The answer to your question is in your article.
Guest opinion by David Hoffer
Carol, in your recent CNN opinion piece, the headline was “Why are we still debating climate change?”. The very first statement in the article that followed was “There is no debate”.
The answer to your question is actually right in your own article. I’ll get to that in a bit, please bear with me. I wanted to touch on your claim that there is no debate first. I’d like you to consider the following statement, which I provide with no intent of malice whatsoever, only as a means of making a point.
Carol Costello is stupid. There is no debate.
Now what would you think if you saw this in print, followed by a long explanation as to what is wrong with people who don’t agree, and a refusal to examine any facts related to the accusation? I imagine you’d be miffed. I imagine also that any examination of the facts would prove me wrong, I seriously doubt that such a statement would stand up to any fair debate of the matter. Which brings me to a question Carol:
If the facts supporting Climate Change are so obvious, should not debating the facts of the matter strengthen those facts? Just as you would be eager to prove that you are not, in fact, stupid, should you not be equally as eager to prove your opinion by engaging in factual debate?
While you ponder that, and keeping in mind that I did say the answer to your question is in your article and I would get to that, let’s examine the only fact upon which your argument rests, which is that there is a consensus among 97% of scientists. Well Carol, I read that study. Did you? I’m guessing not.
Carol, that study was done by Margaret Zimerman, who sent the survey to 10,257 Earth Scientists. Of those, 3,146 responded. Of those, Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 77. That fact alone should have your journalistic instincts on high alert. But it gets worse. The two questions which lead to the 97% finding were:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”
The problem here Carol is that they should have gotten 100% to both questions. The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age which was 400 years ago. So obviously the answer to the first question would be “risen” even if human influence was zero. As for the second question, you may be surprised to learn that all but a tiny fraction of skeptics agree that rising temperatures are, in part, due to human activity. You see Carol, the debate about climate change is not a simple matter of “yes” or “no”. It is much more nuanced than that. There are questions relating to order of magnitude of change, endangerment related to any change that does occur, and in regard to strategies of mitigation versus adaptation. That study did nothing to determine consensus opinion on any of the central matters of the climate debate. It is not only contrived, but nearly meaningless. But I digress.
You go on to quote studies categorizing the population. I said I’d show you the answer to your headline question in your own article. Well, here it is. Your article goes on to quote results from Anthony Leiserowitz, who categorizes the population as follows:
- Alarmed (16%)
- Concerned (27%)
- Cautious (23%)
- Disengaged (5%)
- Doubtful (12%)
- Dismissive (15%)
Well that hardly seems like a consensus. In fact you go on to claim that the Dismissives are a powerful, well funded, well organized lobby group who are muddying the debate. Well Carol, if the facts are so powerfully on one side of the debate, why begin your opinion piece by categorically insisting that there is no debate? If there is no debate, how is it that only 16% of the citizenry are alarmed? Why, by the definitions in your own article, do 82% of the people think that climate change is something that won’t, for various reasons, have a direct effect on their lives?
But most importantly Carol, if you want to change their minds, would not an open and honest debate of the facts be your most powerful weapon? Are you going to let me accuse you of being stupid, or would you like to prove me wrong?
Lastly Carol, you sum up your article on this statement:
“The good news is, those uninformed minority voices are being quieted by nature and by those who have powerful voices.”
Well Carol, on that second point, I will allow that you are correct. Powerful voices (like yours) are eager to stifle the debate. Oddly, your own article points out the importance of having one if you want the facts as you see them to prevail. Will you use your powerful voice to that end? Or shall we call you stupid, insist there is no debating the matter, and call it a day?
But more importantly Carol, the first part of your statement is wrong. It is a simple matter to see that when one looks at the data, all the predictions of the “consensus” science have failed. Arctic ice retreat has stopped, and Antarctic ice has hit record levels. On a global basis, hurricanes and tornadoes have declined in both frequency and severity. According to the temperature records kept by the “consensus” scientist themselves, the earth hasn’t warmed in close to two decades, despite ever rising levels of CO2. Nature in fact is taking sides in this debate, and not the side you seem to think.
Even the United Nations IPCC, which is consensus climate science central for the world, now admits in their recent report (IPCC AR5) that the climate models themselves are wrong. It is their expert opinion that sensitivity to CO2 lies well below the model estimates. What are the models based upon Carol, if not the science? And if the best scientists in the world, in their capacity as advisors to the United Nations and world governments alike, are collectively stating that the models and the science the models are built on are in doubt, does that not deserve public debate?
Even among the “consensus” scientists themselves Carol, there is now considerable doubt about the science. Does that not give you pause to reconsider your position?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carol Costello fulfils both ‘Lindzen’s Law’ : Scientists will not supply an answer as to do so would lose them their funding; and ‘Sinclair’s law’: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
She would feel stupid answering the points made, yet undoubtedly so not to!
None so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not listen, none so thick as those who will not think..
>As for the second question, you may be surprised to learn that all but a tiny fraction of skeptics agree that rising temperatures are, in part, due to human activity.
David, what rising temperatures? The land based data show rising temp.’s from the mid 70’s which stopped in 1998. Of the two satellite data sets, RSS shows a minimal temp rise to 1997 while the UAH data is flat for the period. All 4 data sets show no rising temperatures since 1998, a period of 16 years. The satellites only show a global temp spike since the 1998 El Nino, since which there has been a temp plateau, but no sign of rising.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1975/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1975/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1975/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1975/mean:12
Rising temperatures should only be used in the past tense. It’s something that happened a very long time ago. And during the past 16 years man has emitted about 30% of their all time emissions with absolutely no effect on global temperature. And is it just a co-incidence that the reported temp rise shown by land based data from 1977 coincide with the preponderance of El Nino’s during that period?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
For the AGW believer the goal is stifling the debate, not the science. They do not want a discussion, they want silence.
Sadly this is one of the best post pointing out the dysfunction of AGW yet written. But the extremists are far past the point where they can appreciate the plain facts of the issue.
Excellent letter. I doubt she reads it.
I enjoyed (and agreed with) the article; however, one English error cropped up so often and consistently that it was very distracting. In calling Ms. Costello “Carol,” the author neglected to place a comma before, as well as after, the noun of direct address. Uses of her name should have looked more like this: “You do realize, Carol, that what you write reveals more about you than merely your beliefs. It would do much more good than harm, Carol, if you were actually to check facts and data before publishing. We wish you the best, Carol, but your current stance is like that of the blind man unknowingly awaiting the avalanche.”
Interesting piece but, God, do I hate the ‘open letter’ as a narrative device. It is, outside very specific circumstances, so daggy.
I still like Morano’s question: What are you going to do to stop the end of the Holocene or, at best, delay the start of the next glaciation? Why not ask CNN folks what measures must be taken to delay or avoid it if we concede kill SUV’s, closing power plants, etc., works for stopping warming the issue can then move to the debate of how to re-warm the Earth.
Reminds me of Python’s Argument Clinic: ‘There’s no debate!’. “Yes, there is!’, ad infinitum.
Oh well, most of us are arguing in our spare time anyway.
The question that I would like to see scientists answer is; “Over the past twenty years, how accurate have the predictions of warming made by climate scientists been?”
The test of any theory is its ability to make accurate predictions. That’s why science fair projects are made from those three-fold standups– first you say what you expect to see, then you say what actually happened, and then you compare the expected result to the observed result.
Or maybe “science” doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
She is paid for maintaining a specific position, not for reconsidering anything. It is simply not in her job description. All a transgression like that would earn her is getting fired and replaced by another will-o’-the-wisp, so what’s the point? These petty characters are completely interchangeable.
Chuck Nolan says:
February 26, 2014 at 2:25 am
“Al Kaida…….no way. Freedom fighters fight for Freedom!”
Ah. Nitpicker. Okay, submission fighters. Kay?
hunter says:
February 26, 2014 at 2:51 am
For the AGW believer the goal is stifling the debate, not the science. They do not want a discussion, they want silence.
===================================================================
To be clear, science is the debate Carol wants to stifle. Along with observation and reality. Then it’s just “do this because we say so.”
“As for the second question, you may be surprised to learn that all but a tiny fraction of skeptics agree that rising temperatures are, in part, due to human activity.”
Um, no. That is a statement of belief, not fact. There is no evidence that “human activity” is in any way responsible for the some 20-year warming period from the late 70’s to the late 90’s. The phrase “human activity” itself is a waffle phrase. Obviously, humans can affect temperatures locally, due to UHI and other ways, but that is separate from the issue of “global warming”. The phrase “in part” is also waffling. If one were to spit in the ocean, one could truthfully say that one was “in part” responsible for warming the ocean.
C’mon, folks … have a heart.
CC is just another workin’ stiff doin’ her job … sayin’ what the boss expects her to say. After all, there’s another payday comin’, just around the corner.
The poor thing needs the income, ya know?
Give her a break, and just ignore the Crazy News Network. Sooner or later, they’ll go away.
As one truth seeking American once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” (Thanks to Honest Abe, we have wise guidance.)
Therein lies the reason CNN is way down the Nielsen Ratings totem pole … If it wasn’t for MSNBC scraping bottom, CNN management might even be embarrassed.
Great post, thanks David Hoffer, very neatly put.
& thanks as always to the tireless Anthony.
& thank you commenters, great stuff as always on this quality site.
An interesting parallel can be drawn with the stupidity of the Crusades, in that back then the Catholic Church had their world in thrall through fear of Hell, they were the only ones able to read & write, & were thus effectively in charge of the Media, & their ultimate goal was World Domination.
Ring any bells?
Yes, I get the point that those dependent on the scam will hang onto the scam for reasons of reputation, salaries, speech fees, stock market profiteering,grants or political ideology. There are also some totally genuine Chicken Littles out there. 🙂
But the big point, surely is that so few see the 1%s end plan.
More Lord Monckton please Anthony.
Cheers,
JD.
Martin said at 2:40 am:
Unfortunately for David he then said “Carol, that study was done by Margaret Zimerman” when in fact the study that Carol linked to was the recent SKS one below, not the 2008 Doran/Zimmerman one.
Oops!
Dr. John M. Ware said
[T]he author neglected to place a comma before, as well as after, the noun of direct address.
Besides it’s really condescending.
glenncz said at 2:48 am:
Rising temperatures should only be used in the past tense.
That and people should stop calling the last nearly 20 years or so of no real temperature change a pause. It could go down you know.
TBear said at 3:06 am
Interesting piece but, God, do I hate the ‘open letter’ as a narrative device. It is, outside very specific circumstances, so daggy.
Daggy or goofy, I’ve seen better ones that’s for sure.
Debate is over? When exactly *was* there a debate? Seems to me the conclusion was decided in advance without a debate at all.
Someone ought to inform Ms Costello that if she wants to write a critical piece about denying a voice to problematic climate realists, she needs to apply a soupcon of critical thought otherwise she risks looking rather…erm…stupid when she discovers every word she has written is discredited, warmist black artistry from which some of the main proponents are now backtracking.
Oh, too late…
A review button would be nice.
Meh. I meant to mention the original 97% paper and then close that section by referring to the SKS paper as similarly contrived, and forgot. Apologies.
Well done! If she is half the journalist she thinks she is, this will spark her doubt and suspicion of the AGW claims. But I think it is more likely that your statement needs to be modified. She isn’t stupid, her brain had been disengaged.
Bill
Is CNN even relevant? I’d post more but need to check WeatherNation (the hotel has directTV). Not that other reality-tv-alarmist channel that occasionally gives a report or forecast.
Or worse, she might be proving a stereotypical correlation. Dumb. Woman. Blond. Where’s Ann Coulter when you need her? Oh, one outlier doesn’t prove anything.
I would have used the word ignorance instead of stupid.
Occasionally when I’m bored, I blurt or roll out my standard couple of paragraphs of stuff with a couple technical queues and almost universally if there is a response it is a social response. There is no debate on either side … I think everyone on the skeptic side is just letting the next 30 years play out and lob a few intellectual barbs in for fun when circumstances ask for it. The warmists seem to be stuck in the rut of commenting on every event where it gets a bit more comfortable outside or change reference and context when it is uncomfortable.
If you ignore the warmists there is an interesting dynamic and scientific debate about the direct influence of the sun on the short term variation of climate. Maybe we should just have formal skeptic debates on that topic and let the warmists own the political and social sphere … which they do. Climate change is the god in the temple and politicians just talk over each other heads about how urgent it is and how practical certain actions are.