I’m glad to respond to Jonathan’s thoughtful and gracious post, which critiqued two pieces (here and here) I wrote on climate change. This is a useful dialogue to have – and it’s a credit to COMMENTARY that it has provided us a forum.
There’s much that I agree with in what Jonathan said, including the quasi-religious faith some people place in the environmental movement; the fact that some climate scientists have acted in a troubling and intellectually dishonest fashion; and the undeniable anti-capitalist agenda being advanced by some who travel under the global warming banner. I briefly touched on these elements in my posts; Jonathan did an excellent job amplifying them.
But there are two statements in particular I want to focus on that go to the core disagreement I have with some on the right on this topic. In Jonathan’s words, “given the apocalyptic scenarios routinely put forward by warming hysterics such as Al Gore and the level of invective that the political left has consistently spewed in response to even the most reasonable of questions about their assertions, it has been difficult for conservatives to avoid responding in kind.”
It is difficult, just as it’s difficult to respond to false, even vicious, arguments made on behalf of any cause. Having served two terms in the George W. Bush White House, I have some familiarity with what it means to be on the receiving end of slanderous charges. But our position cannot be that bad conduct on the left excuses bad conduct on the right. If those on the left exaggerate, lie, and crush dissent, should we? Our task is to win the debate on the merits, to employ, as best we can, honest and credible arguments in order to ascertain the reality of things. And if the science shows that Earth is warming and that humans have played a role in that, then we need to accept it, even if that puts us on the same side with some individuals we don’t find particularly appealing. What matters is where the truth lies, not the company we find ourselves in.
The second statement I want to focus on is this one: “Rather than the onus being on conservatives to bow to the dictates of warming science, it is the responsibility of those who wish to convince skeptics to make their case in a more accountable fashion.” To be clear: I’m not in favor of having conservatives “bow to the dictates of warming science.” But I am in favor of conservatives examining, in an independent and dispassionate manner, the best evidence we have on the matter of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). And the case for AGW has, in my estimation, been made. This doesn’t mean there aren’t some climate scientists who have exaggerated the threat or contorted the data. I said as much in my posts. But it’s simply not the case that this field of science is entirely corrupt or that the vast majority of climate scientists are dishonest and/or being intimidated to state conclusions with which they disagree.
I understand the skepticism that exists (I shared in it, in fact, until I began to explore this matter in a more systematic way). I would therefore urge people to read the careful work of Richard Muller, who was skeptical that global warming has taken place but has now concluded it is real (for more, see here). One might study this report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP). Alternatively, read this report by the National Academy of Sciences, which is trustworthy. (The science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and other nations all believe there is strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.) In 2006, the Climate Science Program, a federal program under the direction of the Bush White House and sponsored by agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” There are several others I could cite.
The point is that these reports are sober, measured and serious. They make a scientific, not a polemical, case for AGW. It’s possible they are wrong. But their case has been made in a persuasive and empirical manner. And while there are some serious scientists who dissent from this finding, and their concerns are certainly worth taking into account, it matters that all the world’s major science academies have said that AGW is occurring, and they have supplied the empirical case for their findings. The challenge for conservatives is to engage the most serious and honest arguments of those who believe in AGW, not simply lock in on the global alarmists. And the temptation conservatives need to resist is to portray the entire climate change movement as consisting of individuals who are more interested in ideology than science.
In saying all this, I agree with Jim Manzi that global warming is a manageable risk, not an existential crisis. And I have argued that there are significant uncertainties on how the climate system will respond a century or more from now. But for some on the right (not Jonathan, it needs to be said) to insist that AGW is a hoax, the product (more or less) of a massive conspiracy, is, I believe, damaging to conservatism. That is something I do care about. And more than that, it is, from what I can tell, a position at odds with where the evidence leads. Contemporary liberalism can do as it will. But for conservatism, facts–those stubborn facts–need to be our guiding star.
I'd like to know (without in any way meaning to be sarcastic) what Peter Wehner has to say in response to this (from Dennis Prager article in LA Jewish Journal on why people are skepitcal of AGW): n n"There are thousands of scientists in climate science and other scientific fields — some of them among the most distinguished in the world — who do not agree with the Al Gore thesis. One is Richard Lindzen, the atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, widely regarded as America’s leading climatologist. Lindzen has written that “It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about” and “The basis for the weak [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.” n n
Why does it matter that there are thousands of scientists in other fields who don't agree about AGW? When you need heart surgery, do you ask your dentist to do it? n nThere are a few scientists who are skeptical about the magnitude of man-made warming (none dispute that we are indeed causing warming). Lindzen is one. When I say a few, I'm being literal. For another analogy, if 15 doctors tell you that you need surgery, and a 16th says you'll be just fine without it, are you going to ignore the other 15? n nThe claim that the argument for AGW "was shown to be false" is just absurd and wrong.
So you are saying Lindzen should just be ignored because he is one of only a few? I guess you are saying he is crackpot or his work is illegitimate? Aren't you a little bit curious to know if maybe he is right and the others are wrong? After all, science is not about taking a poll (ask Gallileo).
BDZ n nIn which case Lindzen would be able to make the case for his skeptical view to his equally qualified coleagues – thousands of them. He would be able to explain why a diverse range of evidence, from many scientists, looking at climate in many different ways, over many different time scales from decades to the last 500 million years have a view about how the climate works, but he knows better and they are all wrong. He can explain why it won't warm much now & explain why swings in CO2 in the past co-insided with major climate changes. n nIs Lindzen a crackpot? Idunno. But every branch of science has its rump, a small group who reject the dominant position for a variety of reasons. Occasionally the rump (or mavericks) overturn accepted understanding. Very occassionally. Far more often they are just a rump who are fighting old battles for all sorts of reasons n nHow should we judge the contribution of someone like Lindzen. By giving him no more or less credence than anyone else. Ig 60 studies suggest Climate Sensitivity is around 2.5-4.5, and Lindzen says it is 0.5 – he might be right. But why would you treat his views as being anything but an outlier, unlikely to be correct. If half the studies suggest 0.5 then you start to take his opinions seriously. n nUnless of course your judgement of the relative likelihood of different outcomes is being influenced in any way by a preference or desire for a particular result. Is your view about Lindzen influenced in any way by wanting him to be right? Understandible at an emotional level, but totally c&@p as statistical reasoning. n nSo no, he shouldn't be ignored. But neither should he be given ant special prominence. Just one view/result out of 60. Should we ignore the other 59?
Colleagues who've known Lindzen for 40+ years say say even in grad school he was brilliant and enjoyed playing "devils advocate"l. n nWhere he went off the rails was late in his career, when he stopped revising his views, even when presented with contrary evidence. Once he stopped grappling with evidence, others began to lose interest. The essence of scientific inquiry is forming and modifying views based on examination of evidence — all the evidence, not just a few cherry-picked facts.
Even the most extreme conservative estimate of2 degrees Fahrenheit would be catastrophic to our environment. Most of that warming would occur at the poles, as it is now. Droughts are already more severe now, one like the one that caused the dust bowl would be amplified even further, possibly triggering the abandonment of cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix due to water shortages. The Bush administration was a terrible failure on almost every front, including efforts to curb Global Warming. We don't need someone from inside that administration misleading us further. I'm sorry sir, but you have no credibility. n
BDZ n nWhere do you get this notion of the "Al Gore thesis". What has Al Gore got to do with anything? n nRather it is the Gilbert Plass Thesis, The Manabe & Wetherald Thesis, The Ramanathan Thesis. All scientists. Some of them dead – thats how old the thesis is. One could also call it the US DoD thesis since they are behind some of the fundamental research into this and own some of the patents for it. Or the Office of Naval Research Thesis since they funded the research in the 50's & 60's. Unfortunately the the Office of Naval Research is long since defunct, vanishing in the 60's. The 'Thesis' had most of the flesh added to its bones during the 50's, 60's and early 70's by a range of scientists working in the West's Cold War scientific establishment. n nAs to Lindzen being "America’s leading climatologist" Who says? the world has got thousands of Climatologists – lots of them professors. So what makes Lindzen the 'leading climatologist' – apart from his PA's press release.
Lindzen does not question the greenhouse effect, nor does he question that the earth has warmed and that humans are partly responsible. What Lindzen questions is the sensitivity of earth's temperature to carbon dioxide concentrations (how much will temperature rise for a given amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). The reason the vast majority of climate scientists do not find Professor Lindzen's arguments convincing is that in order to prove his contention he uses only some of the data available (e.g., just data from the tropics), and he only looks at a very specific period of time.
"If all things remain constant" nthey will not. sea ice will melt, permafrost will thaw, oceans will warm. the list is long. the feedbacks could be worse than emissions. ngreat forum, great topic, PW. n
To briefly describe the con game being run by climate change alarmists: "Global warming is real; therefore, we must do (a). (b) and (c)." In other words, they advance a claim that "Science" (the capital "S" is heard whenever progressives pronounce the word) supports the anti-market, pro-bureaucracy solutions that they're pushing for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with science. The Greenshirts are far less interested in the fate of the Earth than they are in the concentration of political and economic power in their own hands.
Nice strawman you've built there. n nGlobal warming is real and caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, therefore we must reduce those emissions. How to best reduce those emissions is open for debate, which is the excellent point that Wehner has been trying to make, which you apparently have failed to grasp. You'd rather engage in political attacks than actually join the climate policy debate.
Yes, that's precisely my point. This debate has nothing to do with science, the reason being that most of us aren'[t scientists. It's all about politics. In which connection it would be interesting to debate whether the term "climate policy" bears any relation to reality. As I've noted several times, the notion that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats can manage the planetary climate via a blizzard of regulations is simply fanciful.
Have you ever known any climate scientists? If you did, I doubt you would consider them power-hungry "Greenshirts." n nThere are much more likely paths to political and economic power than, say, analyzing the air bubbles trapped in glaciers, or crunching numbers all day from sensors in satellites. They'd have to be really dumb to think that's the fast track to power and wealth.
If the climate change mob was composed exclusively of scientists, you might have a point. But they constitute but a tiny minority in the movement that I call the Greenshirts. There's no denying that the climate change debate is more about politics than it is about science. Science has absolutely nothing to say about what, if anything, should be done about climate change. That's an economic/political question in which the scientific facts have to be balanced against a large number of other factors. It may well be that action on the scale necessary to bend the temperature curve down would be so economically destructive that it isn't worth doing. It's also pretty clear that the policies favored by many Greenshirts are anti-capitalist and pro-centralized economic planning. For many people, climate change alarmism is a convenient means of promoting policies that they favor on other grounds.
Like the others have said, right now you are all politics and no science. I don't know of a single person looking for absolute green power. Changing social habits, yes. n nAction by the business community and the gov will be in finding ways that are even profitable to do in terms of carbon reduction. One low hanging fruit to pick is simply energy efficiency. Paybacks of short time periods. Energy efficiency investments can take place for years saving businesses and consumers money for years to come.
Well, Tom, I'm somebody who believes we should take action, but I certainly don't qualify as a "green shirt." This science of this is very old (the Theory of Global Warming was proposed by Svante Arhennius in 1896, 20 years before Alfred Wegner proposed the theory of continental drift). Future projections are definitely uncertain, but one of the main uncertainties is what human emissions will be. n nThe economic analyses of the situation that I have read all point to the same basic conclusion: it will be more expensive to mitigate in the future than now, or "the most expensive thing we can do is nothing." n nI think it is essential that we use the power of the market to begin to transform our economy by putting a realistic price on carbon. I think this is essential for my future freedom. The types of climatic stresses that are projected 30 or 40 years from now without prompt action on carbon emissions will undoubtedly lead to failed states, massive migrations, and political cascades of events that will force drastic actions by governments. I don't think this will be good news for my small business, my kids, or the US. n n
That's what Peter W is aying. Ignore the environmentalists that you consider power-hungry alarmists. Instead, just evaluate what the scientists are saying. He's given you links to the most comprehensive scientific sources that summarize all the science. n nIf you agree with Peter that there is, indeed, a real problem, then you can evaluate alternative solutions. n nWhat's needed are some strong conservative voices advocating conservative solutions.
"Having served two terms in the George W. Bush White House, I have some familiarity with what it means to be on the receiving end of slanderous charges." n. nMany of those charges stuck because the Bush WH failed to vigorously defend itself. If that happens in the AGW debate, the results will be catastrophic because the Left is using this issue to push democracies towards tyranny.
I'm not aware of liberals or conservatives looking for tyranny. Can you name any?
If government ever regulates CO2 emissions, government will control almost every facet of life: the amount of energy a home or business consumes to the amount of flatulence from farm animals. Call this what you want, but don't call it freedom.
The proof is entirely on the AGW side (extrodinary claims demand extrodinary proof). However, this is only one of the principles of scientific investigation that the climate "scientists" have broken. They have attempted to keep opposing views out of reputable journals, they have either lost or refused to share original data, they have excused poor predictions, and they have insisted that AGW is proven theory, when it is barely a working hypothesis. n nThe planet may well be warming but to accept the weak theory that human caused CO2 is the major agent causing is much the same as saying that drinking milk leads to drug addiction, since almost all addicts started on milk. n
All the scientific data is out there, available to anybody who wants to look. n nAnd there are multiple lines of evidence indicating that fossil fuel-generated CO2 is causing the warming. It took scientists 50 years to separate it all out; they didn't come this conclusion quickly or carelessly.
Actually, all of the conflicting data is out there for anyone who cares to look. It 's a bit more difficult to find because of the the pressure to keep this information from the public. The scientific community is largely involved because of the money provided for research. You may not know it, but the billions provided for research around the world is essentially only given to those scientists who will support the CO2 connection. This includes money spent by the oil companies. For them it's a PR issue and they don't care what happens legislatively because they are well aware that the world civilizations can't exist without their product, and any legislation will only drive the price of oil up. Watch it happen …
I hope this discussion can move on to answering Wehner's call for conservative, market-based solutions to climate change. n
No, it's like debating creationists, one always ends up rat-holing into a discussion of whether thermodynamics is a "real thing."
Scientists have measured temperatures for about 150 years on a planet that's millions of years old. In short, it seems the data sample is not long enough to reach a conclusion that the warming is significant. n nI understand scientists have projected temperatures in the past, but the only way to validate the projections is with an adequate sample of data. n nWhile it's possible the warming is significant, it doesn't seem to be there's enough data to make a definitive claim.
Oh, I'm sure that you'd like everybody to forget Al Gore—who, if memory serves, received the Nobel Peace Prize for his, uh, work on global warming. Should he give it back?
How do the decisions of the Nobel Committee affect the underlying science? Much like the Internet, modern climate science was not invented by Al Gore. He is not the puppet master of some vast global conspiracy that has infiltrated NASA and the halls of academia.
Al Gore was the darling of the Greenshirts until his prophicies of the apocolypse turned out to be a bunch of bunk. Now he's an unperson. It's too funny.
Classic denialism
You will never see an interested person who accepts the mainstream view citing Al Gore when discussing the science. It is always the contrarians and the ideologues who introduce his name to a discussion. Always. Just like here. Wehner knows his audience, and that's why he's mentioned Gore. But climate realists? Never.
Even if it were certain that AGW is happening, I would not be in favor of making radical changes to energy consumption in the USA, especially when we are supposed to exempt countries like China and India. I don't believe in giving up our economic gifts for what we would all have to consider an uncertain outcome for the climate.
Fortunately, there is so much energy that is simply wasted today, we can save a lot of energy — and ultimately money — just by "plugging the holes." n ne.g. What's so great about light bulbs that produce 90% heat and 10% light, especially when the air conditioner is running? And especially now that warm light high efficiency incandescents are coming online n ne.g. For the same price, I'm now getting wind-generated power. But at my end, it's all the same — electricity is electricity.
Thanks for the link which I will read. n nThanks for the link which I will read. n nI don't doubt or question all projections, only those which are based on small, non-random samples ( the most recent 150 years) when there are several million years for which there are no data. Are astrophysics and modern geology also based on small, non-random samples?
JimEAtl It's refreshing to run across somebody who genuinely seems interested in looking at all the evidence and ascertaining the truth, rather than just scoring points. n nThere actually are some fascinating methods scientists have used to obtain random samples (e.g. glacial cores) and temperature proxies (e.g. tree rings) from far further back than 150 years. None of them alone would mean much. But when dozens of separate lines of evidence line up and show the same story of long term temperature trends, it starts to get more and more convincing. n nLook at all the various data streams and make your own judgment. n
Landing on the moon was certainly a big challenge and we did that! nFixing the ozone hole was a big problem and we did that! nSolving acid rain was a big problem and we did that! n nAmerica is great because when we are faced with a challenge and especially with a threat, we collectively take action and we usually do quite well. The energy revolution is akin to the Internet revolution. I want America to take the lead. If we do, we create jobs, we sell products to China instead of buying them, we have cleaner air and water, greater national security, and energy savings put money directly into our pockets. n nMetaphor: n nIt is the Olympics and the event is the Clean Energy Race. The US track team has always won the big events before and appears to be in the best shape to win again. (Mention the three “we did that’s” above.) However, after the starting gun has fired, the American runner is just jogging while China, India, and others are sprinting. Don’t you want the American to win? There is still time for her to step it up but the window of opportunity is getting shorter every year because she is falling farther and farther behind.
The "scientific community" has been exposed by Climategate and Climategate-2 as wedded to their pet theories which they've programmed into their computer models which FAIL when matched against observed reality. Thus, they must "hide the decline" to desperately cling to their disproven projections.
I invite you to a discussion of science. I have spent a lot of time studying the science of climatology online. There are uncertainties no doubt. Come to the table and talk. Investigate what both conservative and liberal scientists are talking about. Are the liberals coercing the conservative scientsists? Are the conservative scientists and liberal scientists disagreeing on points?
Mr. Parsons: n nFrom what I have read it does not appear to be correct to say the models "fail when matched against observed reality." The changes in the average temperature of the earth that we have seen over the last 30 years were predicted by scientists in the late 1970's (Jason Committee that works for the Department of Defense). Changes in ocean temperatures have been predicted by modelers, and measurements have shown that the models correctly predict average temperatures of different oceans and the changes in temperature with depth in each ocean (UCSD group lead by Barnett). When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the early 1990s, the NASA modeling group run by James Hansen predicted the change in average temperature the eruption would cause, and they were spot on. n nThis does not mean we can predict what will happen in the future precisely, as there are many unknowns, most importantly the future emissions of carbon dioxide. But the basic physics of our climate system is well enough understood that our existing models match measurements.
Not true. That one phrase taken out of context — out of thousands of emails — means nothing. n nNine independent investigations by science agencies looked into this, just to me sure. They found zero evidence of any wrong-doing or misrepresenting the evidence. n nDo you think if somebody hacked into your emails and searched through thousands of your message, they could find a phrase or two which, taken out of context, might make you look bad or devious? n nIf you don' believe me, look through the emails yourself — they're not available for anybody to see.
Decline in what? n
There are idealogues on both sides. A lot of the scientists in the field are republicans or conservatives. It wouldn't surprise me to see that your statement doesn't hold true.
John: n nYour response seems to me to be just what Mr. Wehner is cautioning us against. You have selected the writings of a single anonymous person on the Internet as proof that 125 years of climate science must be false (that carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, the basis of the "greenhouse effect," was shown in the laboratory by John Tyndall in 1859, and the theory of global warming was proposed in 1896). Our own National Academy of Sciences, established by Abraham Lincoln, has called human caused climate change a "settled fact." President Johnson was warned about climate change by his Science Advisory Panel in 1965. It is not a consensus of opinion, but rather a consensus of evidence. n nI don't believe all the horror stories I read, and I wish many people talking on both sides would pause and take a deep breath. But the basic physics of the problem is absolutely unyielding.
Great article. Having ignored politics for three quarters of my life (I'm 44), it is strange to see that a great many people seem to be unable to compartmentalise their political ideology from their understanding of the rest of the world. n nBefore any policy considerations there is a universe of wonders in the critical and creative thinking, problem solving, data procurement, methodologies and results that are the narrative of science (climate science or any other). If I had the skill to persuade, I would bend a lot of effort to kindling in people a curiosity for science for its own sake. n nAny policy discussion must be well-grounded in the science, but you cannot get a good grounding in the science if your political predilections determine the scope of your enquiry. Credit to Peter Wehner for flagging this and speaking reasonably about the issue from a (US) conservative point of view.
No need to argue the graphs. If you can accept that Earth has an atmosphere that allows for life. If you can accept the 19thC science that CO2 & water vapour are the principle agents in sustaining a temperate atmosphere that allows life to flourish. Distinguishing Earth from our neighbours Mars or Venus you can work the rest out for yourself. Coal & Oil are stores of Carbon laid down over geological time that human creativity has found a way to use for productive work. Basically we burn both coal & oil to transform the stored Carbon into energy we control. Next time you jump in the SUV to go to work think stored energy in the tank gets burnt in the engine to produce energy to move the vehicle plus exhaust gases out the back. Every other vehicle you see on the Freeway is also pumping exhaust gases out the back and have been doing since before Henry Ford. What's in those gases and where do they go. Principally CO2
Physics trumps politics no more than politics trumps physics. The line that politics is some childish game while science is about the real world is one of those claims that looks good on the surface but collapses upon close examination. I certainly would not say myself that the Declaration of Independence is "trite" compared to chemistry, biology or physics. Nor would I say that the terrible carnage created by the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century resulted from "children playing in the sand-pit." Scientific philistinism is no more attractive than any other variety of know-nothingism. n nIf you think that climate change is a problem requiring action on a global scale, then you've inserted yourself into the political process. Welcome to the sand-pit.
Interesting perspective, Glenn. n nIt seems to me that the geophysics can explain and describe the problem, and even suggest some solutions, but doesn't have much to offer in terms how to build the political will to get it done. n nWhen it comes to motivating people, we have to turn to communication, relationships and all the "stuff" of social science. n nNo?
Again should you decide to listen which is what the jist of this article is, the explanation of the present temperature of the earth is entirely based on the green house gases and the sun. If science isn't your thing, it may hard for you to see clearly based on your distrust of the science. I don't have this memorized as the others have on here. The temperature of the earth varies mostly due to the content of ghg's mixed with the cooling agents. The ghg's are the most dominant in the long run.