Sigh, it is the same old tired hateful argument from Dessler about tobacco. On the plus side is shows how desperate they are to have to resort to this garbage. [Full disclosure- both of my parents died prematurely from tobacco related diseases. – Anthony]
Climate Change Prof on PBS ‘Frontline’ Tuesday | TAMU Times
http://tamutimes.tamu.edu/2012/10/22/climate-change-prof-on-pbs-frontline-tuesday/
Climate Change Prof on PBS ‘Frontline’ Tuesday PBS Frontline, the popular investigative TV show, will feature Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler in a segment titled “A Climate of Doubt” at 9 p.m. Tuesday (Oct. 23) on KAMU-TV. Following the broadcast, it will also be available for viewing here.
The episode will center on the public perception of climate change and how that perception has changed since the 2008 elections to this year’s political joust. After being hotly discussed in 2008, climate change has since been less of a factor in the political arena, observers note.
“Four years ago, there was widespread acknowledgement and the argument was ‘how do we deal with this,’” Dessler said. “What the skeptics have done is made a huge effort to cast doubt on the science of climate change, much like tobacco companies’ efforts to cast doubt on the science connecting tobacco and lung cancer.”
Even though the argument is made that thousands of scientists dispute the science of climate change, there are few true experts on climate change worldwide that doubt its occurrence because the science is solid, Dessler noted.
“There is some legitimate uncertainty, of course,” Dessler said, “but that is whether the climate will warm four or eight degrees over the coming century –whether it will be bad, or catastrophic – not if it’s happening.”
Frontline will spotlight the organizations that have been the most influential anti-climate change voices and attempt to explain how they succeeded in shifting the public debate and opinion.
There is a wide array of reasons for opposing action on climate change, but by delaying the corrective process, the opposition is only making the situation worse, Dessler said.
“Every year you wait makes the degree of change worse, and makes altering the change more expensive,” Dessler said. “They are giving people an excuse to do nothing by inducing doubt.”
GlynnMhor says:
October 22, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Many AGW alarmists seem obsessed with smoking and tobacco. Did many of them recently quit smoking? Or do they still smoke? Or what, then?
—–
I’m guessing that the allusions to “Big Oil” failed to have the reaction that they were hoping for, so it’s on to the next boogeyman.
Kiwisceptic
October 22, 2012 at 7:38 pm
has it right on the button!
“Arguments over the ‘science’ aside, what these guys all have in common is a complete lack of commitment to their own cause. They all advocate immediate action to avert some imagined manmade fossil-fuelled climate catastrophe yet they themselves carry on business as usual”.
CAGWers haven’t specified how much mammade CO2 production can be to maintain an equable climate. 90% of current production,? 50%? 0?. If it’s 0%, we’re headed back to a middle ages level of technology. Based on CAGWers BEHAVIOR- flying to conferences in Rio and Copenhagen, they behave as if we can maintain an equable balance with ZERO cutback in emissions.
Thanks to volcanic eruptions the earth has been spewing CO2 into the atmosphere for 4.6 billion years. This is counterbalanced by CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by various geological and biological processes, so the earth’s atmospheric CO2 never became as dense as Venus’. Thanks to Le Chatelier’s principle,, we have achieved a rough balance of CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere. Based on common sense, Le Chatelier’s principle should continue to apply with additional man made CO2 entering the atmosphere. Ultimately, there should be a new atmospheric CO2 balance slightly higher than the previous “natural” balance, resulting in a miniscule overall warming.
Dessler… the same who had to have his paper redrafted?
“Andrew Emory Dessler is a climate scientist and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. His research subject areas are atmospheric chemistry, climate change and climate change policy. [and former Senior Policy Analyst for the Clinton administration]”
I’ve heard this guy speak. This guy is as partisan as they come.
PBS’ John Hockenberry is one of the producers and interviewers in this Frontline piece, so you know it’s going to be full-out alamism and CAGW apologia. I listened to Hockenberry’s daily show (“The Takeaway” Monday, Oct 23rd, podcast download link: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio4.wnyc.org/takeaway/takeaway102212-climate.mp3 ) in which he prefaces the Frontline show, covered this issue with a “Real” balance of guest “experts”, from Bill McKibben, all the way to Coral Davenport of The National Journal.
Their overall conclusions as to why public unconcern over CAGW is growing? Evil conservative PACs and the Heartland Institute, funded by evil oil industry execs, is propagandizing, brainwashing and tricking the American public. That’s the number one reason as determined by this august panel, with Davenport laying much blame on the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.
As for arguments we’d recognize here on WUWT, Hockenberry and guests make not a single mention of actual observations of global temperatures flattening for over a decade, scare stories not coming true, models failing, ClimateGate, nor about scientists misbehaving and being corrupted by the emotions intrinsic to political advocacy and saving the world, nor about scientific uncertainty or the vast complexities of these issues. No, it’s all just evil corporations, doing what we all know evil corporations do. I expect the Frontline piece to take these same tacks.
Here are some specific McKibben claims from the show
Oceans are 30% more acidic due to CAGW
70% of the U.S. was is a declared drought emergency this year due to CAGW
“We broke the Arctic this summer”
70% of Americans believe in warming but (evil) 527 groups are convincing politicians not to listen
50% increase in the price of grain (which grains? for how long? what are this year’s yields?)
He concedes that no “Smokey the Bear” or “Polly the Polar Bear” symbolism will arise in CAGW activism
Even those wanting to be the US President don’t want to discuss it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/climate-totally-absent-from-all-presidential-debates/
So you want sceptics to remain silent about the 16 years of no warming? You want us to remain silent about the divergence between the IPCC projections and actual temperature observations? Will our silence validate CAGW? Of course not. If things continue this way temperature wise then someone on your side needs to raise their hand and speak the truth. I won’t hold my breath because most people on your side of the debate are dishonest and dishonorable and are just kept going by the FUNDING.
“…but by delaying the corrective process, the opposition is only making the situation worse, Dessler said.”
This is my favorite subject of this sort of missive. So, Mr. Dessler, of what “corrective process” are you speaking? What about the arm waving by (sorry I don’t recall specifically who) one of your alarmist compatriots who stated that even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels now, the warming would continue over the next 80 or 100 years to THE catastrophe? (arm wave, wave, wave) So what is the ultimate, logical conclusion that your “corrective process” arrives at? Seems to be:
The human race returns to a life of the pre-paleolithic period with no technology beyond our hands. We aren’t allowed to burn anything for warmth, cooking, etc. We aren’t allowed to “damage our biosphere” by any sort of building projects. Thus there would be a massive dying off of the human population and a “return” to the “natural balance”. Is that what you’re aiming for?
Sorry, none for me, thanks, I’m trying to quit… the idiocy, and rabid misanthropy.
… oh yeah, I forgot in my “corrective process” scenario the best part:
The Green Cabal that enforces these processes are by no means subject to the same rules, they get to live the life of technological luxury and abundance… of course that is until something breaks and there’s no one left to fix it for them.
“Four years ago, there was widespread acknowledgement and the argument was ‘how do we deal with this,’” Dessler said. “What the skeptics have done is made a huge effort to cast doubt on the science of climate change..”
I’ve been following the debate for 5 years now, and I noticed shadows of climate doubt began in the spring/summer of 2009. The real hit came with Climategate, no question. I would say that it was not the skeptics who cast doubt on the science of climate change, it was the emails of the climate scientists themselves who delivered the hardest blow.
Climate alarmism has never been the same after Climategate.
Someday the people responsible for Climategate will receive the Medal of Honour. Can’t wait.
P. Solar says:
October 23, 2012 at 4:41 am
The problem with A. E. D’s ensuring his own income is that being a professor implies that he has tenure at Texas A & M and likely can’t be removed from this well paid position. [Certain real crimes might do so.] Thus, one needs to look elsewhere to explain his position. And, actually, it is on his profile page at A & M.
He was invited to be a White House policy analyst and found there a profound lack of understanding among policymakers and lost his way in the labyrinth. He ends his university profile with the following:
Long ago, I spent most of my time working on the chemistry of the stratosphere. I haven’t worked on this subject since the late 1990s, and I realized the other day that I’ve forgotten just about everything I ever knew about it.
He should ask for a transfer to the sociology department.
You can confront somebody who denies the harmful effects of smoking with the overwhelming evidence. No need to say loads of scientists “believe” the result. Just compare and contrast the arguments for and against. If a climate scientist cannot do the same, then the analogy is illegitimate. If they could do the same then the analogy becomes superfluous.
Yeah tobacco tried to wriggle out of the scene because of pecuniary self interest. The difference with climate guild, Dr. Dessler, is pecuniary self interest is pretty largely on the side of the climate “force”; sceptics are fighting against destruction of civilization and economies based on little actual evidence:
1) Why is it necessary to be constantly adusting and readjusting the temperature record up if CAGW is on its way to give us 4 to 8C higher global average temps just around the corner. If you are expecting a storm surge, for example you don’t wade into the sea collecting cupfulls of water and measuring millimetres of sea rise. It will soon come up 10 feet or so.
2) Why shouldn’t sceptics advise that the temp hasn’t risen globally for 16 years.
3) Why, if you are all so comfortable with the theory at its 95% confidence levels, is the IPCC now hedging its bets and trimming down feedback numbers (a look at the confident predictions at 95% confidence level since 1995 and comparing with the actual observations, which themselves have been adjusted upward should give you an answer)
4) Why are CAGW folks now talking about uncertainties, and larger natural cycles and saying that it is a travesty that there has been no warming and Dr Gleick saying -no the science isn’t controvertible and yes there is uncertainty, but it is solid!!
5) Why have the usual crowd not been publishing much in the way of strident claims of the last 20 years. I think it may be because they know it won’t go over anymore.
6) Why are lawsuits being fought over releasing publically paid for data and constructions methodologies.
I’m afraid its not sceptic misinformationists but a wiser public that has not seen anything come to pass of this CAGW but highly suspicious misbehaviour of its proponents. I think a disinterested wager would be that there is a significant chance that we have peaked in warming and could be heading down into cooling – a helluva lot worse thing to deal with. What then of your 95 confidence levels, sensitivities and positive feedbacks.
If I have this straight tobacco funding and 1950s tobacco style disinformation has let to the decline in discussion about global warming. One prominent place where there has been a decline in discussion has been in presidential debates. So did the tobacco companies buy off Obama and Romney?
Just has Peter Gleick has said on the other thread, we hear Dessler say, “the science is solid”. In looking up the term “solid” on this scientific terms website, http://www.sciencedictionary.org/enviromental-science-terms/S, under “enviromental science”, the only things I find are “solid waste” and “solid waste management” . It seems appropriate in this case.
I only have these links to contribute . . . that may or may not be of use to anyone here . . .
New fungal meningitis case reported in Florida; 19 people now sickened by tainted drug
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/new-fungal-meningitis-case-reported-in-florida-19-people-now-sickened-by/1257925
Recall of Contaminated Cigarettes Leaves Many Smokers Unfazed
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/02/us/recall-of-contaminated-cigarettes-leaves-many-smokers-unfazed.html
Tainted vaccine kills Uzbek, Kyrgyz livestock
http://www.universalnewswires.com/centralasia/viewstory.aspx?id=12856
So . . . you can understand the the polio situation in Africa today . . .
Sorry about your mom and dad Anthony . . . but, it would have been the same outcome if they had eaten “bad” food.
It is why I tend to repeat that old cliche: “In order for the honorable human to survive, is to never underestimate the criminal mind!’ and in some cases the ‘just plain mistakes’ of “man”.
You could definately “crowdsource” this topic, but I, for one, wouldn’t want to give the “bad guys” more ideas for their destructive anarchist agendas
Skeptics don’t need to cast doubt on the science, plant Earth is already doing that for us and that’s why we are winning based on observations. Clinging on to a failed theory is all people like this have and most don’t believe a word of it any more. The tobacco thing is alarmist nonsense like the flat earth spin and big oil. Many billions of dollars across the world have managed to find out nothing supporting CAGW, Yet skeptics generally on a shoe string budget can easily show the failings of the conjecture. That is why your alarmist side is losing and really should have lost ages ago, but stupid funding is still causing the clingers to carry on.
Alarmist have been winning over and over again for a very long time . . .
Armageddon has been about to happen every generation (at least once, and probably somewhere once every day) for thousands of years . It’s the favorite subject and practically the only subject for some religions.
Just take a look at all the survivalist (ads games, equipment, blogs) out there.
There are entire industries built around alarmist campaigns.
We have a military industrial complex, for the common defense.
We have the history, but not much balance, just pendulum swings.
We (huemans) just jailed six for not “warning of an earthquake”.
Italian seismologists ordered to prison for not warning of quake risk
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/10/italian-seismologists-sentenced-to-prison-for-not-predicting-deadly-earthquake.html
It is why I tend to repeat that old cliche: “In order for the honorable human to survive, he/she must never underestimate the criminal mind!’ and in some cases the ‘just plain mistakes’ of “man”.
As a sidebar, I have trouble trying to determine just “where” someones’ perspective is coming from, or leading to, on this site.
I’m a bit confused, I thought science is a tool but now I’m getting the impression that this climate scientist is a tool.