Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen
In a paroxysm of over-the-top alarmism, Justin Gillis, at the New York Times, fires off another advocacy editorial — disguised as a climate news story.
This salvo’s title is “The Real Unknown of Climate Change: Our Behavior” — but that’s not what he is writing about. The article’s URL reveals his real agenda:
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/climate/climate-change-denial.html
I have written about Gillis’ work before — he seldom disappoints — regularly churning out articles filled with the worst kind of climate alarm speculation. Here’s the short list from this piece — all direct quotes:
1. “Because of atmospheric emissions from human activity, the ocean waters from which Harvey drew its final burst of strength were much warmer than they ought to have been, most likely contributing to the intensity of the deluge.”
2. “the most savage heat waves that we experience today will likely become routine in a matter of decades.”
3. “The coastal inundation that has already begun will grow worse and worse, forcing millions of people to flee.”
4. “The immense wave of refugees that we already see moving across continents may be just the beginning.”
5. “We all see the giant storms, more threatening than any in our lifetimes — and while scientists are not entirely comfortable yet drawing links between the power of these hurricanes and climate change, many people are coming to their own common-sense conclusions.”
6. “The sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing in front of our eyes.”
7. “Huge forest die-offs are beginning, even as the remaining forests work overtime to suck up some of the carbon pollution that humans are pumping out.”
8. “We are already seeing heat waves surpassing 120 degrees Fahrenheit, sooner than many experts thought likely.”
And finally, in a last cry of desperation, he says:
9. “We might be looking at, oh, 80 or 100 feet of sea-level rise in the long haul, a direct result of the failures of this generation to get emissions under control. What kind of shape do you think Miami – or for that matter, New York – is likely to be in after 80 feet of sea-level rise?”
There is only one part of one point in all the above that is even close to being true — that is in #1 — Hurricane Harvey drew extra moisture from the Gulf’s warm waters — like every Gulf hurricane before it, and that extra moisture “most likely” contributed to the intensity of the rainfall.
The rest are the usual litany of climate alarm talking points which Gillis manages to exaggerate even further — it would be a waste of digital ink to even comment on them.
There is one piece of good news that should cheer your hearts though — it certainly cheered mine:
“A personal note: I am leaving The New York Times to write a book about the energy transition. I will reappear in these pages occasionally, and I will continue to engage in the public conversation about climate and energy. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @JustinHGillis.”
Gillis is [finally] quitting the New York Times. Good thing, it is long overdue — he has always performed the task of an Opinion Columnist, a radical climate alarm advocate, somehow (and unfortunately) mis-assigned to the climate news beat. We are fortunate that he has not followed his predecessor’s example of simply shifting to the Opinion Section (where he should have been writing all along).
# # # # #
Author’s Note:
I will not be following Justin on Twitter.
My previous essay’s on Mr. Gillis’ work are: here, here, here, here (in which JG is commended), and here. Honestly, I got tired of writing about his poor journalistic standards and his editorializing.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why would anyone have a problem with speculation about global heating? It seems weird to be criticising a writer doing so. I also notice the articles makes no attempt to correct the record. Why weren’t there any links or paragraphs that did some debunking. Because of this omission the author failed to convince. I am with Gillis on this one.
Rob ==> I might suggest that you expand your information sources — particularly on this subject. You could start with contents of this blog from Day One (over ten years ago) — see Ric Werme’s index of the site.
Alternatively, you could start with a basic well-rounded science education, throw in a few courses in critical thinking, a good beginning course in statistics and statistical interpretation, pile on some physics, especially of dynamical systems, plus a modern course in implications to science topics of Chaos Theory. Then, starting with Lorenz (the 1950s) follow the developing story of “Global warming” — then you’ll see that none of Gillis’ points are even worthy of comment — they are non-science mixed with nonsense.
Great stuff from Richard and willhaas etc..The temperature difference is the main engine. But vapour soon gets pulled up by buoyancy, and on cooling and releasing phase change energy, really stokes the show like mad. What this signifies is that increased storminess is driven by falling temperatures, because the gradient then increases between equator and poles. And that is what is happening, as the pause moves into cooling and quiet sun heliospheric conditions. Part of that too are wild jetstream conditions…..
I would add that tropical weather is on average boring, especially compared to the forties, fifties and sixties etc.. Lower energy maybe, but huger difference….
kip, I don’t think Gillis is done yet. Published today is this catechism for true believers:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html?mcubz=1
Gillis exemplifies how ideologues use simplification to distort reality, systematically dismissing facts that contradict the predetermined belief. There is an antidote, but unlike Gillis’ evidence-free catechism, it involves recovering and considering the full complexity of climate and weather. I call his perspective “climate reductionism.” This post explains how they do it.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/climate-reductionism/
Ron ==> This is a magazine piece, meaning it has been in the production stage for weeks — probably before JG and the NY Times decided to part ways.
It does represent the NY Times’ editors mandated narrative for all climate change stories.
In it, they follow the rules for Popular Science Communicators: Be simple, avoid jargon, write with confidence, state facts as if they were just common sense (even when telling untruths). The Times is trying to “make a difference” — the new goal of journalism — which replaced telling the truth about what has happened.
It’s also possible that they use simplification because that’s all their minds can handle.
The claim:
“the ocean waters from which Harvey drew its final burst of strength were much warmer than they ought to have been, most likely contributing to the intensity of the deluge.”
The facts (within 1 degree C of normal)
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anoma.8.24.2017.gif
Tom ==> Thanks for that — but the anomaly is not really the data needed, of course, but the temperature,
86 F83/84F and above are believed to the be the trigger temps for hurricane intensification (h/t Curry).Do you have any idea what the “anomaly” is the difference from? Long-term average for the 24 of August, long-term annual average? 30-year climatic average? You see — not exactly the right data to answer the question.
Here’s a Letter to Mr. Gillis among others, still waiting for a reply!!
‘Office’ Bar & Grill
Lat: 26* 43′ N. Long: 82*. 08′ W.
October 16th. 2016.
Justin Gillis. NYT:
Re: Greenhouse Gas linked to floods along US Coasts.
Worsening a certainty.
Dear Mr. Gillis
Guess what! You’ve done it again! Grabbed my ‘attentions’ as they say with your piece in the New York Times on the upcoming sequel to Noah’s Flood!
And once again I’m in the sardine section of an Airbus on my way to California, the land of Fruits and Nuts and the Moonbeam Governor.
I’m always reminded of our friend Gulliver when I travel to California; remember when he travelled to Lagado to meet the Inventor who was extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers to light up the Governor’s garden on inclement days……eh? At the end of the tour the scientist held out his hand for a donation to finish the project!!! Just like now! Eh?
For a country Vicar in the seventeen-sumpties Jonathan Swift was quite a prescient for the world we live in today, wouldn’t you say?
But back to the point, what are we to do to save Miami from the fate of Atlantis?
Here’s a suggestion: Pick a different Datum…..!!
Since no one knows where Mean Sea Level (MSL) really is, let’s make one up. Your chap in Annapolis picked one and gave it a fancy name ‘Tide Gauge’ which sounds more scientific than “A Striped Stick in the Ground”…which it probably was…. unless it was a striped tube with a float in it, and a choke valve to damp out the wave action. Either way your tide gauge is tied (get it?) to Terra Firma which is no ‘firma’ than the pie crust on a peach cobbler;…. they call it crust and magma in geology, which, by the way, means Earth Science in Ancient Greek; geology that is , not pie crust…. we don’t want to get those two mixed up! Eh?
So the rock solid foundation of your tide gauge is moving around tectonically at the speed of a growing fingernail. Worse still it moves up and down with the gravitational pull of the moon (and sun) just like the sea only not so obvious. So you see how dodgy it is trying to iron out those wrinkles and bulges on the surface of the ocean to pin down the elusive MSL.
But not to worry, once formally consecrated the MSL becomes the Datum for the millimeter or two increase in Tide Gauge measurements that form the basis (with select extrapolation) for your terrifying sequel: ‘The Return of Noah’s Flood’!
So what to do??
We’ve got to do something. We can’t just sit around like gullible young oysters at the Walrus and the Carpenter’s picnic. Eh?
Here’s my suggestion: move the datum to the top of Mount Everest!
You may not know this but the summit of Mount Everest is several inches higher (above sea level) now, than when George Mallory fell off the South Coll. in 1927. So the gap between the Summit of Everest and Sea level is widening, which means that sea level is falling… from our new Datum!
The people of Miami and the Marshal Islands can rejoice…and sleep in peace in the secure knowledge that they will not be inundated, or wake up drowned!
With that one simple move you and I can carve ourselves a notch in Global History as grand as the Pyramids of Giza. By saving the World from drowning we’ll be inundated (imagine that!) with a veritable tsunami of Nobel Prizes, Medals of Honor, Knighthoods, Honorary Degrees, Orders of Lenin, Oscars, Emmies, you name it we’ll get ’em!
Now I don’t mind splitting the spoils with you, even though it was my idea! Even at 50% you’ll have more medals than Brezhnev’s coat on a May Day in Moscow!
I’ll bet your editors at NYT will notice and move you up the ladder a rung or two. They might even let you move beyond sexational and catastrophic journalism. Heaven knows you’ve been a loyal foot soldier in that department for long enough!
Maybe they’ll let you write about some serious stuff… You know, “The role of the Sun in Global Warming” for example…?.!
Good luck with that one!
Let me know when we can start , as luck would have it I’m available.
Yours from the College of Serious Knowledge,
Department of Floatation Devices,
Harvey H. Homitz.
Constructor of Fine Arks in Gopherwood.
And Again and Again ==> Justin Gillis left a lot of work in the pipe at the NY Times — today yet another “magazine story” (a longer piece meant to be displayed with large coior images) Building a Better Coral Reef by Damien Cave and Justin Gillis. (Damien Cave is the NY Times’ Bureau Chief in Sydney, Australia).
The article is filled with — you guessed it — loads of alarmist tripe.
The story, however, is really about how Nature itself has kept reefs alive and vibrant throughout the millions of years of their history. Divers are recovering samples of coral that survived the recent bleaching in different areas, and growing them in tanks, to be returned to the sea to seed recovery at a later time.
This is exactly what has been found recently — some reefs die off in bleaching events, only to be found restored a number of years later by corals that have adapted to high temperatures or that use different symbiots.
Read Jim Steele’s stuff here at WUWT for the details.
Hi:
Who was his predecessor of whom you speak?
Glad to see him go!
L
Lichanos ==> Andrew Revkin — he was a journalist on the Environmental beat, then shifted to the Opinion Section with an Opinion Column – Dot Earth — recently moved to ProPublica.
Oh, Revkin was nowhere near as awful as Gillis. He actually read and talked to scientists. I get the sense his views evolved as well.
Lichanos ==> Over the years, I have booth defended and offended Revkin here at WUWT. He once published one of my essays on Dot Earth.
Nice piece on trends. Sadly, journalists seem ignorant of, or uninterested in the details of data analysis.
One of my pet peeves that I find very difficult to get across concerns record breaking heat statistics. Assuming that a claim that a specific year’s temperature record does constitute a record – lots of room for investigation there – that tells us nothing about the future. Moreover, given that everyone accepts that the world is warmer now than sixty years ago ( although by how much is disputed, not to mention the cause) the fact that a record is broken ( rarely is it revealed by what margin) is unremarkable; even expected.
I like to compare it to weight gain. I grew steadily heavier from my twenties to my fifties, but in recent years, I have been careful, and my average recorded weight has been very stable. Still, on occasion, especially after holidays, my morning weigh-in reaches new heights, yet the stable long-term average prevails. I weigh a lot more than I did when I was twenty-five, thirty-five, or forty-five, so clearly the daily fluctuations are rising from a higher baseline value, but the overall trend has been clearly flat for many years. 🤓🤗