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.
Let me be clear.. I am not saying she is stupid. I have done many stupid things, and while not the brightest bulb in the room, I dont think I am stupid. I am merely commenting that in the spirit of Marc Antony speech in Julius Caesar, ( one of my favorite passages of all time) you appear to have a carrot for MS Carrol, which then turns into a stick that whether by design or accident, does leave the reader a reason to debate at the very least, that the article was stupid ( I think ignorant.. as in ignorant of facts is better..one can be ignorant, without being stupid)
But it was a great piece.
Dan Tauke says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:31 am
“Understood, thanks. However, back to my two logic statements – wouldn’t someone have to either believe that:
1) Humans are not adding incremental C02 to the atmosphere
or
2) The greenhouse gas effect theory is wrong
to not believe humars are contributing incremental warmth?”
CO2 does intercept and re-radiate LWIR photons. More CO2 increases this effect very slightly, due to an effect called pressure broadening. Whether or not and to what degree this results in atmospheric warming is not a trivial question because of the many possible feedbacks.
If it were a trivial question, climate models would not be necessary to attempt to answer it; nor would supercomputers be necessary to run them.
And what we have seen is that all the models failed to predict the “pause” (or stop) of global warming since 1997.
So, climate science loses its credibility when claiming they can tell us about the future.
Which makes CNN and climate science the perfect match in credibility.
Is she wearing a Brownshirt?
Just curious.
Outtheback: “What I can’t get is that so many “scientists” sell themselves in favor of, what is now, an emotional cause. The very people that are trained to look at data only to verify a hypothesis.”
There is plenty of legislation born from emotional cause. Get the public fired up…pass legislation at the top of the hype. Emotionalize climate….
Dan Tauke,
You make a good point. Most folks here don’t claim that there is no greenhouse effect, or that humans are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What we are pointing out is that neither of those things matter in the slightest.
The net effect of more CO2 is beneficial. Despite asking numerous times, no one has ever been able to identify any global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto ‘harmless’.
It is also beneficial. The rise in CO2 has brought about a very measurable greening of the planet. More food is being produced [which the “greens” do not like; they would clearly prefer mass starvation in order to ‘save the planet’.]
Carol Costello has no scientific background. None at all. Her only degree is a BA in journalism. There are a lot of entries found in a search of her name that refer to “her stunning legs and feet.” Apparently she crosses her legs a lot on camera. It is her trademark.
If Carol Costello understood the least bit about science, she would know that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. That means there is a diminishing effect as CO2 rises. That is where the analogy of ‘adding more coats of paint to a window’ comes from: after the first coat [≈20 ppm CO2], subsequent coats do not cause any noticeable warming.
The whole “carbon” scare is built upon the false notion that a rise in CO2 is linear. But Carol does not understand the concept of a diminishing effect. She is one of countless journalists completely ignorant of basic science. Really, Carol Costello is simply a propagandist for those who are sounding a false alarm about “carbon” for their own self-serving reasons.
Max Hugoson says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:55 am
Is she wearing a Brownshirt?
Just curious.
…you probably don’t want to go there. 🙂
I believe that this linked interview shows precisely how to deal with idiot journalists and ignorant overpaid, teleprompt reading “newsreaders” who have bought into the climate alarmist hype 100% and who have shown themselves incapable of having any sort of sceptical or inquiring mind…
It is Richard Delingpole schooling Richard Bacon and it is very interesting indeed.
Smashing! Excellent letter. Hats off to you, David Hoffer.
You are in desperate need of a history lesson. The Crusades were about global domination? No, Christian pilgrims really were being killed in the Holy Land. Christendom really was under full scale military assault. Were there horrors as a result of the Crusades? Of course there were. But your narrative is false. The first Crusade in particular was a response to aggression.
dbstealey: “Really, Carol Costello is simply a propagandist for those who are sounding a false alarm about “carbon” for their own self-serving reasons.”
Heavy on the propaganda machine … divide and conquer.
I don’t usually post on these matters, but good grief…who or what contributed to the granddaddy of all climate variations that brought the last ice age to an end? Mastodon flatulence? Or might it be it was natural and normal climate fluctuation on a geologic scale? On balance the earth has been warming for 20,000 years or so, complete with peaks and valleys of warming and cooling. Cycles within cycles and most if not all without human contributions. What is so hard for the warmers to understand?
If the planet has stopped warming for the last 17 years, then glaciers and the ice caps, and all the other natural things like birds and polar bears would show signs of recovery. Having lived in Churchill, MB for two years (2010-2012) listening to the canadian scientists who are studying the polar bears in Hudson Bay. I can add that the bears are losing weight, the ice is getting thinner in the bay, it is freezing later and melting sooner. Killer whales now are spotted in the summer in Hudson Bay because there is no ice in Hudson Straight to stop them from getting into the bay. While that might be nice for the future tourist industry, the private rail company that owes the railway to Churchill is planning on shipping oil through the port because of the longer shipping season, and the lack of ice in Hudson Strait.
The only thing I would like to point out about the 17 years of no more warming statement is that if the planet is still warmer then the 20th average, everything will continue to melt and retreat, sea ocean levels will continue to rise. The only thing that is happening is that the changes are not speeding up. Which would be a good thing if we were developing strategies to deal with the changes that provided new jobs instead of another Mcdonalds, Wal-Mart, or Tim Hortons.
Now what would have to change for the planet to cool or return to the 20th century normal?
and
and
What was the reason for this discrepancy, again? I forgot.
policycritic;
What was the reason for this discrepancy, again? I forgot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The second question wasn’t considered if a particular answer was given. Since two of the 79 gave that answer, they were excluded from the next question. There’s a full write up on it in WUWT, I just don’t have the link handy.
Gerry,
Your link says: We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which eventually enhances global welfare.
In other words: propaganda is good!
No, propaganda is bad, because propaganda does not allow for other points of view. How can people make good decisions if they cannot hear the whole issue?
And of course, the question must be asked: what are they afraid of? That people might intelligently make up their minds, based on all available information?
Yes, that is exactly what they are afraid of.
Who was doing the killing?
The open letter is well written, but Joe Bastardi’s point is true. She may be more a pawn than stupid. As with Bob Costas, whose net worth is maybe around $45 M. He knows who butters his bread. His ignorance is not in in the area of how to bolster his wealth. The greed might drive the apparent stupidity, less any moral conviction. Why learn anything outside the his journalistic comfort zone?
Ms. Castello is being paid to preach the MSM mime. She in her mind is “I made it to a big network.” …with the pay check to match. She will protect that. That is good for her career as a TV journalist. Many are alarmed by the MSM machinery and where it takes the public.
Look what happened to Scientific American. Once I respected…but not for 15 years now. The advent of the world wide web provides opportunity to speak outside the established brick and mortar paper journals (now too on the internet). This blog is an example. Choosing wisely is the goal.
Joe Bastardi says:
February 26, 2014 at 9:43 am
I hate to say this
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh come on. you were itching to 😉
Big fan of yours BTW, thanks for the positive remarks.
Thanks, davidmhoffer. (February 26, 2014 at 10:40 am). So does that mean Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 79, not 77? Yeah, I remember that WUWT post on it, but can’t find it.
j.jewett said ” Same for the word for slave in Arabic. ”
the word for slave, in arabic, is ‘abu’. it’s the same word for the color ‘black’.
davidmhoffer, I’m just trying to clear this up because I’ve printed it out to distribute at the Oscar party this Sunday–it’s so damn polite and incisive, it will work on this crowd–and it will be a party with nitpick types.
Pretty amazing that out of more than 12,000 papers that explicitly included the words global warming or climate change more than 2/3 had nothing to add to the discussion of global warming or climate change. From 1991 to 2011…over 8,000 papers and no opinion… that’s odd?
Real scientists then confirmed their work in less than 20% of the more than 12,000 papers.
Sounds like scientists getting behind their work of discovering the ins and outs of our climate or maybe that’s The Guardian and Dana for ya.
The sky is falling.
cn
I would love to hear a response from her, but I doubt we will see one.
brian vhoptain, February 26, 2014 at 10:21 am
What happened during the summer of 2013 when the ice increased by 50% over 2012? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
David,
Thanks for the post, and for your gumption in writing to the journalist.
World CO2 levels are at an all-time high for the modern era – nearly 400 ppm. Greenhouse theory long ago predicted that we would be sizzling by this point. Across a variety of metrics, it’s been the coldest winter on record for much of the Midwest, at the same time that ‘None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle (of the sun)’ (Leif Svalgaard at AGU on the Current Solar Cycle) Weak Sun Is it not strange that we are conceding points to the warmists about mankind’s incremental temperature contributions via CO2, and (as some do) dismissing the influence of the sun?