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
Sometimes when I see strong negative statements directed at climate skepticism, I think of this quote by the late philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell:
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
After examining much of the actual science, pouring over the analysis of the science on sites like this and as a scientist myself for over 25 years, I have my doubts. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the warming over the last century and the slope of the trend. I have doubts about how much of that warming can be attributed to humans. I have to wonder why 20 different models are still required to describe our climate system (and poorly at that). I found the climategate emails regarding the conduct of the core climate community particularly egregious and damning. I think the accusations of “Big Oil” this and “97% of scientists” that, are red herrings – distractions by stupid people, for stupid people.
I
I thought “hellish summers” with drought in Texas were normal in La Niña years? Isn’t Dessler ignoring some very basic science on ENSO?
Many of us skeptics have read a great deal of the science and we do our best to weigh the arguments on their seeming merits. What I have not read, not been privy to, not been favoured with, is the math upon which the ‘models’ depend. This seems to be guarded even more jealously than much of the data. This is a pity because although all of us are not scientists, very many of us are quite capable of checking the mathematical validity of the assumptions that go into the equations. Where would we be if Newton or Einstein had simply said “Well, the model says so”.
In addition to that objection there is the matter of the programming of the models, which requires an entirely different area of expertise to ensure that the equations are being manipulated in precisely the manner that was intended. There is a yawning black hole in climate science.
To a limited degree Dessler is right in saying that opposition to big government and climate scepticism go together. However, his implication that the one determines the other is incorrect. As Melanie Phillips points out in her book “The World Turned Upside Down”, the liberal left mindset predisposes to a set of values that is in favour of AGW, “green” issues and big government. They tend also to be anti-Israel, anti-Christian and pro-Islam. The left-liberal mindset cannot conceive that it is possible for a rational being to hold contrary views, hence their use of terms like “deniers” and implying that views contrary to their own must be a consequence of mental imbalance. Because their world view is largely a set of beliefs rather than a logical construct it is often difficult to change those views and they can hold mutually incompatible facts as being true.
In contrast, those on the right tend to be more pragmatic and look at what works and consider the evidence. As a consequence, AGW scepticism and opposition to the current US government, which many observers reckon to be one of the most leftwing in the country’s history, will go together without one “causing” the other.
Interesting post and interesting thread. This fellow says the we should be worried about CAGW (now called God knows what) because a small trace gas needed for life on this planet can burn us all to death — but only some time in the future. (after the predictor has retired and is collecting his pension loot)
They say that even though all evidence points to the big ball of fire in the sky being the climate driver on this planet; it is not. No, it is a trace gas — a magic gas. (reminds one of the magic bullet that killed a president)
Dessler’s projections are very telling. He’d basically admitting that those *supporting* “the science of climate change” haven’t read it.
The other argument is even flimsier. That argument implicitly is: “Because anthropogenic CO2 is in-arguably increasing temperature to some degree, it’s making high-temperature events more common and more extreme”. Unfortunately for Dessler, the converse would be equally true: “Anthropogenic CO2 is making low temperature events less common and less extreme.” The important next question is which is worse, and even more crucially, is the effect of anthro-CO2 enough to matter either way.
People who discount the claims of climatology don’t do it because they have read the science supporting Athropogenic Global Warming. There fixed Mr Desslers statement. Which is factually correct as there is no science supporting AWG. Climatology is not science. I see the science done by some climate scientists but none to support the alarmism, Perhaps science and the vital importance of the scientific method, full reporting of data, methods and sceptism of ones own bias need to be taught in schools once more.Making extraordinary claims as the team has done followed by “Trust me I’m a scientist ,”does not cut it.Claims of evidence are just noise, evidence speaks for itself.The sciency nonsense of theCACAs has done more to discredit their agenda than any other single event, Climategate ,while far worse than I expected, merely confirmed the smell of bovine excretions already implicit in the Gorites blather. After having these righteous idiots saturating the airways for the last decade I take great pleasure in observing their self destruct.But I feel no mercy.Should I?.
“We can’t say climate change is causing the extreme weather Texas is having right now.”
“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science,” he says.
=========================================================
And obviously Dessler is one of those that has not read the science.
Texas summers have not changed in over a century………..
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ScreenHunter_22-Sep.-08-21.11.gif
MattN says:
September 10, 2011 at 9:47 am
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….
Yep … this is much like the comment I heard the other day about hurricanes … we do not, as warmists like to pontificate, have a hurricane outbreak … we have a “naming” outbreak ….
As technology has advanced and we can see more, earlier … many storms are being “named” that never would have in past …. then there is the hype factor – Irene was not even a hurricane if I recall when it made final landfall … but judging by the breathless media reporting for a week leading up to it you would have thought it was Katrina II
Stop trying to “sell” the agenda and clean up the remaining black marks (stains) on Climatology, too much has already been said in selling CAGW to promote further funding. If asked to make statements about extreme weather, what is wrong with admitting you don’t know, without the warming tag line, as that is just rank opportunism.
Leave that rubbish for the politicians, at least we can chuck them out of office for their mistakes.
Too much hype and suggestion rather than solid science has lead us to the low point of climate science – even an “its weather and we don’t know enough about it” answer is preferable if asked.
Spinifers says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:20 am
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/
Worse than that even:
Contract Dispute Grounds Firefighting Planes
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46009
The stupidity of government often knows no bounds …
Dessler: “People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science”
“READ” the science? The sentence is heretical and anti-science. The scientific outlook is based on the premise that thee is NO authority, and you should even check experts’ work to see that they haven’ screwed up. Those of us who are cynical have not only “READ” the science but checked the figures- they don’t add up.
Christopher Simpson says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:33 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 current predictions (and previously on Lost predictions) are -envelope please- Ahem! :
-90, -60, -40, -30, -20, -10, -5, 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 100 years.
As you can see, they have been nominated before, on both sides of the fence.
It’s the overacting that undoes them.
I’m constantly puzzled by people like Andy Dessler who claim that “…humans have increased the temperature of the base climate state…”, thus leading to the Texas drought and wild fires.When? How? Where? It’s my understanding that global temperature hasn’t risen for ten years or more! Or is it due to the rise in temperature from 1950 till 2000, all of 0.6 degrees? Sorry, I also can’t accept that trivial warming that ended in 2000 led to extreme events in 2011.
There is an awful lot of careful thought in this thread defining the attitude of the common man to the AGW controversy. ( I would prefer to use, “scam” , but I’m trying to be objective.). Kudos in particular to Bill Simpson and G Pierce, who articulated my own take on the present contremps with great accuracy. I picked up on the controversy about 2004, when I became semi-retired and started to fill in the gaps in my world -view. The great thing about studying academic subjects in one’s 7th decile is that instead of being bright but clueless, and sucking up any old horsefeathers presented in a plausible manner, one tends to weigh information against a lifetime of being taken for a ride by a variety of protagonists who have their own agendas firmly in the centre of their activities. Truly, age and cynicism will triumph over youth and enthusiasm. Thus I don’t deify our host and his major contributors as demi-Gods, neither do I demonise AGW proponents – though there is a special place in my heart for Pope Al and The Mann. Being something of a dilletante in the history of mankind, The attitude of the CAGW lobby is to me remarkably consistent with the attacks of the Catholic Church on the scientists of the 16th and 17th Centuries, both by political methodology and by the enforcing of a wholly spurious,”scientific consensus”, forged in the fire of ideology and maintained by a political power brutally deployed which denies any alternative theory. The Church of Climate has it’s own Jesuits, and some of this blogs contributors can bare the scars of their pursuit of the truth of the matter. CAGW is not a scientific debate, where alternative theories are discussed and analysed until a factual solution is reached. It is in fact an almost wholly political debate, where blogs like Climate Etc apart, the concentration is more on the politics than the science.
It is unfair to expect politicians to speak in the minutia or in the manner of a scientific argument. That is neither their job or their skill set. Read the great political speeches of our joint culture – Lincoln,Churchill, Kennedy, Martin Luther King. These men had the ability to seize on what was important to the people and articulate their desires and goals. We don’t expect scientists to do that, and we should not expect politicians to explain science. We have Al Gore, who has a better than average skillset as a politician, proven over 2 decades as a total numpty when it comes to scientific explanation.
At the moment, Dessler has opened the Pandora’s Box of the Warmists. It will be interesting to see what is eventually released.
For a Dessler, who was science adviser to Gore and played a large role in turning Climate Science into the charlie foxtrot it has become, to whine about a governor who disagrees with his political demands raises the question of how smart Dessler really is.
After watching and reading Dessler for awhile, I have a good idea of what that answer is.
According to the scientific method, a properly formed hypothesis must be falsifiable by experiment or observation.
Since Climate Change is consistent with all observed events it cannot be falsified.
Therefore Climate Change qualifies as a religion, with no place in the field of science.
The argument for the Texas wild fires being caused by Climate Change stands equal to the Texas wild fires being caused by the hand of God.
Perhaps Andy Dessler is thinking about CO2 forced global warming which was a properly formulated hypothesis, that was falsified a decade ago.
Maybe the falsification of global warming is why the CAGW believers are now proselytizing Climate Change.
This implies that the opposition to catastrophic warmism is all politically motivated (selfish or blinded by doctrine). That can be easily refuted by citing the number of apostates from warmism, and the significant number of Democrats who don’t buy into it. Also counting against it is the sophistication of the many criticisms put forth by NIPCC and other scorcher-scoffers. Those critics have read the science.
These are aircraft desperately needed – that HAVE current legal airworthiness certificates … are completely legal to fly
“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science…”
I think this comment is overly generalised. However, it probably is the case that many people who discount climate change do so for reasons other than because they have a good knowledge and understanding of the science.
On the other hand, it’s likely that the same would apply to many people who accept climate change, so the point is moot.
That said, Dessler’s comment is placed within the context of people who claim that he is perpetrating a fraud. These claims come from one side of the debate and are often associated with claims about the political intentions of climate scientists, so in that sense Dessler’s comments are justified.
“The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government.”
I think he means that attitudes to climate science are a proxy for views on the role of government. Dessler is on firmer grounds here, given the way attitudes to climate science divide along political lines.
None of this has much to do with the science per se, although a lot to do with the way attitudes to the science may influence future political action.
@Andrew Harding says:
“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 …”
I don’t recall climate scientists making such a claim. Nothing in the IPCC reports suggests that as far as I know. Venus was sometimes used to illustrate the concept – but to claim anything like that was instore for Earth. It looks like you jumped from one extreme to another. Try reading Science News or SkepticalScience.
George Tetley says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:50 am
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.
George … there are at least 3 VLAT’s (very large air tankers) available … However, the Forest Service – who, through IMO their gross incompetence, have already gutted the fleet (from 40+ in 2002 to 11 air tankers today) – will not provide a contract to the operators with enough committed hours to maintain them in operational ready reserve status. There is a 747 and 2 DC10’s available. Because of the refusal to provide at least a minimum amount of contracted hours they are largely sitting unused.
Apparently one DC 10 is now in Texas – but is grounded for long periods because there is only a single flight crew certified as current, due to the US Forest Service actions.
… there are only 11 large air tankers left in the United States that are on exclusive use contracts, contrasted with the 44 we had in 2002. Aero Union has closed its doors and shut down their P3 air tankers due to [USFS contract issues], and the U. S. Forest Service is not interested in awarding exclusive use contracts for Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) like Evergreen’s 747 or 10 Tanker Air Carrier’s DC-10s.
Both Evergreen and 10 Tanker were only offered Call When Needed (CWN) contracts by the USFS this year for their VLATs. The proposed contracts did not even have a minimum number of days that they would be used on each activation, such as the 5 days that are stipulated in CAL FIRE’s current DC-10 CWN contract. Evergreen told the agency that they could not maintain their 747 in response-ready condition, with crews, without any guaranteed income. 10 Tanker reluctantly signed the CWN contract.
10 Tanker has two DC-10 air tankers, but at this time they only have one DC-10 air tanker crew, so they can only operate one aircraft at a time. When mandatory days off are required, they have to shut the aircraft down rather than bring in a relief crew. With no guaranteed contract, they can barely keep one crew available for CWN use.
We are the government, and we’re here to help you … whether its AGW or fire fighting – the incompetence is largely the same
I looked at regional temp and precip data for the different regions in Texas since 1895. There is a lot of variation across the ten regions. It seems the west is warmer and drier. But I can see people cherry picking so as to support or refute Dressler’s statement. As you look at smaller regions there is a lower single to noise ratio. So, I don’t know what conclusions can be drawn.
But wasn’t there a thread or comment here recently showing that 30% of global temperature stations show a cooling trend? (Someone please provide a link to it.)
Mike says:
September 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I remember the same thing Andrew does. Not all the information the public was getting came from IPCC reports. We’ve been treated to some pretty spectacular claims over the years, and the dangers of a Venus-like Earth was definitely among them — perhaps not “officially,” but then Al Gore isn’t official either, but his Photoshopped images have certainly had a large effect.
Not everyone poured over IPCC missives — nor should we have to. The public relied on “experts,” and many of those experts have been bizarre in the extreme.l