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
rbateman says:
September 10, 2011 at 1:47 pm
They say a stopped clock is right at least twice a day; but these predictions are like a stopped clock showing dozens of different times all at once, and still managing to be wrong every single time.
I recall reading a comment, years ago, by a physicist joking about a “particle fairy” who granted wishes, because it seemed like every time they decided to search for a particle, they found it. The fairy overseeing climatology appears far less benevolent.
“…which calls for a government solution…”
And that solution would be what?
Just look how good the government is at solving things. Why just recently they solved unemployment, solved the debt problem, solved nuclear waste disposal, solved the housing crisis, solved guns getting into Mexico, etc.
Anthony — Thanks again for 2 years of enjoyment, as a bilogical scientist and amateur radio operator/mathmetician!
Since we have an actual discourse between Dressler and Spencer: Why not have Spencer raise the white flag of surrender, and request from Dressler of what humankind of all races can do to to try to turn the tide of our demise, in light of politics worldwide?
Dressler appears to be pretty smart and elite enough to give us scientific advice!
Dr. Dressler: How do you propose the Politico’s and lites advise we ‘unknowing mortals’ Grsave ourselves?
Should we build an Arc? Pray? Sell all our wealth, and vest our grandchildren so they can pay for this costly failure/spoof!
BTW I watched my granddson play soccor today. I think he can ‘adapt’ and profit from AGW in the FUTURE!
Mike @ur momisugly 2:41 pm ,
You can’t really draw any conclusions about Texas .
Mike says:
September 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“@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.”
What is it with you? Alarmist Amnesia? Never heard the name Hansen?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/hansen-venus-syndrome-is-a-dead-certainty/
“Dessler says there’s an unmistakable connection between the drought and climate change.”
Did he give any stats showing a correlation between temperatures and drought conditions, or is this just anecdotal evidence? According to “World Climate Report” there has actually been a negative correlation between temperature and drought- more El Ninos, warmer and wetter, more La Ninas, cooler and drier.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/08/25/southwest-drought/
– A. McIntire
Texas has been warming and drying out since before the white men came. I visited the forts among which was the Alamo and they were surrounded by huts for Indians who were victims of CLIMATE CHANGE.
The timber lands had turned to grass lands and the game they depended on were less plentiful so they congregated around the forts and farmed.
No sane person could claim that CO2 caused this since it was 1744.
I am reminded of a very religious person who sees everything as the work of GOD !
The deception cannot stand now that they know they are being watched. Gatekeeping will not go unnoticed thanks to critical thinkers everywhere. Perhaps climate science can now be more about science than controlling the science. Gatekeeping has made Peppers comment about “cannot find any literature on it” true but hilarious. He does not think very much of us, yet he continues his efforts, nonetheless, ……… hmmmmmm,………….
Mike says:
September 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm
James Hansen makes that very claim. Try again.
Well Dr Dessler needs another correction to his hypothesis.
I discount climate science (of his variety) precisely BECAUSE I read the science. And being a scientist I went to the data, did my own analysis and that only firmed my understanding.
He needs to get away from his models more often. Try explaining the pSCL-temperature correlation Dr Dessler, for a start.
The only evidence I’ve ever seen about climate change is CO2 is a greenhouse gas, burning fossil fuels release CO2 and therefore humans are causing climate change.
Which is to say, no real evidence at all. Computer models are not evidence as computer models to not output facts. Expert testimony is not evidence. A measured (more accurately, estimated increase in atmospheric CO2 is not evidence of climate change. (You see the circular argument — CO2 causes global warming and we know global warming is happening because CO2 is going up.) The ice core data shows CO2 follows warming, so not only is the ice core data not evidence of climate change but it’s actually evidence against CO2 being the cause. Observations of climate change aren’t evidence of anything except the natural state of affairs, that is, the climate changes.
Mike says of the Venus syndrome on Earth-
“I don’t recall climate scientists making such a claim.”
I agree that no scientists have made this claim, because scientists know that lapse rates on Venus and Earth are almost the same.
However, science fiction novelist and television personality Carl Sagan felt it was very possible back in 1960.
More recently, James Hansen, coal mine protester and science advisor to Hollywood movie stars, says it is *DEAD CERTAIN* in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren”.
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
Anthony
We had the same sort of rubbish espoused by the green ecotards here in Australia as we endured 7 years of drought. Then, guess what, half the continent got flooded. Ain’t Mother Nature grand!
BTW it is already Sept 11 on our side of the dateline, our thoughts are with you guys 😉
It should have been easy for the other candidates to come up with a few facts in response to Huntsman’s snooty and snarky comments. Each just needed a few simple talking points about uncertainty, about the unverifiable computer models, about the failure of the models to make accurate predictions, about the ice core data showing CO2 follows warming, etc.
Just a simple statement about skepticism being one of the cornerstones of science would have gone a long way.
“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.”
He probaby 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.
Dessler says “People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science.”
I’m not a scientist, I’m an accountant. But I did take chemistry and biology in college, and history. In college I don’t think I would have gotten away with the sloppiness that’s evident in some of the “science” I have read concerning global warming. Apparently Dessler, and all the other AGW “scientists” think what they publish is incontrovertible fact. But these “scientists” can’t even do decent historical research, so how can anyone believe anything they write?
I know you will never get the alarmists to read real science; but just maybe we could get them to read history. The planet has been much warmer than now in the past (and colder as well I guess), we have had worse droughts, we have had worse hurricane seasons (had real ones hit the USA), worse flooding, and so on.
How can these shameless charlatans face their classes? (do they really teach?)
Roger Knights says:
September 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I picked up on the same point, Roger. What’s more, I seem to recall a map of warming vs cooling stations showing a “patchwork”. Odd behavior for a well-mixed trace gas, no?
But look at exactly what Dr. Dessler says:
“On the other hand, we can say humans have increased the temperature of the base climate state pretty much everywhere.”
Yup, “we can say” that. Dr. Dessler, and other “warmists” do say that… regularly. So his statement is correct. What science should I read to prove the “humans have increased” part, Dr. Dessler?
What science should I read to convince me that a 0.6C or 0.7C increase, not “pretty much everywhere”, but “on average” will cause tragic fires to occur where they otherwise would not?
It is worth reading the entire NPR piece just for the last paragraph. It’s a hoot! I won’t copy it here, go read it. I’m not a scientist – trust me! 🙂
Best,
Frank
@ur momisugly Nuke Nemesis, September 10, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I agree. Nobody expects them to be scientists. But even a personal opinion supported by some facts and historical references would earn my respect.
The Texas drought should be kept in historical and geographical perspective. It’s unfortunate, but as several readers here point out, there have been other Texas droughts, some no doubt worse. A lot of the moisture that would have fallen in Texas over the winter and spring wound up adding to Colorado’s amazing central and northern mountain snowpack, which was nearly 150% of normal by early summer.
Unless Texans’ evil ways caused shifts in the jetstream, or new ENSO patterns to develop, then even a hundred-year drought can be explained without recourse to hyperventillated catastrophism.
In 120 years the earth has experienced .7 ° C of warming.
If a man [or woman] retires and moves to Florida from Michigan he experiences 8 ° C of personal [global] warming and yet he doesn’t develop all of the crazy symptoms we are told to expect from Global Warming. At the present rate it would take the earth 1370 years to warm that much.
Each day we experience the same equivalent “Climate change” and nothing bad happens.
The wild exaggerations of the alarmists just reinforces my skepticism.
Acne, aged deaths, poppies more potent, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk
joseph says:
September 10, 2011 at 4:03 pm
[…]
How can these shameless charlatans face their classes? (do they really teach?)
They face their classes the same as the rest of us in the profession do: with the assurance that whatever we tell them, our students will believe us.
This is why, partway through every semester, I tell my class that I’m going to break with the regular curriculum to speak about a subject I feel very strongly about — the increasing environmental pollution of dihydrogen monoxide. (If one of my friends is available, I’ll bring him or her in as a “guest speaker.”) At the end, I pass around a petition calling for the Toronto mayor to ban from all municipal property the sale of any food or food products which contain dihydrogen monoxide, or which have used dihyrogen monoxide at any point in their preparation.
After getting back the petition (almost invariably signed by every student*), I then tell them they have just taken upon themselves the authority to ban water, based solely upon a single presentation by an “authority” figure.
When that class is finished, they come away with a more profound understanding that when I tell them not to trust anyone, and to always check sources and facts for themselves, I actually mean it.
Those who teach have captive, and extremely naive audiences — made even more so by the education system’s diminishing importance placed upon real critical thinking and analysis. (I’ve sat in on a number of college level “critical thinking” classes, and the main thrust appears to be teaching students that advertisements often lie.)
And coupled with the decrease in critical thinking skills is an increasing stress upon the importance of relying on experts and authorities.
So Dessler and pals probably have no qualms about stepping in front of their respective classes; they know it’s the one place they’re assured of total and unthinking acceptance.
——-
* Over the course of five years I’ve had two students not sign the petition. One didn’t sign because she felt that there was so much pollution and corruption that it wouldn’t make a difference, and the other didn’t sign because she didn’t think I was the kind of person who would allow a petition in my class. (I was proud of her — she was absolutely right.)
If climate science was so good, we wouldn’t have missing energy and no clue about clouds (along with no clue about 40 other variables).
NOBODY understands the climate.
When the first person that does finally understand it comes forward and says “I’ve figured it out” and the rest of us say “well, that works” and then it continues working, then we will have a field called climate science.
Okay, Mr. Dessler. You’ve got me. I haven’t read the science enough to be an expert on the subject. However, my disbelief in AGW is based on two things: the scientific method and the fallacy of the crowd mentality.
One of the tenants of the scientific method is verifiability. As an example, consider cold fusion. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have created cold fusion. People were hopeful, that is until scientists started trying to verify the experiment. Since cold fusion could not be verified, it is therefore pseudo-science. By the same way, AGW scientists do everything in their power to avoid verification by everyone except those who will confirm what they believe. If something fails to follow the scientific method, it is not science but belief. There is a place for belief in life, but not in science.
The movie Men In Black had a profound truth in it. When Will Smith (“J”) asked Tommy Lee Jones (“K”) why they didn’t just tell people about aliens, the response was, in short, that a person is rational and sensible but people are not. Science is supposed to be about concrete proof, not about what the crowd says is true. Problems arise when the crowd actively suppress those who dare to not believe what they believe. Sadly, such suppression is nothing new and is worse than ever. It was really bad when people killed or persecuted people of other religions in medieval times. It is still bad when people’s livelihood is threatened for believing differently. Today, scientists must believe in AGW and evolution or they won’t be employed much longer. It takes a brave scientist to speak out against AGW or to believe in a divine being. Suppression is not rational.
So Mr. Dessler, I do not believe in AGW because I studied science. I do not believe in AGW because (1) it does not follow the scientific method and therefore, by definition, is not science and (2) because AGW true believers do not behave like scientists should behave, which is to prefer the truth rather than what your peers say is true.
Roger Knights says:
September 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm
[smip]
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.)
============
It was most likely I who’s comment you read, here it is again:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html
and:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/hadcrut3-31-of-stations-saw-cooling.html