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
Dessler admitted that opinions on CAGW are frequently a proxy for political views because he presumes that his political views are unquestionably correct.
Another so-called liberal, living in a bubble.
Hugh Pepper says:
September 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
“I have very carefully read everything I can find on climate science and related matters.”
Maybe the problem is that you are careful to only read Alarmist “Science”, as anything else might threaten your CAGW Beliefs. In any case, since you agree with Dessler that “The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government”, then your Alarmist Beliefs must be driven by your favorable views on Big Government, and can be discounted on that basis alone.
It’s pretty hard to argue that the science behind AGW is settled, being that the state of climate science is much worse than previously imagined. The burden of proof has never been met.
By drawing so much attention to weather, the science behind AGW was opened to public scrutiny, they having read it, and that’s where to rejection began to snowball.
That’s the current state of CO2 warming: snowballing rejection.
What was the key turning off point?
It was the argument that weather is not climate, then pointing to weather as proof of climate change.
Big mistake.
“I received 12 years of free education, which (at the time) actually included some real eduaction.”
The irony here is quite unfortunate. I’m going to claim that “eduaction” is a neologism meaning “of or pertaining to an active involvement in the educational process.”
Funny, I used Dessler’s involvement in the “Google Science Communication Fellows” program to show the irony with the idea that falling poll numbers about AGW reflects public ignorance……… when the opposite situation is more likely true, that the public’s increasing awareness of myriad faults in the issue is what’s causing such declining poll numbers. Please see: “Google to fight global warming ‘ignorance’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/google_to_fight_global_warming.html
I’ve read enough to know I’m not skeptical regarding what the IPCC puts forth as “the consensus.” I think it is just plain wrong (or very poorly understood) with respect to its overarching conclusions. Quite frankly, I thought ALL scientists were supposed to be skeptical, even when they are in agreement with that which they are applying their skepticism. We’re still testing relativity, probably one of the most tested theories we have ever had. Not because we don’t agree with its general conclusions, but because that is what we do as scientists and skeptics.
I have to give an h/t to MBH, however, as the reason I really began to doubt. Those guys couldn’t regress their way out of a wet paper bag.
Mark
The bottom line for me is that nobody can state with any degree of certainty what the Earth’s weather/climate would currently be doing had atmospheric levels of CO2 (let’s face it, it ALWAYS comes back to CO2) remained at their pre-industrial levels of 280ppm.
Without this knowledge you simply cannot state what effect, be it negligible, significant or catastrophic, anthropogenic activity is having on the climate today and into the future.
Where climate science in general, and the IPCC in particular, has gone horribly wrong over the last 20 years is in failing to acknowledge this uncertainty. What climate science should be telling policy-makers is : “We honestly don’t know. Go ahead increasing emissions if you must, but be aware that it MAY have serious repercussions in the future. On your heads be it.”
What they have done instead is to sweep all the uncertainties under the carpet. They KNOW anthropogenically-forced global warming is happening, and are seizing on every unusual weather event and promoting it as evidence for : Snow storms or lack of snow. Hurricanes or lack of hurricanes. Heat waves, or cold snaps. Drought or floods. Doesn’t matter. Whatever happens to be in the news this week. Whatever helps the cause. All of these events have happened regularly in the past? That doesn’t matter either. Sweep them under the carpet too. Re-write history, if necessary. What is happening now is UNPRECEDENTED!!!! UNPRECEDENTED I TELL YOU!!!!
And then they wonder why people start becoming sceptical………
<<<<<<>>>>>>>
Not in N Europe it hasn’t, its been f,f,f,f,freezing this summer. Wet, overcasting and windy, with not a sign of AGW in sight.
But in a minor slip of the tongue a BBC news presenter said to the weatherman: “Not much sign of your Global Warming, is there? …….. oh ……. I’m not supposed to say that, am I…” Clearly, employees at the Biased Broadcasting Corporation are being told to stay ‘on message’.
.
“The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government.”
More like a proxy for who does his homework. If you do your homework on CAGW and Big Government, you’ll find neither lives up to its hype.
Judging by Dessler’s comments (and his shipshod paper, which his “daddy” had to correct), Dessler just doesn’t do his homework. Either that or he copied it from Hugh Pepper. 🙂
I hear FEMA is restricting firefighters from fighting the fire. Or at least they were as of a few days ago. http://www.infowars.com/fema-forces-firefighters-to-stand-down-in-texas/
If true, that surely makes it bigger than it otherwise would be. Also I hear a lot of greenies are getting upset at neighbors and such ‘wasting’ water trying to wet down their homes and yards in the hopes of saving them.
Hugh Pepper says:
September 10, 2011 at 8:56 am
It’s pretty hard to argue with this position.
True, if you’re a moron. Dessler, though, is obviously a genius since he manages to argue with his own position in the space of two sentences:
“We can’t say climate change is causing the extreme weather Texas is having right now. On the other hand… we can be confident we’ve made this hellish summer worse than it would have been.”
Dessler spent time in the Clinton/Gore White House as a policy wonk, who wouldn’t believe that he’s a believer in top down trickle down government.
As to what Dessler, er, “says” above – and in another apparently characteristic ipcc-style Climate Science ‘response’ to S&B11 – it would seem that the ipcc Climate Science “CO2=CAGW” Propaganda Operation has reached the necessarily degenerate limit of its repitoire, which has pretty obviously devolved solely into the production of self-contradictory “statements”, unhinged Mantras and “tenets”, lies, and all other manner of irrational, subrational and unscientific sounds and appearances – such as grotesque howls, infantile cries as though being victimized or unfairly attacked when not getting one’s way, vitriolic threats and exhortations to the hoped for “mob”, grunts, pregnant silences, profane exclamations, and so on – attempting to masquerade as sensical, even “scientific” communication, and in order to intentionally try to delude other people into irrational action, as though they are indeed a “mob”. And, strangely, quite often via the very same personalizing and demonizing tactics described by the Communist, Saul Alinsky?
I certainly wouldn’t attrubute such a “language and method” to any theoretical Missing Link, because The LInk so far at least occupies a theoretically necessary place in the Evolutionary events leading to an Enlightened Individual and Civilization – which also includes the development and place of the Scientific Method, which we now see almost exclusively so intimately feared by ipcc Climate Science as to produce its characteristic barrage of retrograde appearances and noises.
On the other hand, as to the “place” of ipcc Climate Scientists and their ‘science’ concerning the progress of the Human Being, theirs doesn’t seem quite so much necessary as the Missing Link’s is conceived to be, at least in terms of promoting a forward moving Evolution of the Human Being and its Institutions.
Except perhaps as an object case of the exact kind of behavior for rational/ethical humans to avoid?
Anything is possible says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:14 am
If, by some wild chance, it should turn out that the global warming tribe turns out to be right and we end up with a planetary disaster in a few years (5? 10? 20? whatever the latest “prediction” is), the blame for this will rest solidly on the AGW crowd themselves for having presented their message in such a convoluted, arrogant, contradictory, and condescending manner as to have turned away everyone who might otherwise have listened.
For the sake of the children, people, it’s Dessler, not Dressler!
Proof of global warming follows this thought progression:
There are more murders in the summer.
More ice cream is consumed in the summer.
Therefore, eating ice cream causes more murders.
There you have it. Proof of global warming.
Funny how Dessler and his gang think of, or try to pass themselves off as simply “the messenger”. It’s as if “the science” is hermetically sealed, untouched, untouchable, and therefore unassailable. I suppose they have to believe that to keep cognitive dissonance at bay.
The mention of the wildfires in Texas brings up a subject that comes around every year, Texas California Spain Australia etc, etc, it is a shame that there is not a will to extinguish these fires, when watching TV news reports all you see is people risking there lives and a couple of puddle jumpers,and a helicopter or 2, not what you could call a serious effort.
When the military has not the means to deliver water to a fire zone then why not rent the Antonov AN225 with a capacity of being able to drop 250 tons or 60,000 gallons of water on a fire, it, I would think solve a lot of problems.
I have long thought that what we’re going to need – have actually needed for some time – is an argument anti-CAGW or anti the case against CO2, call it what you will, that is so framed as to be brief and easily understood by all but the dimmest of the general public,and that can be held up as the High Principle of the sceptic side. This can then be used wherever it can be effective – to feed to politicians, newspapers etc. as a “creeping persuasion” that will eventually “come out” and penetrate the public arena where it will be seen and have the desired effect.
At present the warmists are winning by their wicked ways because all we are seeing in this WUWT item and elsewhere is not getting through to where it will do any good. Here, you who know about these things, are preaching to the converted, whereas, may I respectfully suggest, you need to start openly making a cleverly-framed settled case for public distribution.
If you don’t or can’t, can there be any complaint when the warmists triumph in the end?
@Haberman
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=7&year=2011&filter=1&state=&div=0
Sorry, was trying to do southwest:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=7&year=2011&filter=1&state=107&div=0
There filter length changes the results quite a lot. Not sure why. Didn’t not see how to do yearly or sessional temps, only signle months.
Quite mad. As several people have already noted, it’s precisely when you do look at the science that you realise that you’re being sold snake oil. And having once realised that, you notice it in all the AGW fairy stories, in much the same way as the alarmist camp themselves see “CO2-caused” devastation wherever they look.
Fortunately – and despite all the tenets of “post-normal science”, where all views seem equally (in)valid – the real world continues to go its own way, and lets real scientists study it. CO2 never overheated us before, and it doesn’t matter how many people believe that it will now, it won’t. Wonderful thing, real science. Who knows, in a few centuries, it may even get close to understanding how the weather cycles work …
“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science”
I am not a climate scientist, I have never pretended to be but I have a grounding in science, I took 3 A levels in science subjects and have a degree in dentistry. I have contributed to WUWT, because whatever my views are worth, the science behind AGW stinks. I originally believed AGW was happening because of the runaway greenhouse effect on the planet Venus.
We were all told that this could happen to Earth because once the temperature rose sedimentary rocks would break down releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which would raise temperatures even higher which would cause more CO2 release etc, etc,etc. The thought of our planet turning into a Venus (our twin but with a 400 celsius temperature) filled me with horror.
I then looked into it in further, I learned from this website that mankinds entire CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is 3%, that CO2 concentration was much, much higher in the past implying that there is no +ve feedback loop. I then found out that at ground level, the density of the Venusian atmosphere is 92 times that of Earths and the percentage of CO2 is 96%.
You don’t need to be a climate scientist just a modicum of common sense to realise that man-made CO2 is not going to turn Earth into a Venus.
I also object in the strongest possible terms to being compared with Flat-Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, and the mentally ill.
My retort is: “People who believe in the innocence of the climategate emails have not read the emails” And just as obviously, the panels and committees that exonerated the writers either have not read them or are whitewashing them. Easy to verify, unlike Mr Dessler’s assertion.
Actually the free Market and freedom of speech have the perfect solution.
Freedom of choice allows people to CHOOSE to take the actions people like he recommend.
His problem is that he can’t convince enough people that he’s correct. Like any totalitarian, his solution is for government to force people to do what he wants them to do.