May 04, 2017 | Ted Nordhaus
[…]
This disturbing and memorable story has kept coming back to me the last few years, as a cadre of climate activists, ideologically motivated scholars, and sympathetic journalists have started labeling an ever-expanding circle of people they disagree with climate deniers.
Climate change, of course, is real and demons are not. But in the expanding use of the term “denier,” the view of the climate debate as a battle between pure good and pure evil, and the social dimensions of the narrative that has been constructed, some quarters of the climate movement have begun to seem similarly unhinged.
Not so long ago, the term denier was reserved for right-wing ideologues, many of them funded by fossil fuel companies, who claimed that global warming either wasn’t happening at all or wasn’t caused by humans. Then it was expanded to so-called “lukewarmists,” scientists and other analysts who believe that global warming is happening and is caused by humans, but either don’t believe it will prove terribly severe or believe that human societies will prove capable of adapting without catastrophic impacts.
As frustration grew after the failure of legislative efforts to cap US emissions in 2010, demons kept appearing wherever climate activists looked for them. In 2015, Bill McKibben argued in the New York Times that anyone who didn’t oppose the construction of the Keystone pipeline, without regard to any particular stated view about climate change, was a denier.
Then in December 2015, Harvard historian and climate activist Naomi Oreskesexpanded the definition further. “There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late,” Oreskes wrote in the Guardian, “one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power.”
Oreskes took care not to mention the scientists in question, for that would have been awkward. They included Dr. James Hansen, who gave the first congressional testimony about the risks that climate change presented the world, and has been a leading voice for strong, immediate, and decisive global action to address climate change for almost three decades. The others—Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—are all highly decorated climate scientists with long and well-established histories of advocating for climate action. The four of them had travelled to the COP21 meeting in Paris that December to urge the negotiators and NGOs at the meeting to embrace nuclear energy as a technology that would be necessary to achieve deep reductions in global emissions.
So it was only a matter of time before my colleagues and I at the Breakthrough Institute would be tarred with the same brush. In a new article in the New Republic, reporter Emily Atkin insists that we are “lukewarmists.” She accuses us of engaging in a sleight of hand “where climate projections are lowballed; climate change impacts, damages, and costs are underestimated” and claims that we, like other deniers, argue “that climate change is real but not urgent, and therefore it’s useless to do anything to stop it.”
[…]
Mr. Nordhaus,
As a luke warmer geologist and frequent contributor to Watts Up With That, who thinks that humans are only responsible for 20-40% of recent warming, that the climate sensitivity (TCR) is less than 1.5 C, that there is almost no chance of catastrophic climate change (short of the end of this interglacial stage) and that N2N (natural gas to nuclear) is the only viable pathway to low carbon-emission energy, I say…
Welcome to the “club”!
Maybe we need a betting pool for which activist is the last to be labeled a “denier.”
Happy Independence Day! … a couple of days early.
The only deniers are those that deny the uncertainty.
Well a step forward for truth in science.
Someone has decided to wring the last few dollars out of the the biggest scam in human history.
Watch the rush for the crumbs.
Greed has multiple back flips once the lucrative fraud has been as the first word of this sentence.
It really doesn’t matter what anybody calls anybody. If these loons ever come to power, reality will just bite them in the you know whutt. And the reality is that fossil fuel usage, unless replaced by nuclear, isn’t going anywhere for a long, long time. The folks will just vote them out of power unless they modify their stance. (didn’t one of these nutters recently call obama a d’nier for embracing natural gas?)
Fossil Fuels are more than just energy. They are the main components of many products that cannot be replaced economically by more costly synthetics.
Well it almost seems as if Ted Nordhaus didn’t mind the use of the d-word as long as it was not applied to himself; it is only the “excessive” use that he objects to. That is an odd position to take. We either accept the use of defamatory and derogatory terms to suppress honest debate, or we don’t. If we do, then we shouldn’t be surprised when find ourselves on the receiving end.
Yet they always have the gall to look surprised.
Since none of the climate change advocates will not be around 2100, who gives a rats a$$. Climate change has been occurring for millions of years and will continue whether humans are here or not. Computers know only what we tell them, they are the victim of GIGO.
Actually, humans are the real victims of GIGO.
Is there actually documented proof that oil, gas or coal companies paid people to express an opinion?
The Big Oil payoff is supposedly done indirectly via “right wing think tanks and foundations.” Often it is assumed and insinuated by green propagandists that any think tank that takes a skeptical position on climate change devotes 100% of its donations to funding that skepticism, although in reality only 5% or 10% of its resources might go to that facet of its operations. (IIRC, Heartland allocates 20% of its funding to climate change skepticism.)
Moderators, did that reply enter moderation because of the quote or the number of “borderline” words?
Speaking of definitions being misused, I think that the definition of “heat” is rarely used correctly in the “CO2 will fry us” debate. After all, “there are only two ways to increase a body’s temperature, and the first is with work being done on the body, and the second is with heat being sent to the body. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics captures this.”
In “Thermal Physics (2nd Edition)” by Charles Kittel and Herbert Kroemer we see this:
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.”
I have been looking for anyone to use the actual first law of thermodynamics and the actual definition of heat, not an argument by analogy, to show how a cooler atmosphere can cause temperature increase on the warmer surface by CO2 and back radiation.
“show how a cooler atmosphere can cause temperature increase on the warmer surface by CO2 and back radiation.”
Better yet, show the data that supports it.
Yes, Pop. I should have put that in there. But The Wife was telling me to hurry up and take her to the store. Haste and waste and all that. 🙂
Yessir, I understand perfectly…
MS, you have misconceived the basic dynamics of the system. Energy enters the earth system as short wave radiation, mostly visible light, produced by the Sun. When it strikes land or ocean, it warms those surfaces. Those ‘surfaces’ then cool by various processes such a convection and emission of long wave radiation (IR). The greenhouse effect is a lack of sufficient atmospheric radiative cooling to offset the incoming sun energy. That causes the earth system to warm until sufficiently more IR is generated to restore the energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation from/to space. Essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke goes into much more detail, but the essence is in this simple summary comment. No first law of thermodynamics is involved in the GHE.
ristvan.
We could not be in more disagreement. But it is nice you point out another place where lack of precision is a problem. There is an atmospheric effect which could be called the GHE if one must use the green house metaphor. But there is a radiative GHE or rGHE which is very different and it is the radiative GHE that the luke-warmers and the alarmists believe in. The shell game played likes to switch the two whenever it suits the person talking. Again, just like the original post was pointing out about terms.
It is too bad that site policy prohibits debate on this topic. Perhaps someday that will change. But for now, I’ll leave it here as to go any further might upset a moderator.
“We can transition to a decarbonized economy without expanded nuclear power, by focusing on wind, water and solar, coupled with grid integration, energy efficiency and demand management. In fact, our best studies show that we can do it faster, and more cheaply ….” (Oreskes).
=================================
‘Den1er’ serves the same purpose as did ‘wrecker’ during ‘30s purges in the USSR.
When Naomi uses “we” she doesn’t include you and me.
Here are the sources of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) in the US by sector:
Without nuclear the only way to ’decarbonize’ is to de-industrialise degenerate deteriorate decline and decay.
As your chart indicates, the Transportation sector utilizes as much energy as current electric generation. So, if the goal is to decarbonize society, transportation must be included. To include transportation as additional electric demand, you will need to redouble current generation production.
In 2015 the world consumed almost 25,000 Twh of electricity. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/world-electricity-production-map-graph-and-data.html
This doesn’t include the energy impoverished who have no or highly restricted access.
Including the Transportation industry could require an additional 25,000Twh electric production.
This would mean an annual demand of 50,000 Twh electric generation.
As approximately 1/3 of the world experiences some form of energy poverty, to bring them up to a similar standards as developed nations would require an additional 30,000 Twh generation.
Then to supply energy to back up storage systems we will be looking at producing over 100,000 Twh annually just for the current population
You left something. 97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is from natural sources.
That is according to the IPCC and NOAA.
This CO2 stuff is madness.
How does ocean out-gassing of CO2 compare to these 5 “emitters”.
Let’s see the whole picture.
So can you imagine Venezuela under dictator Nicolás Maduro (or his heir) transitioning to nuclear energy? Do you really envision Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Somalia or Nicaragua building nuclear reactors?
What’ll likely happen is that China or Russia will contract to build and operate such nuclear facilities in the Third World, perhaps based offshore in a floating platform or special ship. (It might be ten years before this can be perfected. For safety, maybe “pebble bed” reactors would be used.) The economies of scale would make this very profitable. And the providers could pose as world-savers.
I wonder if those two countries are already dreaming of doing this. It’ll seem obvious in retrospect, if it comes to pass.
Controlling a potential enemies power and food supply is something that would be appealing.
No need to use military force to get what you want if you can just use the threat of starvation/social collapse instead.
Rich nations should be trying to get the next generation designs up and running.
Not rich nations, Rich Capitalists (those with the means to act) who think something needs to be done, and have the funding to do so have the responsibility to do so but not the right to force others to do so in kind. Politics has no place in Energy same as Energy has no place in Politics.
Climate science denial has become climate change denial which has become climate denial soon to be termed just denial. I don’t know.
Do a google search, images only, “climate change” and look, all the pictures are not real, they are made up or photo shopped, artistic creations.
Coal is the most effective and cheapest way of generating wholesale electricity and with modern technology is as clean a you can get…. Anyone who says that developing nations shouldn’t use it, are dooming those societies to energy poverty and industrial irrelevance.
That deserves an “Amen”. When the third world gains affluence, the “population bomb” is officially diffused.
JH, at present in the US natural gas fired CCGT is the cheapest, whichnwhynold coal closures at end of economic life are being replaced by CCGT.
Right, but in developing nations like India, and in Japan, which currently lack cheap natural gas, JH is correct that coal is cheaper.
Natural gas was cheaper. It’s now pretty much even.
Woe be to the family that has a UN supplied Solar panel on their roof. It will come with a cost. They will never prosper. They’ll never see a factory built or a power plant erected in their energy regulated country under UN servitude.
That family and their country will never enter “The First World”.
Ted Nordhaus is reported to have said:
I’m not so sure about that! Whoever conceived the CAGW-scam must be pretty high up (or should it be ‘low down’?) in the demonic hierarchy, I would think.
Motivated by pure malevolence towards civilized humanity, CAGW is an ingenious idea that effectively robs people of their common sense, fills their minds with crazy apocalyptic delusions about the imminent death of the planet and divides people against one another with prejudiced judgments and accusations, inspires them with noble cause corruption, which leads them to corrupt and pervert the basic pillar-institutions of society such as science, religion, economics, politics and even technology, and, by thus getting humanity to turn its entire world on its head, acts to bring about eventually the total collapse of human civilization and a global reversion to barbarism.
Don’t you think that this ingenious psy-war superweapon is a diabolical invention of which only an extraordinarily dark, humanity-hating intelligence would be capable? I do.
The fact that this devastating idea has emerged out of the collective human unconscious does not make it any the less diabolical, to my way of seeing it. To me the really appalling, horrifying truth of this situation is that the demons who have conspired to create it exist within ourselves and we must find the courage to do whatever it takes to confront them and conquer them there before we can put a stop to their disruptive and destructive machinations in the world.
Climate change is undefined.
But you should be scared of it. M’kay?
” who thinks that humans are only responsible for 20-40% of recent warming”
You have GOT to be kidding! “20-40%” !? The nonsense never stops. Where is the EVIDENCE for that sort of rot?
Is the “rot” over or under 20-40%?
With all those CAPITALS and accompanying !!’s my guess is over, like 110%.
He could also be one of those who fervently believes that CO2 has no impact.
I would say “the rot” is over where he got his 20-40% figure. Why not 60 percent, or 80 percent or 100 percent, or 5 percent?
I posted that humans could be responsible for 20-40% of recent (past 500 years) warming.
I was curious as whether this was “rot” because 20-40% is too high or too low.
20-40% of 1 C isn’t much warming.
“I was curious as whether this was “rot” because 20-40% is too high or too low.”
How does anyone know the answer to that?
ECS estimates have been constantly revised downwards, and are currently around 1.5C, which sets an upper boundary, but no lower boundary has been established. We don’t have the answer to that, so I see no basis for claiming humans are causing a certain percentage of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. The lower boundary may be zero for all anyone knows.
That doesn’t create an upper boundary. All of these estimates have margins of error which range well above 3 C.
The preponderance of the evidence currently puts TCR at about 1.35 C and ECS at about 1.75 C (plus/minus error).
There are no estimates below 0 5 C and no recent estimates much above 2 C.
Humans are responsible for at least half of the rise in CO2. This mathematically makes us most likely responsible for 20-40% of the warming over the past 150-500 years.
Why would the most likely mathematical result drawn from the preponderance of current evidence be “rot”?
“Climate change is real” = “Don’t burn me at the stake, I give up!”
I comprehend Mr Nordhaus’s disappointment, but he should realize he became part of the problem when he, apparently, did not object to labelling some people “deniers”, as long as they were those evil “right-wing ideologues”.
If he really valued civilized debate, he should have denounced the use of loaded and derogatory terms from the very beginning.
I am a denier, and I am damn proud of it.
I deny that the so-called called climate record is a reliable record. I deny that the true record of the weather (as opposed to the ones cooked up by so-called “scientists”) supports a claim that the weather is measurably warmer now than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. I deny that climate models are anything other than mathematical masturbation. I deny that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any ill effect on any biological system. I deny that the so called climate scientists are honest men. I deny that so called climate scientists have engaged in anything other than fear mongering. I deny that polar bears are in any danger from warmer weather in the arctic. I deny that sea levels are rising faster than they have in the recent past. I deny that so called “tropical” diseases have any causal relation with warmer weather.
I affirm that the whole miserable theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming was created and advanced for the sole purpose of scarring people into surrendering their freedom, their property, and their prosperity to a global socialist government. I affirm that a warmer world is a happier, healthier, and more prosperous world. I affirm that CO2 is absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth, and that we, and all other living things, are better off at 400 ppm than we were at 280 ppm. I affirm that it is more likely that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the end of the Little Ice Age than it is due to human activity. I affirm that humanity would be far better off by the aggressive exploration of fossil fuel energy resources to bring prosperity to Africa and Asia, than it would be by any change in the general climate.
I hope that many of you will join my denials and affirmations and add ones of your own.
Walter: Why stop there? How about denying that man and apes had a common ancestor? How about denying that the Earth circles the sun. Did the universe begin 13.5 billion years ago with a Big Bang and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago or was it created in 7 days about 4000 years ago. Does a photon rely on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or chance to decide when to be absorbed by an atom it encounters. Do electrons circle a nucleus? If so, why don’t they follow Maxwell’s Laws and radiate off energy and spiral into the nucleus? Is the future path of the earth around the sun predictable by the laws of physics? Will doubling the minimum wage double the income of the average worker who is currently paid a minimum wage? Will raising taxes rase revenue? Was the Vietnamese National Liberation Front the result of an spontaneous internal revolt against Diem or a group directed by North Vietnam? Was the Civil War fought to preserve slavery or protect states rights? Did Bush know there were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded in 2003? Would Japan have surrendered if the atomic bomb had not been dropped? A line and a point not on that line define a plane. How many new lines can be drawn in that plane through the point that don’t intersect the first line? Does more CO2 in the atmosphere cause more CO2 to dissolve in the ocean? If so, does that lower ocean pH? Are all fundamental particles composed of strings? How many physical dimensions are there? Was there an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere at the end of the LIA? Who created the theory of CAGW and how do you know what he was thinking? What is the definition of mathematical masturbation? How do you know AOGCMs fit this definition? Is John Christy a dishonest climate scientist? How do you know? Is a kW-h of electricity from an intermittent renewable source as valuable as a kW-h from a dispatchable source?
How do you decide what to deny and what to believe? Religion? Political party? Prejudices about the Vietnam, Iraq and Civil Wars?
Science is not about what you believe, it is about what evidence supports your beliefs. Has that evidence been tested by others and found flawed or inconclusive? Would you care if it were? Before you deny someone else’s theory and substitute your own, do you actually bother to learn how the theory works?
Pick one one of your beliefs or one question to answer. Find some evidence that supports the answer you chose. Check to see if that evidence has failed to pass scrutiny. Someone else’s unsubstantiated belief is not evidence.
Calvin: “The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing. Being a man of action, I can’t afford to take that risk.
Hobbes: You’re ignorant, but at least you act on it.
So if someone denies what you believe in, therefore they must deny everything?
Really. Is that the branch you wish to be hung from?
CAGW is not science. it is religion. And I deny it.
Walter
My thoughts are much the same as you write, but next time you should be more positive and emphatic. Geoff.
I was hoping for for more positive and emphatic denials from this crowd. Instead, I get Frank.
Walter, Frank is just showing you how a twisted liberal mind thinks….errrrrr, doesn’t think ??
There is an old Russian saying: “When a poor man marries, the night is short.”
Hi David
I published “Denier Pride” last year.
Can be Googled.
Bob Hoye
Perhaps we can get a permit to have a parade through San Francisco?
Oddly enough, there is substantially more evidence for the existence of demons than for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
In another example of ignoring reality, the left denies the former whilst embracing unquestioned the latter. One would almost think it was demonic….
Mever mind “demons”. I’m worried more about space aliens. I keep trying to warn people but no one listens. I’m serial, people. Wake up! I’m super-serial, even.
No. I’m still a scientific skeptic.
As a proud “Denier”, I have stopped arguing with the vermin of the progressive left, and instead have perfected a loud horse laugh. I practice this laugh after I mention the likely incestuous relationship of their parents, and walk away from them.
While all this global warming and denying are going on, I note that for the past three days in a row, I have had frost on my deck. I have lived here for more than 25 years, and this is the first time I have had frost.
So yes, I am a denier, but wish we had more of the stuff I am denying.
Are we getting now an insight to Barack’s recent statement as follows?
we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.
After all, some alarmists have already been arrested and even jailed during Barack’s mandate. Pachauri and Hansen spring first to mind. And is it only me not finding any references to Oreskes at UN or FCCC websites? It’s like she never existed. WUWT?
At this rate, eventually everyone will be a climate denier. What will the alarmist do when 97% of the population are defined as deniers?
/snark