Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Apostate

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist, has been excluded from Virginia’s dialogue on climate change on the grounds that the science is settled. But is it really?

Patrick Michaels has earned such a reputation as a Global Warming skeptic that many people who follow the climate change debate might be surprised at some of his opinions. Temperatures around the world are heating up, he says… Just very slowly, far more slowly than the climate computer models are projecting. The former Virginia state climatologist also agrees that human activity probably has nudged temperatures a little higher than they would have in the absence of humans.

But Michaels has a few things to say that would not make him welcome in, say, the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, which takes the global warming debate as settled and regards the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final authority on the subject. While he may be denied a forum at the climate change commission, Michaels did cut loose last week at the South Richmond Rotary Club, where I got to meet him.

Michaels builds much of his case around the inconvenient truth that global temperatures have leveled off, or even cooled slightly, over the past 11 years. (Just because the New York Times doesn’t deem the trend noteworthy enough to report doesn’t mean that it’s not a fact. It is.) None of the climate models upon which the IPCC forecasts are based predicted the temperature stasis – they all forecast continuously rising temperatures. Said Michaels: “Not one model can emulate the climate behavior since 1998.”

Most inconvenient indeed.

The stall in rising temperatures doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real, Michaels says, but it does suggest that human influence on climate change is modest compared to natural variations in solar output and climate oscillations such as El Nino. The data certainly don’t conform to the alarming projections of those who call for radical overhauls in the economy on the grounds of impending apocalypse. Continue reading this column…

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

17 responses to “Apostate”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    To see some amusing comments and counter golobal warming info, see this website by Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London.

    No doubt EMR will claim he is geographically illiterate, too.

    (Even) I don’t subscribe to all he says, but it is a good read for sceptics, and those who wish to hone their arguments alike.

    RH

    http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_Hot_Topic_Blog.html

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I’ve always said that no matter how much about global warming you believe (or not) – that a major part of the equation is what are the consequences if any of it is true.

    To put this in perspective – would you willingly engage in something that you knew had one chance in 100 of killing you?

    How about 1000? How about 10?

    What if you did not know but you suspected that the chances were between one in 10 and one in 1000?

    Would you … take … no action at all and merely dismiss it as something unworthy of making any changes what-so-ever?

    Is it dumb to at least ask “what if” questions of potential consequences?

    If you wanted to cover your bets when chainsawing… you put on gloves, chaps and eye protection even though they cost money and even though the chances of you getting killed or disabled are relatively small.

    Now some folks will say that spending money on safety equipment is a “waste” – that you could have gotten a lot better ROI on it if you simply “invested” the money.

    Some folks – would buy a car without seat belts and air bags if they could save $3000 dollars.

    The question is – how much money are we willing to spend on the CHANCE that there will be some consequences of global warming?

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The question is – how much money are we willing to spend on the CHANCE that there will be some consequences of global warming?”

    Exactly. Only mabe it is the CHANCE that there will be some consequences of global warming that can actully be controlled with the money we spend and the way we spend it. And it isn’t one person, it is 3 billion.

    And there ARE ways to figure that out. We DO KNOW within some margin of error how much people are willing to pay to reduce the chance of death or injury.

    We know how many sets of chainsaw chaps we sell vs how many chainsaws. (We don’t know how often people actually put them on.)

    So the problem isn’t how much to spend, directly, it is how do we agree on the process for making the decision(s).

    When I buy chainsaw equipment it is my money and my leg. When someone else wants me to spend on global wrming, it isn’t their money and it might not be my life or health or property they are protecting. They are making a claim on my property based on THEIR assumptions of risk, THEIR assumptions on discount rate, ETC. ETC.

    Even if I agree that global warming is a risk, I’m a long way from giving someone unfettered access to my pocket to prevent it in ways that haven’t been determined, examined for efficacy, or priced.

    And, I’d want the other 3 billion to pay an equal or at least fair price. My odds of saving the world go way down if I’m one out of 3 billion.

    RH

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    honest question: isn’t it this same line of thinking that is why the Chesapeake Bay Clean-up is failing?

  5. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “…honest question: isn’t it this same line of thinking that is why the Chesapeake Bay Clean-up is failing?”.

    I don’t think so.

    The Bay is in trouble – I don’t know anbody who doubts that.

    Human activity has caused the trouble – I don’t know anybody who doubts that.

    I believe that the causes of the Bay’s problems are conceptually understood. The measurements may be hard to come by but the basic causes are understood.

    The problem with Bay clean up is that behaviors far from the Bay cause problems in the Bay. And those living far from the Bay aren’t willing to voluntarily change their behaviors to save a Bay that is in a distant state. Of course, that’s presumably why we have a federal government but that’s another rant for another day.

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    …..”And those living far from the Bay aren’t willing to voluntarily change their behaviors to save a Bay”

    would it be too big a stretch to convert the above to this:

    “And those living far from the where they can see the direct effects of global warming aren’t willing to voluntarily change their behaviors until it is obvious – but too late to reverse the trend”

    ??

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Given the catastrophic consequences that those who fear global warming say will befall us, I wonder how anybody could live “far from where they can see the effects of global warming”. Won’t the effects be pervasive and visible almost everywhere? Aren’t the effects so damaging that they will affect everybody?

    The same is not really true for the Bay. You can live in upstate New York, be part of the Chesapeake watershed and never see the Bay or care about its condition. It seems to me that those who live near the Bay and can see its condition are trying to improve that condition. With global warming we are all affected. If people fail to act about the Bay it’s because they don’t feel any ownership of the Bay. If they fail to act about global warming – is it because they don’t feel any ownership of the globe?

  8. Waldo Avatar
    Waldo

    Jim, you do yourself no favors with that “remember the fears that we were about to enter a new ice age?” aside. Those “fears” were manifested in the form of a single article in Newsweek (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). It was a poorly-sourced article that was far more hype than fact. There was no other article in any scientific journal or in any other major western publication making any such claim.

    Because they were the one and only publication that wrote word one about “a new ice age” in the 1970s, Newsweek published a correction to that 1975 story just two years ago, saying that it was “spectacularly wrong.”

    It’s entirely misleading to state or imply that there were “fears that we were about to enter a new ice age.” I don’t doubt that you believed fully that such fears existed at the time that you wrote it, and understandably—global climate change deniers keep repeating the claim that such a thing took place, often enough that it would be easy to think that it’s true. But no matter how many times it’s repeated, it’s still wrong.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Waldo, The “fears of a new ice age” never reached the fever pitch of the fears of global warming — I will certainly concede that. But Newsweek is not the only media source that jumped on that bandwagon. I very well remember reading a book by Robert Ardrey in the early 1970s suggesting that another ice age was imminent. (Ardrey was not a scientist of course, he was a popularizer of science. But he picked up the vibes that were in the air.)

    The ice age scare didn’t last long because it peaked in the early ’70s, just as global temperatures hit an inflection point after a 30-year decline. Thus, the theory was quickly dispelled as contra-factual. Fortunately, the facts rolled in before the ice-age scare had a chance to ossify into orthodoxy in the world of public opinion and politics, and before too many academic reputations had been built around the premise.

    Here’s my question: How much contra-factual evidence will need to be published to change anyone’s thinking about global warming? Apparently, 11 years of stable temperatures not predicted by the climate models is insufficient to persuade people that maybe, just maybe, the climate models haven’t captured all the key variables, and that maybe, just maybe, we still have a lot to figure out.

    (For the record, don’t interpret my words as trying to debunk global warming fears, as in the manner of, say, Rush Limbaugh, who declares global warming to be a “fraud”. Rather, what I’m saying is that our knowlede of climate dynamics is incomplete.)

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Here's my question: How much contra-factual evidence will need to be published to change anyone's thinking about global warming?"

    "Won't the effects be pervasive and visible almost everywhere? Aren't the effects so damaging that they will affect everybody?"

    you know… we've seen this before… when we had one group of folks saying that there was no proof that DDT or PCBs or LEAD were damaging the environment.

    That's because for the vast majority of people – they never were personally affected by these things.

    To this day, virtually everyone shoulder shrugs about mercury in the flesh of fish in our rivers.

    The prevailing attitude is – since I don't eat fish from rivers – it does not affect me.

    It's the same thing with the Bay. If you live in New York on the upper reaches of the Susquehanna River – where the stream is pure and clear – how will you be convinced that the Bay is in trouble because of the Susquehanna and that you, as a citizen, should feel some level of responsibility to have New York do it's part to not contribute to the problem?

    And that's the problem with just about any threat – even HIV or lead in kids toys or BHP in plastic bottles.

    It's a ho-hum type of skepticism that is easily ignored until you are personally affected.

    One of the big problems with Global Warming is – if it is real – does it grow worse at a steady, predictable pace or is there a tipping point?

    I would so that for most of us – on most issues – we are totally clueless on whether or not a tipping point is involved.

    for instance, we know there is ice melt going on…but we still are not sure as to why but more important, if it turns out to have some relationship to global warming…

    .. and much more of concern –

    …is there a point beyond which – even when virtually everyone is finally convinced and is in favor of system changes – that it will be too late anyhow?

    and don't tell me you need absolute proof unless you are someone who also disbelieves the numbers on nutrition labels, or your latest cholesterol levels or what happens if you directly ingest mercury or lead.

    Do you wait until you actually see the direct effects of do you use some level of conservative prudence?

    We have folks who treat Global Warming as if it is not true in any way, shape or form – no matter what and …therefore – absolutely nothing.. in the way of action is warranted – period.

    Isn't this a lot like dumping PCBs and Kepone into a river and demanding that nothing be done until you personally are affected by it?

    What would be a PRUDENT & CONSERVATIVE response to the possibility that global warming could be a problem?

    Would you say that no response at all is warranted at this point?

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "What would be a PRUDENT & CONSERVATIVE response to the possibility that global warming could be a problem?"

    Even if you consider that the potential costs of global warming might someday be infinite (catastrophic), it does not warrant an infinite cost response today. That would divert ALL of our resources from all our other problems and result in more near term deaths.

    If you use some level of "conservative prudence" which is insufficient to the task, this would be highly imprudent because it would be a waste of resources.

    The prudent response is the minimum response which will avert the catastrophe at the latest possible time. Since we don't know when or if that will occur, the best thing is to keep working to find out: define the problem and price the solutions before you try to solve it.

    RH

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, You asked, “Would you say that no response at all is warranted at this point?”

    No, I don’t believe in putting our heads in the sand and pretending that global warming poses no risk. I have consistently supported the goal of Gov. Kaine’s task force on global warming to explore the potential impact of global warming on Virginia — rising temperatures, rising sea levels, etc., and to devise appropriate policies to offset or mitigate the damage, should it occur.

    I also support greater scientific research into the driving forces — natural or human — behind climate change. This is not a “stalling” tactic designed to derail action. It’s designed to gain a better understanding of the scope of the threat.

    I’m also concerned about the logic that says the best way to cope with anthropogenic climate change is to use government power to radically overhaul our economy — regardless of cost. There is a potential cost to not acting, but there is a very tangible and immediate cost to acting recklessly. The more money we channel into unproductive, politically driven initiatives is less money that we can devote to adapting to the consequences of climate change.

    As I’ve argued consistently on this blog, our society and economy need Fundamental Change. There are very sound reasons — not based upon climate change models that failed to predict the last decade’s stable temperatures — for seeking Fundamental Change. We need to evolve toward a more energy-efficient economy to bolster national security, to reduce the environmental impact of energy production, to insulate our standard of living from spikes in energy prices… and, should the scientific evidence become more compelling, to safeguard against global warming.

  13. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    The “new ice age” thing may have been hype, but will Newsweek be writing a similar apology for global warming stories in the future? Maybe NASA will give us a hint on Tuesday.

  14. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I sorta see the folks who doubt global warming as similar to the folks that refused to believe that the “free market” would flame out unless regulated.

    No matter what evidence you would provide to them – they staunchly and steadfastly BELIEVED – essentially only what they wanted to believe.

    About the only thing that would shake them would be an actual collapse.

    And then – this is the good part – instead of admitting that an unregulated “free market” was at risk for collapse – they want to find who to pin the blame on – anything other than admitting that a failure to regulate was at least a central issue.

    And the problem is – with something like Global Warming – there ain’t no taxpayer bailout once the unthinkable actually happens.

    so.. again.. did the collapse happen on a “seeable” trend basis … or did it hit a tipping point from which there was no going back?

    If this can happen in a financial market – can it happen with global warming?

    I’m NOT in favor of infinite spending to fend off disaster but at the same time I’d like to see a little bit more than hands over eyes humming “nah nah nah” also…from the skeptics.

    What we don’t have from most skeptics is – support – of some concrete changes as opposed to a staunch defense of the status quo until “proof” is provided.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There is a potential cost to not acting, but there is a very tangible and immediate cost to acting recklessly. The more money we channel into unproductive, politically driven initiatives is less money that we can devote to adapting to the consequences of climate change.”

    Well said. The more money we channel into unproductive politicaly driven initiatives the less money we have for EVERYTHING else. Including running and operating the businesses that provide the profits that make the money we will spend to prevent global warming, or whatever other crisis we decide to spend it on.

    Financial markets have melted down before and they will melt down again. But on Monday morning there will still be good businesses in operation, and they will still need to raise money in the financial markets. They will still seek profits and they will still seek customers.

    My sugestion is to find one of them and buy some stock.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What we don’t have from most Chiken Littles is the recognition that we canot spend an infinite amount on every perceived threat, no matter how big they claim it is.

    It might just be that the sky will in fact fall, despite all their scurrying and wing flapping. Even worse, they might succeed in having it not fall, by enslaving us all to hold it up.

    RH

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The more money we channel into unproductive, politically driven initiatives is less money that we can devote to adapting to the consequences of climate change.”

    you mean billions for up-armored humvees is more productive than solar panels and wind turbines in terms of jobs and a net benefit to the economy?

    What is the difference between a person with a job that produces wind turbines verses humvees?

    Do the money he/she takes home work “differently”?

    Is the economy less productive?

Leave a Reply

Read More