Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog
The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.
And not between Republicans and Democrats.
The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
The real rebate is between two groups:
1. A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions. I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)
2. A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests. They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society. I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).
There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.
Jamie Margolin of Seattle talked about an apocalyptic future, with “corporations making billions” while they destroy the future of her generation. Of feeling fear and despair. Of a planet where the natural environment is undergoing collapse, where only a few years are left before we pass the point of no return, and where only a massive political shift can fix things, including the Green New Deal. Watch her testimony to see what I mean.
Compare Ms. Margolin’s testimony to that of University of Washington senior Benji Backer.
Mr. Backer, leader of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative/moderate group of young people supporting action to protect the environment, approaches the problem in a radically different way. Instead of despair, there is optimism, recommending more scientific and technical research, a bipartisan attack on the problem, a rejection of an apocalyptic future, the building of new energy industries with potential benefits for the American economy, and a dedication to follow the science and not political expediency. His testimony is here.
Both Ms. Margolin and Mr. Backer care deeply about the environment and want effective measures to deal with global warming. Both their approaches and attitudes could not be more different.
We see the difference between the optimistic ACT group and the despairing ASP folks here in Seattle.
On one hand, there is the Clean Tech Alliance, which brings together technology companies, university researchers, and the business community to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for. Headed by Tom Ranken, the Alliance does a lot, including a highly informative breakfast series where you can learn about fusion power, new battery technologies, the future of solid waste recycling, and much more. Non-political, optimistic, and exciting. These are clearly members of the ACT group.
In contrast, there is Seattle’s 350.org group. They are into climate strikes, staging protests (like their recent blockade of a branch of Seattle Chase Bank), trying to muzzle climate scientists they don’t like, advocating political solutions to greenhouse warming (Green New Deal), pushing divestment of energy companies, and even a Pledge of Resistance to stop energy exports by whatever means necessary. Their “science” page has all kinds of extreme (and unfounded) claims regarding global warming impacts, like a sea level rise of 10 feet in as little as 50 years. ASP group all the way.
I should note that the Seattle 350.org group and their “allies” oppose the Tacoma Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Facility that will help replace the extraordinarily dirty “bunker fuel” used in ships traversing Puget Sound. LNG will also reduce carbon emissions. Scientists and regulators at the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency support the LNG facility. But facts and protection of the health of Puget Sound residents are not priorities for highly politicized groups like 350.org.
A good example of the differences between the ACT and ASP folks is found in Washington State’s recent carbon initiatives.
Initiative 732 was backed by Carbon Washington, a non-political group whose bi-partisan proposal would have increased the price of carbon fuels but was revenue neutral, giving all the funds collected back to the citizens of the State. Carefully designed and impactful. The work of the ACT group all the way.
But the ASP folks were unhappy. There was no money for their climate justice and political initiatives, so they opposed it, and were joined by Governor Inslee and the environmental left. Unforgivable, nasty attacks were made on Carbon Washington leadership by the ASP folks. 732 lost.
The ASP collective decided it was their turn, so they created a Frankenstein carbon initiative (1631), with a lowered (less effective) carbon fee, but one in which climate justice groups and political allies on the left would have control, and were hardwired for much of the funds. The main advertising line of the 1631 ads: catastrophe was around the corner and the big oil companies were to blame. 1631 was an election day disaster, losing by 13 points, and the ASP folks have probably killed any hope for an effective carbon tax/fee in our state.
What about the media? Which side are they on? ASP or ACT or neither?
Much of the “mainstream” media parrots the message of the ASP side. The Seattle Times is a great case in point, with headlines of massive heat related deaths (750 die per event!) and catastrophic wildfire seasons that have no basis in good science. But there are plenty of others, such as the LA Times and the NY Times. There are some major media outlets that are more balanced (such as the Wall Street Journal). A major issue for the media is the hollowing out of science reporting, with most climate stories being handled by general reporters with neither the time, background, or inclination to get beyond parroting the press releases of activist groups or evaluating the claims of speculative research papers. It has gotten so bad that a recent headline story in the Seattle Times kept on talking about the WRONG GAS (carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide).
A Religious Movement
In many ways, the ASP group appears to be a religious movement, not unlike the many millennialist movements of the past. As other groups in the past, they predict an apocalyptic future (including fire and brimstone!) and that one must “believe” in their viewpoint or be rejected as a “denier.” The ASP folks have a holy viewpoint that comes from authority (they claim based on the views of 97% of scientists). There is no debate allowed, the science is “settled.” Sounds like religious dogma.
The ASP movement describes a world that is teetering on the edge, with mankind’s days numbers (10 or 12 years according to several of their leading prophets) unless immediate steps are taken. They constantly repeat that the threat is existential.
They believe it is ok to distort the truth to get folks “to do the right thing.” The ASP group has well defined “enemies” that represent true evil (Trump, Republicans, Big Oil, Koch Brothers) and they support attacking and silencing those they disagree with (my past blog gives you some documented examples of such behavior). ASP has their priests (Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann) and even young saints (Greta Thunberg). As in many such movements, members are guided to act in approved and enlightened ways, but the leadership does not need to follow the rules (e.g., many ASP “leaders” have huge carbon footprints from flying). Importantly, ASP sees their work going much further than a technical fix for technical problem, but as a “social justice” movement that will change the very organization of society.
Disturbingly, the ASP folks are against key technologies that could really make a difference, such as nuclear power, and are relatively uninterested in working on adaptation and resilience to climate change. Many do not support dealing with our forests in a rational way (e.g., restoration with thinning and prescribed burning) but would rather blame it all on global warming.
By pushing a highly political agenda the ASP movement is undermining bipartisan efforts–and nothing important will be done unless both sides of the aisle are involved. ASP folks love to say that the Republicans are unwilling to deal with climate change, a totally unfair claim. I have talked personally to leading WA Republicans, like Bill Bryant and Rob McKenna. They acknowledge the seriousness of global warming and the need to act. In my talks in highly Republican eastern Washington, growers and others accept the problem and want to work on solutions. Under a Republican U.S. Congress, funding for climate research has been protected and increased. But partisan attacks by the ASP group is seen as a way to promote group cohesion and the “evil” of the other side. Calling others names is not an effective way to secure their cooperation.
A problem for the ASP group is that their message is so dark, pessimistic and depressing that it tends to turn others off. And it has a terrible psychological effects on its adherents and those that listen. Fear, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, despair, and rage. There are even classes on dealing with eco-anxiety and climate grief. Greta Thunberg said that the worry ruined her childhood.
And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate. Republicans in Congress do not follow his lead. But he is a convenient foil for the ASP folks, who use him for their own purposes.
The Bottom Line
Progress on climate change is being undermined by the efforts of the highly vocal, partisan, and ineffective ASP group. They are standing in the way of bipartisan action on climate change, efforts to fix our forests, and the use of essential technologies. They are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
In contrast to the ASP folks, the ACT group generally tries to stay out of the public eye, quietly completing the work needed to develop the technologies and infrastructure that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the end, they will save us. That is, if the ASP folks don’t get in their way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ronald Reagan simplified his vision of Cold War Soviet outcomes as follows;
“We win, they lose.”
All this “bi-partisan” hair split nonsense with Neo-Marxist climate cargo carriers is post normal nonsense. The US should exit the UN Climate Framework as the contrived theory and junk science standards (models) have failed. Fraud, for political goals, represent failed Soviet science levels in this case. The decline of Western reasoning skills must be restored.
“The US should exit the UN Climate Framework…”
Let me fix it for you: The US should exit the UN.
Let me simplify it further. Two mantras should follow every skeptic climate comment in the current hyper partisan culture;
“Carthage must be destroyed”
And/or
“The US must exit the UN Climate Framework” as it is based on junk science political fraud.
Over time the coded synonym will be culturally understood. There will be no “grand bargain”, no “bi-partisan”, no “precautionary principle” appeasements to luke warmer fifth columnists of the Judith Curry variety or spineless RINO cultures. The climate cult goes the way of virulent Marxism which it is derived. Annihilation….. “Carthage must be destroyed”
“What will it take for Cliff and others to re-examine the basis of the failed AGW hypothesis?”
It’s conceivable that he is taking this position to keep the climate nazies off his back, especially since he just had a run in with them at his University.
As someone who lived in Seattle for 16 years before making the Great Escape two years ago, I’d caution you against thinking that Cliff Mass is somehow getting ready to jump the AGW ship. I would be shocked if he did, and think a better explanation and prediction involves Seattle’s folkways.
Cliff is emblematic of what could be called “Seattle Nice,” which shares a lot in common with “Minnesota Nice.” He has his viewpoint and I don’t think he’ll budge. He’s simply much more polite than the Red Guards at his university. I give him credit for that, and respect his expertise when it comes to atmospheric science and his application in forecasting and explaining the weather, but I think a) he’s got it wrong on AGW, and b) is not going to change his mind.
He differs with the Red Guards around the edges, but that’s all. He’s every last bit as committed to their fallacies as they are, his sin being that he’s not insulting about it. I do appreciate that part of him, but if the Red Guards can be likened to hard-core Stalinists, I’d put Cliff in the “democratic socialist” category, i.e., the same thing but in slow-motion.
The foregoing is by way of analogy as opposed to a deeper critique of Mass’s personal politics, which is to say that it shouldn’t be interpreted as my calling him a slow-motion communist any more than my Reagan analogy was a matter of calling him a conservative Republican. From what I can tell, he’s a standard-issue liberal Democrat in the older-school Seattle mode, willing to battle it out in the world of ideas.
So: Those of us who aren’t buying the validity of the failed AGW hypothesis should not harbor any illusions that Cliff Mass has somehow seen the light. He hasn’t. He’s just not enough of a screamer for his Red Guards, but nevertheless shares much more in common with their views than he does with yours or mine.
Cliff,
Not to pester you but it is quite disappointing to see you engage many and yet avoid responding to Richard’s highly germane post.
As a long time reader of your blog I find this to be in consistent with your otherwise open and frank commentary.
Please do take the time to address Richard.
Again, here is his query.
Richard S Courtney October 21, 2019 at 2:38 am
Cliff Mass,
You assert,
“The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
“Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.
There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.
A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.
Richard
Well, I fail to see why the climate Changing debate is morphed into is the climate change caused by human activity or some natural cycle! While that is an interesting question I suppose, the truth of importance is the world climate is changing and changing pretty fast! There is little to no evidence that industry and “ACT” folks are doing anything that will work to limit the changing climate in a favorable way; rather they seem to imply that a magic bullet will come, but for today and tomorrow, let’s do everything we can to exploit our world for personal monetary gain, even if this increases the risks and dangers from climate change! It seems to me, no matter what is the “cause” of global climate change, the human species has a vested interest in doing whatever it can to slow down and reach some sort of equilibrium point where we humans can survive well. If that implies some short term economic cost and some loss of personal monetary gain to some individuals…well guys take one for the team!
Leo,
If climate change is natural (and it is) then there is no action that would “limit climate change”.
Please say why you want us to “slow down” and suffer “economic cost”.
Richard
Steve… I am NOT saying there is a climate emergency. Never have. Regarding theory and modeling, do you want the names of some good atmospheric radiation texts? Here is one:
https://www.elsevier.com/books/an-introduction-to-atmospheric-radiation/liou/978-0-12-451451-5
No political posturing. ..cliff
Cliff Mass,
Your attempted deflection fails.
I commented that there is no evidence for a climate emergency, but I did NOT say you were claiming there is a climate emergency. I said to you,
“Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.”
And I cited and linked to three completely independent analyses which demonstrate that.
Also, your assertion of “No political posturing” is factually incorrect. You may not have intended to do it, but I explained that you did do it when I wrote to you,
“You assert,
“The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
“Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.”
Having said that, I am grateful that you have responded to what I wrote but I regret that you have not attempted to answer any part of what I wrote.
Richard
You can always sniff out bad faith when someone tells his interlocutor to read a textbook. If the interlocutor did so, Cliff would simply provide a longer list.
I stopped reading this post right after the very first sentence. The only way that we can address how the Sun drives our weather patterns and ocean phases, is to predict it, and which is the pathway to effectively predicting global change. Not that global change matters much anyway, it’s actually the weekly NAO/AO anomalies and ocean phase changes that we need to know about. The mean is meaningless.
I appreciate seeing Dr Mass here to defend his article. Thanks for putting in the effort.
With that said, I have serious problems reconciling what I have been taught science is, vs the basis and nature of the claims for AGW.
First off, the climate record shows it has already been hotter in the current interglacial than what we have been told is a disaster we’re causing. And for centuries and millennia, in fact. This falsifies the doom claims for species existing now, and man. After all…they’re still here, and so are we.
Secondly, I have serious doubts as to the idea of the supposed semi-stability of the coefficients for feedbacks in the system. If the system was so easily perturbed it could never be stable to begin with, given the planetary scale disruptions of volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. In electronic terms (EE here), the system would have ‘railed’ long ago, and be stuck until some large scale change.
Third, the nature of the modeling is suspect at best. It is in no way testable or falsifiable, because hindcasting is not a valid test. Models of things you cannot completely reproduce and falsify, are NOT empirical evidence in any way, shape or form.
Fourth, all of the current conditions are within the range of natural variation, and the sole evidence that there is something else going on…is not evidence, because models are not empirical evidence. That changes happening which are consistent with natural variation can be attributed to man because of a model does not make them evidence of human caused warming.
Fifth..the reason that these issues cannot be resolved is because the ‘science’ simply cannot seal the deal. In other sciences, arguments are *falsfiable*…the gold standard. None of this is. You don’t see physicists or mathematicians claiming ‘consensus’ is evidence..they make falsfiable claims which are then…not falsified, in the case of physics, or simply show a proof, in the case of mathematics. There is no never ending argument because those fields have the proper process to simply close off alternatives and show they are not correct, or at least the practitioners, when pushed, will *admit* they cannot (yet, or ever)prove their contentions. (proving in the context of falsifiable tests using negative logic, etc).
I understand that the claims being made are too large to ‘prove’. But that is not simply a fundamental flaw you walk past because it is not convenient. You do not get to choose to worry about something un-falsifiable and then claim using standard proper method can’t apply, so don’t worry about it and listen to us. If that was allowable, then ghost hunting is a perfectly valid science because they too claim that standard science cannot be applied.
Cliff,
In finally responding to Richard’s post without answering anything he wrote you have vividly displayed the true “Missing Link” for progress in the climate debate.
The debate which you attempted to explain, and yet became exhibit A in why there can be no progress.
Unlike your foggy attempt to detail two sides there is much more clarity in your avoidance.
Avoidance that has been THE central impediment to progress.
When you cannot, or refuse to, address Richard’s cogent and germane specific challenges that speaks volumes about where the climate debate really is.
There are reasons you cannot be frank and respond by addressing reasonable query.
One is left only to assume they are much like others who similarly avoid honest engagement.
Fearing it will lead to unwanted conclusions is the only possible excuse.
This where the real climate debate resides and why there can be no progress.
Progress on climate change is being undermined by the deliberate avoidance of effective exchange.
This reluctance of yours is standing in the way of the sound conclusions and cooperation needed for very progress you call for.
This is the biggest problem in the way of any solutions.
After all the research from Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, and others, informing us that CO2 is NOT the issue, you suddenly present an expose, that states that we are all on the same side, but trying to work it out by different means? sorry, but you are preaching to the wrong congregation!