Quote of the day
It turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict. Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists. These are a toxic brew of retired physicists, TV weather forecasters, political junkies, media hacks, and anyone else willing to tell an interviewer that he/she is a climate scientist. Typically, they have examined some of the more easily digestible evidence and, like good trial lawyers, cherry-pick that which suits their agendas while attacking or ignoring the rest. Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique. -Kerry Emanuel
Scientists have to be right 100% of the time
Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative–See! The global warming story is falling apart!–to be reinforced by the media. It doesn’t matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can’t be retreating because each year it comes back a little… in winter.
That is the problem we face in clearly communicating the science. If climate scientists make just one mistake (even one that means that the effects of climate change will be worse), it is taken as proof that global warming is a sham.
Deniers, on the other hand, present a stream of demonstrable false, even contradictory claims, and yet the get a pass in the media. Not only that they continue to repeated falsehoods long after they have been refuted. They have zero accountability for the claims they make, and the media not only gives them a pass, but presents their contradictory talking points them as a genuine alternative ‘in the debate”.
To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic “balance” is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It’s plainly inappropriate. But it stubbornly persists nonetheless.
This false balance is not only reprehensible, it represents a serious impediment in our ability to create effective policy to deal with real problems in areas where there are vested special interests opposed to such policy. The question is how do we overcome it?
(h/t Deltoid)
Sea-level rise predictions since the IPCC
It is well known that the IPCC projections for sea-level rise are low. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the main reason is the fact that the IPCC basically ignore sea-level rise contributions from the melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets:
Quote of the day
Debates are extremely useful for discussing matters that require human judgement. But pointless for establishing what is true of the physical world… If anyone wants to debate the existence or seriousness of anthropogenic climate change, I’d give the same response as I would if they wanted to debate the existence or strength of gravity. –Steve Easterbrook
Errors in the IPCC and perspective
It was inevitable. The IPCC AR4 is over 3000 pages long, there are bound to be some errors contained within. But some perspective is needed when they are found; jumping to the conclusion that any error in the IPCC is proof that climate science is bunk, or that global warming is a sham is absurd.
An illustration of the climate change debate, part 2
Michael Tobis has elaborated on what his illustration of the climate change debate means.
Why the fairness doctrine is a stupendously bad idea
Just in case you still weren’t convinced:
An illustration of the climate change debate
Is it any wonder why a disconnect exists between the public and the scientific positions in regards to climate change?
Graph created by Michael Tobis
The horizontal axis above refers to an unconstrained emissions (“business as usual”) scenario. The vertical axis is roughly proportional to the probability of finding that an expert’s opinion is matched at that point on the axis.
