Guest essay by Tom Fuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Peril of Great Causes
342 Comments
February 25, 2015 6:35 am
“As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.
…
Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
And when we do talk about the science we discover that the exact amount of our “emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period” is very much unsettled. It may be so little as to not be discernable by our modern technology. Indeed, no one has been able to measure and show proof that it is happening.
As for the “…” part of the OP, I suspect most of the skeptical folks would say that the deceptions, half-truths, and manipulated data contributed to their skeptical position.
February 25, 2015 6:35 am
Thank you for this post Mr. Fuller. While I’m not entirely in ideological agreement with you, I have been saying for years that the global warming issue has and continues to do harm to both science and environmentalism. I am a conservative and an environmentalist. No, those are not incompatible. Environmentalism needs to be rescued from this extremely divisive political schism.
February 25, 2015 6:41 am
The fact is the arctic is melting. All this crap for what? Politics? Many things contribute to it including human activities. But let’s be clear the Koch empire has an agenda. Their last scientist had to reverse his findings. So when a scientific report is funded for a particular result and a scientist works backwards to try and muddy the facts it is an issue. When the legislative body says no scientists allowed in a scientific conversation it is a problem.
Frankly I am tired of the corruption on both sides of the question. In the end we have to do what ever we can to take care of this planet to which we can not survive without. How is all that Hot radiation affecting the pacific right now? ……
Too bad it’s politics for corporate interests above human life. Frankly We still need all the energy. However we are allowing Russia and China to build an empire around us including renewable energy. There are good paying jobs in the wind industry. So why should I be worried about a couple of Billionaires, their paid propaganda, or them doubling their wealth? I think they are doing quite well as it is.
What are the solutions to the warming? How can we keep predator business separated from good business in renewable energy? Why are we still buying Chinese goods and letting them overtake us in the solar industry? Why do we let foreign investors take our land, run our country, and even have this discussion? We have a problem. Time to fix it and I do not see any solutions from the Koch empire except their own concern about their profits.
This country and it’s future is more important than the Koch empire or their crazy agenda.
Darnell, relax and listen to the ‘late’ comedian, George Carlin.
The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages… And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet… the planet… the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!
See the rest at – http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/george-carlin-saving-the-planet.html
February 25, 2015 7:08 am
I’d like to make the obvious point that we are here and able to observe because we can. Whatever the climate or the conditions the biological thing that is now human has adapted to the conditions so that it can exist. At some time in the future all that is required for human existence will be manufactured from starlight, then we will live in starships flung far from here. Questioning.
February 25, 2015 7:44 am
“As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period. ”
As a scientist (post-graduate studies in chemical physics – the relationships between chemicals and their physical properties and behaviour) I reject the rhetoric that is used to ‘explain’ how ONLY our CO2 emissions have contributed to the (statistically insignificant) warming, and how only the diversion of all available resources will serve to ameliorate the problem.
The socio-economic “Solution” that was created as the savior of our planet from Carbon Pollution has taken on a life and an agenda of it’s own. It’s subversion is opening the door to fascist world domination and despotic controls. The ‘Great Cause’ doesn’t care what type of science is used to justify it, it only rejects skeptic science as “myths”. It is more important than ever that the public simply believes that the cause is “founded in settled science” and “get in line”, instead of wasting time trying to verify the science, as a consensus has already established the truth.
February 25, 2015 7:45 am
Re troll-feeding: Anonymous characters like ‘Bevan’ are basically agents provocateurs, who either for their own amusement or perhaps as ideologues enjoy disrupting Internet discussions in forums they disagree with. They cast idle remarks and insults gratuitously, expecting regulars to rise and take the bait, thereby derailing a thread by starting arguments. They are best ignored, but failing that may require attention from moderators to keep them in line. Readers of WUWT are confident and well-versed enough in the issues to let the trolls play, without succumbing to the flame wars they seek to ignite. But remember, that’s their aim.
/Mr Lynn
February 25, 2015 8:02 am
Tim Fuller wrote: “Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
Amen.
I only glanced at the enormous number of comments. I am going to try a shortcut. Some are claiming that Soon’s work has been refuted; have they given any references?
Is there any actual evidence that Soon has done something unethical? Not all journals require funding disclosure if there is no conflict of interest. Getting money from companies is not a conflict of interest, unless you stand to profit personally or give them editorial input. And those are conflicts for any funding source, including non-profits and the government.
For the record: I have looked at some of Soon’s papers and I have not been favorably impressed. But I like evidence, not innuendo.
February 25, 2015 8:23 am
Name calling may bring emotion satisfaction for the warmists. It will not however resolve the questions: 1) Why did the planet warmed in the last 150 years, 2) Why does the planet cyclically warms (same high latitude regions, same pattern of warming recently observed) and cools correlating with solar magnetic cycle changes, and 3) Will the planet warm or cool in the very near future. A very effective method to solve holistic physical problems, is to summarize all of the observations/paradoxes/anomalies related to the subject in question and then use the logic of the observations/analysis/paradoxes/anomalies to appropriately adjust/modify existing mechanisms, to develop new mechanisms, and to correct fundamental errors in theory.
It is a fact that the planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past and that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet. What is not known is how the solar changes cause the planet to cyclically warm and cool.
TSI (total solar radiation) changes or changes in greenhouse gases cannot be the explanation for the warming in the last 30 years. As the earth is a sphere due to the geometry of a sphere, the highest amount of TSI the earth receives is at the equator and the highest amount of long wave radiation emitted to space is hence also at the equator.
As greenhouse gases including CO2 are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, the highest amount of greenhouse gas warming should have occur at the equator. The same is true for an increase in TSI. As we are aware there has been almost no warming in the equatorial region, in the last 30 years. The fact that there has been almost no warming at the equator in the last 30 years is the ’20th century Latitude Warming Paradox’. A paradox is an observation that indicates there are one or more errors in the assumed mechanisms and related theories.
http://www.eoearth.org/files/115701_115800/115741/620px-Radiation_balance.jpg
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152458/
The majority of the warming in the last 30 years has been in high latitude regions, which supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 30 years was not caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 and was not caused by TSI changes. The warming in the last 30 years is the same pattern of warming (high latitude warming) that occurs in the paleo record cyclically.
The majority of the warming in the last 30 years has caused by cloud modulation effects of solar wind bursts, primarily from coronal holes. What causes coronal holes to appear on the sun, at what latitude on the sun coronal holes appear at, and when in the solar cycle the coronal holes appear at is not known.
The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which causes a current flow at the poles and at the equator, with the return path being through the conductive ocean. This mechanism is called electroscavenging. The current flow in the atmosphere changes the amount of low level cloud in the high latitude regions and changes the optical properties and lifetime of clouds in the equatorial region (is the primary reason for El Niño events).
Due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle, the solar heliosphere density has reduced by 40%. The solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and pieces of magnetic flux that is ejected off the surface of the sun. The solar heliosphere extends well past the orbit of Pluto.
As noted in the 2013, AGU meeting there has been a 40% reduction in the solar heliosphere density. At the AGU 2013 meeting it was also noted that the reduction in the solar wind density has changed rise time of the solar wind bursts (the solar wind burst still occur but the rise time of the wind burst is significant less which in turn will reduce the solar wind bursts effect on the ionosphere, reduce the magnitude of the electroscangening effect.
Temporary offsetting the reduction in the rise time of the solar wind bursts is the temporary increase in the number of wind bursts. For some unexplained reason there have been a large number of coronal holes on the surface of the sun, in low latitude positions during solar magnetic cycle 24, however due to the reduction in the solar wind density the solar wind bursts have less effect on cloud modulation which explains why there has suddenly be an increase sea ice in the Antarctic, a recovery of sea ice in the Arctic, and an inhibiting of the formation of El Niño events.
The coronal holes are now starting to shrink in size on the sun and to move to higher latitude regions on the surface of the sun where they no longer affect the earth. This change in the size and location of the coronal holes on the sun has resulted in less solar wind bursts and smaller magnitude solar wind bursts which explains why there is suddenly high latitude cooling.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity (William: Closed magnetic field) and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity (William: Short term abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field caused by solar wind bursts, which are measured by the short term geomagnetic field change parameter Ak. Note the parameter is Ak rather than the month average with Leif provides a graph for. The effect is determined by the number of short term wind bursts. A single very large event has less affect than a number of events. As Coronal holes can persist for months and years and as the solar wind burst affect lasts for roughly week, a coronal hole has a significant effect on planetary temperature) which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. ….
…The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868- 1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira
et al. 2001).
…In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions from high latitude regions and adds ions to the tropical region, with the return current moving through the ocean. This phenomena is called electroscavenging.
See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when GCR is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that GCR does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Apart from the Georgieva et al. paper being poor science itself, the authors go to some length to try to show that solar activity is not the primary driver as it does not not match the temperature evolution since the 1970s: http://www.leif.org/research/Georgieva-Temp-SSN.png
February 25, 2015 9:17 am
Tom Fuller, a constant theme of the Progressive Left is that the fundamental reason why America is not taking effective action on climate change is that action is being blocked by right-wing politicians in the US Congress and in numerous state governments who are being funded by fossil fuel interests to oppose anti-carbon legislation.
However, there remains the fact that the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon pollution, written under the authority of the Clean Air Act, has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. The 2009 finding enables the EPA to pursue aggressive action against carbon emissions, if the EPA chooses to do so.
The Executive Branch and the EPA now have full and unquestioned legal authority to regulate carbon emissions to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act, and to do so without needing another word of new legislation from the US Congress.
President Obama has said that climate change represents a greater threat to America’s national security than does terrorism. An yet, the Obama Administration has not gone nearly as far as it legally could go in taking strong regulatory action against carbon emissions.
The Obama Administration’s existing climate action plan greatly favors natural gas at the expense of alternative energy resources such as wind, solar, and nuclear. Obama’s current plan guarantees that America will eventually be covered with fracking wells from one end of the country to the other.
The only practical way to reduce America’s carbon emissions to the extent that the Progressive Left claims is necessary is to artificially raise the price of all carbon fuels to levels which will make them uncompetitive in the energy marketplace.
This can be done without a legislated carbon tax through an integrated combination of two major anti-carbon measures administered by the EPA. The first measure would be to directly constrain emissions of carbon pollution through a specified series of local, state, regional, and national emission limits. The second measure would be to impose a corresponding framework of stiff carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
As long as the EPA properly followed its existing and well-tested regulatory rule-making processes and procedures; and as long as the anti-carbon regulations were themselves fair and impartial in their application, then this two-prong regulatory attack on carbon emissions could be made absolutely bulletprooof against the threat of lawsuits.
What it all boils down to is this: there exists today a clear and unambiguous legal pathway towards decarbonizing America’s economy, if the Progressive Left wants to pursue it.
Nothing that right-wing politicians could do short of repealing the Clean Air Act could stop the EPA from legally decarbonizing America’s economy, if the EPA were to be given instructions by the Obama Administration to use its full legal authority in pursuing that objective.
So tell us Mr. Fuller, why aren’t the most prominent leaders of America’s progressive left — Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. — why aren’t they all demanding that President Obama and the EPA use the full legal authority the Executive Branch already has in its hands to largely decarbonize America’s economy?
“Nothing that right-wing politicians could do short of repealing the Clean Air Act could stop the EPA from legally decarbonizing America’s economy, if the EPA were to be given instructions by the Obama Administration to use its full legal authority in pursuing that objective.”
=======================================================================
The EPA definition of CO2 as a pollutant, legal or not, is a travesty of politics over science. The EPA is now, nothing but a tool for the progressive agenda. It may be that the US has gone so far down the statist path that the EPA could mandate draconian CO2 cuts, which would have zero discernible affect on global average T, yet the reaction of the US populous would hopefully destroy the power granted to the EPA on the basis of failed alarmist science.
February 25, 2015 9:17 am
Big oil and Big green have a common interest, albeit unspoken.
Limiting the competition for its products makes what they have seem to
be more valuable then it would be in a truly competitive environment.
Promoting wind and solar which can never compete with hydrocarbons
and stopping nuclear promotes big oil.
When a billion dollar investment by any of the major oil companies could make liquid fluoride thorium reactors a reality in a few years, you have to ask yourselves about whether they really care about producing energy or whether they only care about producing a certain kind of energy. Twelve billion dollars on an offshore rig? No problem. A billion dollars to bring a truly different kind of new nuclear technology on line that would change the world for the next several thousand years? Sorry we are not interested.
February 25, 2015 9:24 am
In his lead WUWT post, Tom Fuller said,
As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period. As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. And as someone who has worked in the solar power industry and reported on green technology for over a decade, I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.”
. . .
Climate change is real. The political struggle over acknowledging the scope and impacts is full of unreality.”
. . .
Tom Fuller,
”As a Lukewarmer I (TF) cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.” Labels like ‘Lukewarmer’ are pre-scientific gibberish. Consider that one can be an arguably disinterested observer by having reasoned from the climate focused science debate that when compared to the natural variations of all the dynamics of the Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) then there is at most a small and relatively insignificant warming from historic levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
“. . . the current warming period.” You (TF) have not picked a period; your statement therefore is just journalistic overgeneralization and fluff. A specific period when selected causes removal of inappropriate emphasis by allowing comparison to relevant broader periods. Scientific perspectives are important in the discussion of specific periods (not unspecified period as you have done) like the last 18 years compared to the last 36 and like the period since 1850 as compared to natural temperature cycles of the geologic timescales.
”Climate change is real. The political struggle over acknowledging the scope and impacts is full of unreality.” Emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuel is real whereas claims of there being anything more than barely discernable global warming from such emission is observationally challenged wrt objective assessments of the EAS.
When focused on what you (TF) fashionably (not scientifically) label ‘climate change’, we see politically swayable gov’t sponsored structures (IPCC /NAS /EPA /NASA GISS /NOAA /MET /etc /etc /etc) have created a type of process that isn’t science and which has replaced objective climate related science.
I find the language used in the lead post is a significant issue. Lindzen addressed some of the significant language issues in discussions focusing on climate.
Richard S. Lindzen wrote in a recent book** in the opening paragraphs of a chapter he authored entitled: ‘3 Global Warming, Models and Language’,
“Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public.
The misuse of language extends to the use of climate models. Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. . . .
In a further abuse of language, the advocates attempt to rephrase issues in the form of yes-no questions:
– Does climate change?
– Is carbon dioxide (CO 2) a greenhouse gas?
– Does adding greenhouse gas cause warming?
– Can man’s activities cause increases in greenhouse gases?
These yes-no questions are meaningless when it comes to global warming alarm since affirmative answers are still completely consistent with there being no problem whatsoever; crucial to the scientific method are ‘how much’ questions. This is certainly the case for the above questions, where even most sceptics of alarm (including me) will answer yes.
To a certain extent, therefore, this issue cannot be discussed between opponents. We are speaking different languages.
That said, it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gases is solely due to the behavior of the computer models. . . .”
** Book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’: Abbot, Dr John; James Delingpole, Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~; Donna Laframboise, Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~; Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~; Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran, Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~; Nova, Jo; Dr Willie Soon, Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~; Steyn, Mark; Watts, Anthony; Andrew Bolt; Dr J. Scott Armstrong; published (2015-01-11). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.
I think the whole chapter by Lindzen is an important contribution to help undo language problems; I think there are such language problems in the journalistically constructed lead post.
John
February 25, 2015 10:15 am
Climate science is not all that different from other imperfections in the soft sciences, like economics. The models are imperfect and oversold and temporal at best, etc etc. The difference with climate science with its flaws is the division-strength baggage of thousands of agencies, NGOs, governments and a U.S. President pushing daily to extend and enact permanent deals locking in flawed science and snow plowing all concerns to the side with bully tactics. That scale is new and different. It also makes the bill for policy error gargantuan in the process. Jimmy Carter’s subsidized oil from shale rock, ancient solar panels on the roof, and synthetic gas from coal plants just demonstration projects by comparison.
February 25, 2015 10:33 am
Nature weighs in on Soon: http://www.leif.org/EOS/518456-Nature-and-Soon.pdf
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
There is more to the solar input than the TSI.
See above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/the-peril-of-great-causes/#comment-1868388
February 25, 2015 1:48 pm
S&B weren’t the only ones to tackle the schtick or its predecessors. A more subtle response came hard on the heels of Bradley and Jones, 93,94 from a couple of prominent glaciologists: http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
(No LIA? Kiss mine.) –AGF
February 25, 2015 2:38 pm
Tom Fuller’s first sentence bothers me:
As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period. . .
The form is strikingly similar to expressions of religious faith, as in “As a Christian I cheerfully accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth,” or “As a Zoroastrian I cheerfully accept that ‘the creator Ahura Mazda is all good, and no evil originates from him’.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism]
Is cheerful (and uncritical?) acceptance of unproven claims is a tenet of Lukewarmism? It is certainly not the attitude of a scientist. As far as I know no one to date has yet produced any empirical evidence whatsoever that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed a measurable amount of warming to the Earth at any period. This is not to say that it might not have; only that science requires evidence, not “cheerful acceptance.”
/Mr Lynn
February 25, 2015 9:19 pm
Liberal “Progressionist’ are the same people responsible for all the lunacy that anyone can point a finger at in history as well as recent events in our lifetime. They demand changes without giving a single thought to it’s effect or the destruction it causes, let alone the people it will effect and kill. Liberal’s were present at all the major times in history when lunacy and crowd-thought/mentality was required – aka Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot as well as many other murderous individuals come to mind. It has always been the case that not one consideration is ever given to the humans on this planet and yet there they are actually claiming and ‘proudly’ wearing that despicable label like it is some ‘award’. It probably is for moronic behaviour and general ignorance and gross stupidity. Proud to be a Prog Liberal, You have got to be kidding..
February 26, 2015 9:36 am
Sorry..but the ‘climate war’ is for the most part over.
Prior to the year 2000 the cost of extracting coal has been decreasing (in the US Australia and China predominately) at a fairly steady pace. The laws of economics applied…the cheaper something gets the more people will consume.
The cost of extracting coal and delivering it to market, in the US, Australia,China and Europe has since ceased it’s downward trend that was without end and has since headed upwards.
There is nothing left to really argue about…at some point the cost of producing electricity with coal will exceed the cost of the alternatives and the alternatives will be adopted.
Peabody Coal…one of the worlds larger coal producers was trading at $80 a share in 2008. It’s was trading at $8/share yesterday. (Not a typo…less then $10).
The markets have already decided that the ‘future’ doesn’t belong to coal.
The only people left arguing over ‘climate change’ are people with an academic curiosity, true believers trying to ‘prove they are right’ and government bureaucrats looking for something to regulate.
You may or may not be right regarding coal, as new technologies continue to come to the fore. At any rate the bell curve is long, (and we really do not know where we are on it with regard to fossil fuels) and takes decades to impact in a major way especially as new reserves with new technologies continue to come to the fore. There certainly is no real energy shortage and we are not running out of things.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
.https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/unlimiting-resources-basalt-for-a-high-tech-stone-age/
March 6, 2015 10:11 am
FACT: Al Gore was never arrested for sexual misconduct. To claim he has is clearly libel.
It is instructive to note that even though the libel has been pointed out – it has not been corrected or retracted, even though the author has retracted it on his own website. See https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/the-peril-of-great-causes/
Slurs against the Irish are rather amusing considering 😉
But as a Lukewarmer I see flaws in what has become a Great Cause–to me it seems to often be an excuse for NGOs to ask the public for more money, for politicians to gain easy support and to replace the stock prayer from beauty pageant contestants for world peace.
Climate change is real. The political struggle over acknowledging the scope and impacts is full of unreality.
When a political cause gains traction among those in power, a curious thing happens. Conventional ideas about right and wrong slip in priority and winning becomes so important that criminal activity and sexual impropriety become forgivable by those in service to a Cause.
Peter Gleick stole documents and forged another to attack his political opponents. Despite the gravity of this crime he was welcomed back into the fold of those promoting worst-case scenarios about the impacts of climate change as if he were a hero, not a criminal. This is not unusual in political movements. The cause becomes more important.
Al Gore was one of the first who promoted global warming as an imminent threat to human safety. His sybaritic lifestyle was evident from the first–private planes, living in a mansion, conspicuous consumption. None of that was sufficient to cause the Cause to disavow him. It still is unclear whether it was his arrest for pressuring a masseuse for sex or his sale of his television channel to a fossil fuel organization was the cause of his fall from grace–but that fall was apparently temporary, as he still speaks on global warming before green groups the world over. The rules don’t apply.
And now it is the turn of Rajendra Pachauri. Women are now speaking of a decade-long pattern of sexual harassment. Even before this revelation, Pachauri was involved in misconduct, ranging from suppressing dissent to hiding the income from his foundation. He showed incredibly poor judgment in publishing a bodice ripper of a novel while head of an organization that had been criticized by the IAC–with many of those criticisms calling into question his leadership. But it doesn’t matter. He was a champion of the Cause.
Currently, some bloggers and mainstream media sources are reviving decade-long questions about the funding of a scientist named Willie Soon, that he received funding from fossil fuel sources.
It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.
What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.
Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.
Oh for the days when we talked about science.