our-calendar-by-george-nichol... – CachedYou +1’d this publicly. Undo
THE LUNAR CYCLE AND GOLDEN NUMBER. In connecting the lunar month with the solar year, the framers of the ecclesiastical calendar adopted the period of Meton …
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=golden+number+moon&pbx=1&oq=golden+number+moon&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3109l8234l0l8703l18l17l0l0l0l0l922l5596l0.1.0.3.1.4.2l11l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2ea25270560d40fb&biw=1152&bih=562
I don’t think this is called a science yet! (in my opinion).
Perry has a strong view on the anti-science of climate change, but, in this era of super-heated rhetoric, even that position (especially that position) needs to be substantiated with facts. He seemed ill-prepared during the Reagan Library debates to support his earlier critiques of this as fraudulent science, and “a scam”, terms he has used in his book. In my judgment, he can put the onus back where it belongs – on the cagw promoters – by preparing his talking points to include a little bit of science. The Spencer- Braswell paper might be a good starting point. He should have a solid knowledge of the remote sensing satellites and be able to explain to common Americans why and how both it and the land-based records are susceptible to error. Such errors should be explained in terms of human error, not as a plot.
I’ve read the science and actually studied paleoclimatology fifty years ago as probably all geology students have – before there was any contemporary climatology, except for the geography stuff like coffee grows in Brazil and cocao in West Africa (which geographers glommed onto when they became endangered species after the earth was finally mapped)….but this doesn’t make me an expert. However, the general public all have PhDs in detecting the egregious dishonesty and sleight of hand that was revealed in the climategate emails by the elite guys who have read and, indeed, invented the science. Oh, I know this has all been found to have been misinterpreted by mean-spirited Big Oil and Coal shills, and that a bunch of investigators found the emails to have more benevolent meanings, but the ordinary folk don’t need to read much of the dreck that goes for climate science these days. All they’ve done is ask themselves, if the science is so “robust” and “settled” and doom is at hand, why was it necessary to hide declines, hide data, put graphs upside down, pick and choose a couple of ‘supportive’ trees out of hundreds for proxies, recalculate the 1930s temp records downwards, fill in the Little Ice Age with the MWP, block scientific papers with alternative findings and views, have editors forced out and black-ball publications that did publish critical papers, engage in ad hominem attacks on skeptical scientists who had read the science (Dressler himself resorted to this in the opening of his recent paper, defaming scientists at the top of the field)……The day is coming (lets hope) that scientists themselves won’t even read the “science” as we put this ugly, dark age of science behind us.
Hugh Pepper- “It’s pretty hard to argue with this position.”
There are no facts presented by Dessler with which to argue. Its mostly hyperbole lacking context, perfect for the NPR audience.
You agree with Dessler’s statement that the science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government. This is a refreshingly honest admission from the CACA’s.
By the way, this admission should automatically discount any sciencey claims being made by alarmist climate scientists like Dessler, Tobis, Hansen, Rahmstorf, etc etc. Their credibility as unbiased purveyors of science has just been self-immolated.
Another gobsmacking own-goal, as they say.
“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science,”
Given that Dr. Dessler is now convincingly accused of cherry picking data (if all the data had been used the results would negate his ‘proof’), this arrogant assertion is likely to haunt him.
In a recent episode of CSI the lead investigator was showing a police officer how their sophisticated software could track down criminals.
“Take this photograph of a shot-gun blast” the lead investigator started. “We digitize the image, run it through our modeling software and in this case we get a linear trend of 0.92 +/- 0.98 with an R2 of 0.02. I know you don’t know what that means, but it doesn’t matter because those numbers are automatically redirected into an extensive database of shot-gun blast trends and we can tell the make and model of the gun and often who the owner is – all in a matter of seconds”.
The police officer, obviously very impressed replied “Wow. I bet you guys could even predict climate change.”
The lead investigator (laughing) answered “Are you kidding? We don’t have that kind of budget”.
Not sure what it all means though…
People who discount the science of [alarmist] climate change do it BECAUSE they have read the science.
/fixed…
I’ve “read the science” and “done the math” (some of it) myself — as have many here I imagine.
I conclude: Preventing AGW is not something Governments should spend money on — for many reasons.
With me, not a political thing at all. But, I do believe for many in the “public eye”, AGW is political — and nothing but political.
“On the other hand, we can say humans have increased the temperature of the base climate state pretty much everywhere.”
I agree. But it has nothing to do with CO2.
I would suggest that Dr. Dessler read the discussion of his latest paper here at WUWT .
1. The only science done is done by proper skeptics, everything else if gigo.
2. Why would people spend what little time they have to read hippie pseudo-science in the first place?
3. Most people probably don’t read sciencey pages from academic paper mills, however, people rarely need to to spot the doomsday nuts, the basket cases, the snake oil sails people of the year every year, the fanatics, the odd pseudo-scientist that starts to foam at the mouth if they’re not readily believed, in essence common folks don’t need to be rocket scientists to spot fundamentalists out to get their hard earned cash for the cash itself.
Confucius says:
“Study without thought is futile; thought without study is dangerous.”
Why would anyone who hasn’t at least read some of the science would hold any opinion whatsoever on “climate change”? ……. ok….. sarc off.