January 4th, 2010

...now browsing by day

 

Palin, the Post, and Climate Change; What All Americans Should Know – Part VI, and Conclusion

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Part VI, and the Conclusion, of this six part series, are below.  For the full series, click:

Part VI – The Hacked E-Mail “Scandal” Scandal, and the Real Issues:  Palin’s assertions, the Post’s Misleading Promotion of her as an Expert and Leader in our Discussions, and the Ensuing Misinformation Driving Our National Debate

Palin implicitly bases most of her otherwise unconnected conclusions upon a “scandal” arising from the obsessive scanning and cherry picking of select quotes out of thousands of private and illegally hacked emails (and driven by apparent wide spread zealotry) of a very few select scientists; and rather incredibly, impugns almost the entire world wide scientific community by association.

The scandal involved a very questionable intemperance to perceived ideological or industry influence driven “analyses” papers that these scientists thought were not science based.  Right or wrong, this is a common practice outside of the world of science, and yes, occasionally, sometimes within it.  And it is essentially irrelevant to the broader underlying issue at hand. (As are the apparent attempts, based upon these private but illegally hacked emails, of a few scientists to “trick” or “hide” data – which in scientific terms don’t mean anything close to what they mean in modern, everyday usage.)

Additionally, the science that Copenhagen is based upon is the composite work of thousands of scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, NOAA – and the basic science covered in Part’s II and III of this series.  But consider even the specific authors of the Copenhagen report. Only one of the twenty-six is overly implicated in the hacked email scandal. (And even his contributions are still relevant, take a look.)

But more importantly, the scandal is not relevant to the underlying reasons for the world to address this issue in the first place, and that the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen — which Palin impaled with implicit charges of “fraudulent science” — was based upon.

What about the fact that Palin linked to a Washington Post article for the assertion in her piece regarding “consensus”? (I.e., “the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd.”)  That Post article makes the email scandal out to be a much bigger thing than it is. Yet it still says nothing of the sort that Palin attributes to it.

The closest specific thing it does say, incredibly, is that one Kevin Trenberth; “wrote it was a ‘travesty’ that models could not explain why the Earth hadn’t warmed more.”  One scientist getting into the detailing and limitations of complex and probably overemphasized climate modeling is not lack of consensus among the world thousands of leading scientists on whether or not our atmospheric forcing is likely to unduly affect the climate.

Trenberth himself also notes that his email “says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it.” Moreover, his own article – that he also refers to in that very same email — did not need to be illegally hacked into.  And it says essentially the same thing, along with the fact that global warming is continuing.

Trenberth’s concern over modeling has nothing to do with the reasons to address climate change in the first place. These are physics driven, not data driven. Moreover, the Bali Climate Declaration, to which he is also a signatory, asserts that scientists are at least 90% certain that at least most of the warming that we have observed is due to human activities, and states that the goal of the next treaty must be to limit any further warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius total.  (Note also that even if one ascribed a lower probability here, this would not mean that one necessarily disagrees with the fact that increasing atmospheric heat trapping gas levels are going to ultimately and significantly effect climate — see endnote at bottom.)

We disagree with the Declaration. It tries to specifically target what can not be precisely measured or predicted — regarding what is almost assuredly going to be a greatly lagging [i], erratic, and non linear effect — rather than the cause itself.   But the underlying point is the same.  There is no controversy over the underlying science and probabilities, just over the limitations of modeling and short term predictability.

Yet Palin took the latter, falsely, to somehow indicate the former.

This is either a lie, or simply represents a lack of any relevant knowledge in the subject area.  So how did it get past the Post factcheckers?

Palin also starts off her piece writing about these “damaging emails” (as, opposed, again, to widely available scientific articles by the same person saying essentially the same thing),  creating a “tipping point,” as referenced above.  Yes, these emails are damaging: Because those that have non science based ideological or political opposition to the notion that mankind could possibly alter climate, have made a non-stop federal case out of them, and have turned them into something they are not, as noted above (and which the Post here further promoted, as well).

MIT professor and science author Chris Mooney further explains:

“Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don’t think this is remotely true, but let’s assume it.

Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :

1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.

2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies

Neither of which, or course, are true.”

Mooney is also the author of “The Republican War on Science.”  As this reviewer of Mooney’s book put it:

While the title may mislead you into thinking that this[is not] is a partisan book, Mooney’s dedication here is to the integrity of the scientific research process, and not at all to politics. Indeed, his argument is that the politicization of the scientific research process is bad no matter which party does it, but that the Bush Administration and the current incarnation of the Republican Party is particularly culpable of abusing science for partisan gain.

Or,  in the case of Palin, trashing science, misleading when it comes to science, asserting falsities that nevertheless managed to get by dozing editorial page factcheckers when it comes to science, accusing everything and everybody else, but not herself, of being “political,” when it comes to science, all while maintaining to readers that she is a believer in “sound science.

Conclusion

Whatever Palin’s motivations, be they deep ideological conflict, an innately gifted ability to wildly spin, and/or a profound lack of subject matter comprehension, these kinds of pieces –along with the presentation of people like Palin as leading “experts” regarding subject matters of which they clearly have no idea — being presented in our leading newspapers and media is part of what is contributing to the very much non-democratic dumbing down of our society, and is serving to further undermine the necessary information that serves as the lifeblood of our democracy.

Throughout this entire piece, Palin repeatedly mangles science and fact, makes repeated and wildly manipulative assertions along with implicit and startlingly false or wildly ignorant pronouncements, and even conflates a few scientists with the entire scientific community around the globe.  (She also conflates their private email desire to arm twist a little to include in some reports what they wanted with whole scale fraud, while even using the term “hide” the data in her op ed pejoratively, clearly having no clue what in science the term means.)

This is profoundly ignorant at best.  At not its best, it is outright deceitful.

________________________________________________________________
Notes
[i]  One reason for this is that while heat ultimately shapes climate, oceans more directly drive climate, and it takes an extremely long time for oceans to heat up or otherwise change.   Another reason is that the earth, with somewhat consistent (relative to current levels and projections) and very slowly fluctuating greenhouse gas levels, is in a state of relative stasis.  Or, rather, it was.  As a climate forcing — such as significantly increasing the amount of trapped atmospheric heat — is added to the system, it will, like any stasis,  start to change more rapidly with increasing input.  As noted in Part III, there are also numerous processes, or other “stasis” like conditions which invariably will start to feed upon themselves and accelerate — as we are seeing right now with the Arctic, and are even beginning to see with the Antarctic — and of course feed other effects, such as increased melting permafrost methane releases adding further atmospheric heat re-radiation and thus more melting, etc., , and melting glaciers decreasing the earth’s albedo,and thus increasing the amount of sunlight absorbed rather than radiated back into space.

What is also important to recognize is that while ultimately the planet will likely reach a new stasis (which does not mean that the weather therein is stable, by the way), there is absolutely no scientific reason to asssume that what we would like that new stasis to be, or what we would like the degree of change that will incur en route to it (namely, minimal), is what it will be.  Nor that what it will be, is not what we would consider horrific for us, our descendants, and a majority of the species on earth. That is, the planet does not care. Science acts as it acts, not because we “want it” to in a certain way;  or because, outside of the new and quite profound atmospheric forcing input that we are thrusting upon it, we have come to expect it to in a certain way.  Massive and rapid change is neither bad nor good in an abstract philosophical sense.   But it is almost assuredly bad to otherwise relatively stable biological and ecological conditions, including most other species and that of our own, having evolved and now built a world around — and, notably in the case of climate change, on — the present general state of conditions.

Posted in Climate, Media, Science, Washington Post | 8 Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Palin, the Post, and Climate Change; What All Americans Should Know – Part V

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Part V of this six part series, is below.  For the full series, click:

Part V – Real Editorial Debate, and the Costs/Benefits Myth

Palin also claims that the “costs” to addressing climate change outweigh the “benefits.” But Palin does not explain how this then legitimizes the characterization of the underlying science as “fraudulent.”  Nor how the costs outweigh the benefits, or what she bases this upon.

Environmental costs and benefits are a conceptual topic, often confused with a mathematical one – as if everything of value can be broken down into the same standard of measurement, simply because we have to have one standard measure of currency from which we must make decisions with microeconomic implications.

But if the Post actually wanted to spur debate and challenge conventional wisdom, op-eds on the topic of presumptive economic “cost” and what it really means, would serve quite well.  Such legitimate debate spurring, and groupthink challenging pieces would provide a market contrast to ostensible “debate spurring, conventional wisdom” challenging pieces like this one by Palin (or this one), that instead do little but serve to promulgate disinformation and further subvert informed discussion and understanding.

But let’s take a look at what Palin had to say when it comes to costs and benefits:

“We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.”

This assertion is made despite the fact that Palin likely has no idea what either the true costs or benefits are. But at least with respect to costs, she can go by very general economist consensus, which relies upon the largely unchallenged presumption – not scientific data but unchallenged theoretical economic construct that relies upon economic assumption –  that sensibly addressing climate change will disrupt our economic growth rather than slightly change what constitutes it. Again, since this is a largely unchallenged presumption, and is based upon widespread economic presumption rather than upon solid conceptual embrace of the topic (see the foregoing link, for example); perhaps the Post should run pieces addressing this, if it wants to be “provocative,” instead of running pieces that wildly misinform and mislead, and that do nothing but promote misinformation.

But note that as far as Palin goes, she seems to happily embrace this common economic cost “consensus” in its most extreme, radical form – that shifting over to cleaner fuels will not add to new production and endeavor and thus spur development and growth, but merely destroy our economy – Palin completely ignores far more objective, fact based scientific consensus regarding atmosphere and climate, and goes even more radical, in the other direction as well.   It’s quite a combination.

Regarding the “benefits” that Palin dismisses out of hand –while believing, but not quite saying, that we are incapable of productively growing without dirty, polluting, and finite fuel sources – consider that if the great majority of scientists are correct, we are going to see world-wide devastation on some level, as well as the further loss of an enormous percentage of species. The measurable “cost” of the devastation would be extraordinarily high.

But what about the intangible cost? Take whole scale species eradication alone:  What price tag can be put on something that has intangible value? Even for those with a more biblical view toward ecology, what kind of stewards are we being? Do we owe any obligation to our children, grandchildren and beyond to at least take minimal care to not destroy species that once gone, are gone forever?

Yet Palin, though she can’t be sure that increasing heat trapping greenhouse gases (a matter of pure physics) can affect climate, is nevertheless certain that the benefits outweigh the costs. Once again, much like that other Post climate and economics expert, George Will.

Yet Palin at least offers a hint as to why the “costs” outweigh the benefit.  Because to her, there apparently are no benefits.

That is, as noted above, she “acknowledges” climate change, on the one hand, but asserts that it is due to “natural, cyclical environmental trends,” as a matter, apparently, of faith based belief, on the other. (Which would then mean — in Palin’s world of non science where heat trapping atmospheric greenhouse gases are nevertheless irrelevant, rather than this world — that there would be no benefits to reducing gas emissions because gas levels are not tied to climate!)

This would be like someone submitting an editorial to the Post arguing that extra low density cholesterol is “really good for people,” and offering as one’s reason that “it’s really good for people,” with no rhyme or reason expressed as to why.  And the Post electing to publish it.

Now to that, further add a bunch of false assertions, such as perhaps, “there is no scientific consensus that eating mercury is bad for you,” and maybe suggest how conferences to address high bio-accumulated mercury levels are based upon “fraudulent science” because of a few questionable, scientist specific emails out of thousands of scientists, and you’ve essentially got what the Post presented to its readers.

Go to Part VI, and Conclusion

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Responses »