Respected climate scientist refutes false claim that tree died due to climate change, and the pressure to not do so
Toby Nixon writes:
The Seattle Times ran a hysterical story about how climate change killed a large tree at the Washington Park Arboretum in Seattle. Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and no climate change skeptic, demolished the Times story in a strongly-worded blog post.
But perhaps more importantly, he goes on to describe the kind of pressure to which he is subjected to not post such corrections because of the ammunition it gives to “deniers”. It is an excellent exposition on the corruption of the scientific method that is rampant in climate science — not just the suppression of dissent, but the suppression of every small corrections of the most exaggerated claims.
Mass writes:
So what about temperature? Let’s examine the maximum temperature trend at the same Seattle Urban location for summer (June through August). There is a slight upward trend since 1895 by .05F per decade. Virtually nothing.
What about the period in which the poor lived (it was planted in 1948)? As shown below, temperatures actually COOLED during that period.
You get the message, the claim that warming summer temperatures produced by “climate change” somehow killed this pine is simply without support by the facts.
So the bottom line of all this is that the climate record disproves the Seattle Times claim that warming and drying killed that pine tree in the UW arboretum. There is no factual evidence that climate change ended the 72-year life of that tree. The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probably explanation.
Why is an important media outlet not checking its facts before publishing such a front page story? Linda Mapes is an excellent writer, who has done great service describing the natural environment of our region. Why was she compelled to put a climate change spin on a story about the death of a non-native tree?
Now something personal. Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this, I get savaged by some “environmentalists” and media. I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil companies, and stuff I could not repeat in this family friendly blog. Sometimes it is really hurtful. Charles Mudede of the Stranger is one of worst of the crowd, calling me “dangerous” and out of my mind (see example below).
I believe scientists must provide society with the straight truth, without hype or exaggeration, and that we must correct false or misleading information in the media. It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing.”
Read the whole thing: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/05/seattle-times-climate-change-article-is.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cliff Mass has done a stalwarts job of calling out all sorts of mangled alarmist’s science from fallacious acidification claims to bogus drought, precipitation and snow pack claims, false drought claims and now this tree.
He has accurately identified the alarmist as the blatant liars they are.
And yet he remains a warmer believing the science of AGW is valid and that action to reduce CO2 emissions must be taken.
How does Cliff not extend the credibility deficit he has so perfectly identified to the rest of the claims made by the AGW team?
He believes that effects of CO2 will begin in the future, but have not affected current problems.
I see a lot of snide remarks about “believers” in climate science here.
Know you are criticising every single peak science body in the world including NASA and NOAA and the judgement of the scientific community, who by an overwhelming majority accept the IPCCC findings, and the concerns of historical scientists as far back as Edison; on the whole, people professionally dedicated to seeking the truth.
Know that you are sneering at the theories and observations and measurements not just of climatologists and their models, but of Physicists (such as myself) who understand the fundamental link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global energy budgets, oceanographers, biologists, and many other disciplines, all observing temperature related changes. The Cherry Blossom arrival in Japan keeps getting earlier, and the latitudes in Australia where sub tropical spiders are found is moving south. NASA has satellite measurements of ice areas over the arctic shrinking over time.
All these people are liars or fools ? Really ?
By contrast, anyone reading this who is not on the payroll of the denialist industry and is genuinely interested in getting at the truth should understand that by various accounts this website is funded by the Heartland Institute, which is funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers and likely other big business interests with a very self interested agenda.
Oh, and the self interest of the insurance industry is following the money and the data: they are very worried about the relationship between climate change and the increase they are seeing in the costs of weather related natural disasters.
On the other hand, if you want to continue to believe that virtually every scientist and science body, most of whom have no financial interest in the result, is deluded or is lying to you, then go ahead, but please consider if that is a reasonable position or if your confirmation bias is being overworked on this issue.
Alan, your statement that professionals: “…all observing temperature related changes.” actually just affirms the general warming trends from the Little Ice Age. CO2 “control knob” theory wrecks on the shoals of historical temperature variations, including the 1915 to 1940 warming.
More recent estimations of TCS and ECS values of CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC values derived from climate models. Additionally, there have been no increases in extreme weather, as is predicted using those faulty models.
The science is not settled, and expensive policy aimed at CO2 reductions is not warranted.
Hi Dave, thanks for your reply.
What you term “control knob” theory is basic Physics. Are you familiar with the black body effect? It’s a quantum mechanics thing discovered by Boltzmann if I recall correctly. That plus greenhouse gases regulate our temperature over the long term, and in fact without greenhouse gases our planets’ overall AVERAGE temperature would be closer to 6C instead of 15C. You can easily look that up if you don’t believe me. Basically matter absorbs energy from the sun and as its temp rises it begins to emit radiation at fairly low frequency, with the frequency and energy emitted increasing with temperature. If you have been to a steel mill you will have seen the steel go from cold to red hot then to white hot. Thats the black body radiation part. The greenhouse gas part is that they absorb lower frequency radiation, stopping some of the energy getting out. So if you chuck more greenhouse gas into a planetary system, energy out will be less than energy in until the temperature rises enough. Then there will be a new equilibrium average planetary temperature. That is why scientists are talking about limiting CO2 concentration to specific values, because the basic Physics says that sets our long term average temp, and Physics does not lie. Hope that makes sense.
Now although we can calculate the rate of increase of energy (a truly frightening number of H bombs worth BTW, also can be looked up), because our planet is big and spinning and has lots of water to absorb energy, the rate of increase of surface temp is very jagged, and the effects on climate/weather very complex. That is the domain of mathematical climate models. These are improving partly because of improved computing power. Don’t confuse short term weather forecasts (small area, short timeframes) with climate modelling. Remember when weather forecasts were good maybe just for tomorrow ?
Because of all of this you have to look at trends over all time, but often people pick slices of time as gocha indicators, when all that proves is they dont quite understand or are playing games to support a false argument.
Not sure where you got the “climate sensitivity” stuff from, but the basics dont come from models. I dont need a model to tell me that if an atomic bomb is dropped on a city the damage will be real bad, but a model could tell you how the damage is distributed. See the difference.
Now I’m not advocating destroying society to deal with this issue. Interestingly, you don’t have to believe any of this climate change stuff to think there might be positive benefits to moving towards renewable energy.
Firstly, fossil fuels ARE going to run out. Indisputable fact. In how long is debatable.
Secondly, reducing dependence on oil means greater energy independence, which means countries are more independant of the chaos and corruption of the middle east. Thats good right ? Probably less wars and dead American soldiers.
Thirdly renewables are decentralized, which is actually great in poor countries. Put solar on the roof instead of building massive power stations and transmission line networks. If you dont believe me ask the prime minister of India.
Finally, about the increase in extreme weather, I think insurance companies would disagree with you on that.
Cheers!
Try following this blog for a few months,Alan, and get an understanding just how preciously wrongheaded you comment is. Climate is not that simple, and anyone claiming to have that level of understanding of climate is blowing smoke.
No one has a reliable model of why climate varies in decade or century scales, and an inadequate model of ice age periods exists.
Then you might get an idea of the politics that pervades most of the “solutions” proposed, which you do not seem to understand, either.
Respectfully Tom, I have been closely following the climate debate for more than 30 years.
In that time I have looked into the various standard objections that are put forward and almost without exception the ones I have looked at are based on lack of understanding of the science, cherry picking, poor logic or plain falsehood.
I have discussed these issues face to face with deniers, and I observe that I point out the verifiable errors in their logic or facts they shift to another argument, almost always ending up saying it’s all self interest or politics, which of course is a simply a way of shooting the messenger.
The core proposition seems to be that every peak science body in the world and virtually every scientist is fabricating data for either financial or political reasons. In other words, a massive global conspiracy. Of course this proposition is not falsifiable, so by philospher Karl Popper view, not itself scientific This I think is why deniers get so emotional about the topic: they are defending something so improbable as to be absurd. Probably explains the messianic religious tone present in quite a few of the posts.
I’m curious that there is no discussion here of the counter proposition (which does have some supporting evidence) that denialism is in part driven and funded by companies and wealthy individuals with vested interests in fossil fuels and/or political power. Probably various Arab countries too. There are well documented historical examples of this sort of behaviour.
The other last resort argument from denialists is that renewables are too expensive. This one is on it’s last gasp too, given the rapid growth in solar and wind has driven prices down, and companies and countries are jumping in on a big new business opportunities which is also providing rapid growth in job opportunities. Americans, the Chinese are eating your lunch in this area. It’s good to see Elon Musk out front in battery technology, because that is going to be critical in managing electricity supply in a mixed fossil/renewable transition period.
Honestly, I see the opposition here as akin to promoting steam trains when electric trains have arrived.
Alan Barker
Because that exaggerated claim – though often made – is a lie. There is NO such evidence of vast amounts of money funding the skeptic community. please, tell us of that funding, and who got that money? Anything like the millions in “new CAGW links to malaria” research money suddenly in the hands of the committee at Penn State charged with “investigating” Mann’s claims? Anything like the billions per year spent in the US alone – all to the chosen profits of the CAGW classes?
Perhaps those of us closest to center of that community would like such funds, there is no such funding. Now, just what ‘evidence” do you – as opposed to the millions per year spent in CAGW “education” and the billions per year in CAGW “research” and lab funds and solar energy windfall profits chasing (and always being caught by!) solar and renewable “prophets”
One minute digging around:
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute’s web site, is a nonprofit “think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group’s lack of credibility:
“Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations….makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading…. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”[1]
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast’s lack of credibility and reliability:
“Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.”[2]
As you probably already know, Travis county is Austin, Texas, an island of decidedly leftist liberals in the state. Somewhat better than Berkeley, but not much.
So to summarise the general thesis here on this thread as it appears to me, an interested outsider:
Climate change is a global conspiracy. Pretty much all scientists and global peak science bodies are hateful evil deluded leftist liars except strangely the tiny few heroes who have “found” the errors and or lies. Those heroes you believe no matter what, because they say what you want to hear.
No matter what the overwhelming scientific concensus is, it’s untrue because, well, see above.
Wow! Beam me up Scottie
Alan, please quit pussyfooting around and cite direct evidence of CAGW. Not evidence of a generally warming climate since the end of the Little Ice Age. Not evidence of observed climate metric adjustments to that warming. Not evidence of possible minor AGW sources. We have seen and understand all of those.
We need unequivocal evidence of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 that would lead to over 2 degrees C warming. IPCC climate models tuned to the end of the 20th Century have been shown inaccurate on many measured climate metrics, so don’t tell me to bet the farm on their outputs.
While you are about that, Alan, please describe uncertainties related to aerosols, water vapor, clouds, solar impacts and so on. Please directly ask climate scientists their personal assessments of the likelihood of CAGW.
Don’t give me vague dogma, Alan. I want the narrow facts that lead to an inescapable conclusion that we need to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems to avoid catastrophe. Come on; you’ve studied this for 30 years. The facts should be at your fingertips.
Aside from you bringing up a silly-ass conspiracy theory that all objections to “climate science” are mercenary (evidence would be nice),Otherwise, your post and reply is that all the IPCC models have no problems, none of which you seem aware of.
Try, for example, to rconcile Michael Mann’s hockey stick and recorded history of the past thousand years.
Alan, what a bunch of unrelated nonsense. I am no uneducated/ignorant rube to be bamboozled.
1) ECS is an emergent property of the models. IPCC CMIP5 models are shown to run “hot” and, additionally, fail to accurately reflect other actual climatic properties. IPCC AR5 had to reduce near-term model “projections” ad hoc, and could give no central estimate of ECS.
2) CO2 is a minor “greenhouse” gas. Climate model make many assumptions, beyond the physics of radiatively active gasses, to guess at future climate realities. Both their hindcasts and forecasts have been shown to be inaccurate; they are not fit for the purpose of fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems.
3) Were CO2 the “control knob,” the globe would have warmed far more over the last couple of decades. Look it up.
4) Why don’t we throw in a few things the climate modelers fail to get done very well? Like evaporation, atmospheric water vapor, cloud dynamics, ENSO, AMO, PDO and so on.
5) Have you ever even read anything about extreme weather events? Does the name Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. mean anything to you? Look him up, then tell me what insurance companies think. Come to think of it, didn’t investor and insurance guru, Warren Buffett (Geico), chime in on the lack of adjustments to insurance premiums for climate change?
6) You need to develop some reading and critical thinking skills, Alan.
“I have discussed these issues face to face with deniers
DENIERS?
So you equate AGW sceptics on this blog – many/most of whom are professional scientists and qualified engineers – with Holocaust deniers and probably neo-Nazis and followers of David Duke too, do you?
You have utterly destroyed your credibility with just that one single word.
And then you accuse any of the aforesaid AGW sceptics of being paid to post by BIG OIL, whatever THAT is.
You’re a remarkably unpleasant, abusive piece of work, aren’t you?
I encourage you to read my comments carefully.
I never said everyone on this site was paid to contribute. I believe I said this site (ie Anthony Watts) has received funding from the Heartland institute. He has said as much.
I only used the word denier. When it get all the other connotations? I didn’t mention Nazis or any of the other things, nor did I even think of that. I have trouble with using the word skeptic here because it implies open-mindedness, but I don’t see that much open-mindedness.
If you are talking abusive, just take a look back through many of the posts here and consider the language that is often used about people who believe the consensus view.
I note that many if not all respondees to my posts have generally twisted my words and responded to something I didn’t say rather that responding to what I said, your response being an example.
Climate Bolsheviks and Red Guard are not to be reasoned with. They can only called out for others to see repeatedly to help identify the threats in society.
only be called out
Well, climate change is a threat to southern forests with clear cutting for wood pellets to ship to the UK for green agenda in power plants. It is a bit roundabout but it is Seattle-type climate change perception driving the clear cutting. It’s crazy but it’s happening.
It was a really brutal winter in Seattle. Very La Nina-like even though we were ENSO Neutral. There were some pretty bad winters during the previous La Nina. Just saying …..
“Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”
In the modern world of internet transparency and open social media the speaking of the truth may often result in a hostile response, You have to develop a thick skin and give as good as you get. This may be somewhat new to many of us but rest assured, I speak from experience, after the first dozen or so death threats it does get easier.
It is VERY important that if you have some expert knowledge or important considered opinion(s) you do now speak up, ideally loudly and repetitively. When you know you have the truth on your side you have little to fear from the deceivers.
Trust me when I tell you, the Greenie/Progressives in the whole Northwest have gone absolutely nuts. There’s always been sort of a half-hypnotized look in their eyes, but since they lost the election it’s more like full-on maniacal frenzy – like when you can see WAY too much of the whites of their eyes.
Yes, and they have turned Seattle into a cesspit of vagrants, druggies, and common criminals. Not to mention insanely constipated traffic engineering. They manage to pass extravagant multi-billion-dollar mass transit projects that have never been on budget or schedule or performance promises…but look very pretty and artsy-*artsy in their street-tagged tramcars. The love of the ideal (fantasy) has completely put aside any recognition of the real. I have formerly seen this level of mass psychosis only in student protests of rabid communists (60s-70s). It is unsettling to see it rife among “ordinary” people. One wonders what is really in Starbucks coffee.
If a Pitch Pine is a “giant” what is the word for a well-grown Ponderosa Pine?
One tree can easily be an indicator of Climate Change(tm). Just ask Dr Mann!
You don’t even need one tree. Just make the program select the “right numbers no matter what data is furnished”. The word is out that his program will draw that graph from random numbers.
The Seattle Times has killed more trees by itself than “climate change ” . No wonder those losers are going broke . The more CO2 the more plants and trees grow . Scientifically proven 100% .
Get real Seattle Times or get gone .
News Flash: Fake tree death news is spreading. Bushes are next.
When will brain-dead reporters be affected?
Hopeless in Seattle