Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.
Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D.
Distinguished Senior Scientist
Climate Analysis Section National Center for Atmospheric Research
La Jolla, Calif.
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University
Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington
Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana
Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation
Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior’s Climate Science Center at Colorado State University
Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia
Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois
Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK
Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire
David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia
Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia
William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University
Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT
Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK
Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany
Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine
Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France
As it happens I’m an advocate for public-transport-only cities. Does that count?
Yes. That is very good.
Martin – the SkS graph is from 2005, Trenberth’s text is a Letter to the Editor and you’re cluelessly consistent.
Yet again, Maurizio, you appear to forger that insults are no substitute for logic or facts. The fact that the SkS Figure is 7 years old means that we have wasted 7 years in prevarication and that the costs are actually much greater than those then predicted.
However, I take it then from prokaryotes’ earlier comment (about the letter being hidden on [this] website) that the WSJ are continuing not to publish any rebuttals to their misinformation (or is the letter posted here and the letter signed by over 250 scientists one and the same thing)?
I was still confused at this point (see earlier)
Martin – that’s the problem with SkS. They trot out an old picture based on who knows what and we’re supposed to take it as Definitive and Incontrovertible Truth. Oh please.
I am inclined to defer to jasonpettitt who has, I think, nailed your position on all of this. Can you tell me – clearly and simply – why the people behind SkS are supposedly lying to us? No you cannot; and you cannot disprove the assertion that it is instead the fossil fuel lobby that are lying to anyone who will listen.
You are in a blatant flight from the reality that the vast majority of people best placed to judge are very confident we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe; and your only response is to say, “maybe they’re all wrong”. Well maybe they are; but I’d sooner bet that the world will end on 21 December 2012…
This is utter madness; and a man with your self-evident intelligence and elevated education ought to know it. Sadly, I think you are like Oscar Wilde’s archetypal economist “who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing”. Fortunately, more and more people are refusing to buy into your fanciful optimism (dressed up as pragmatic non-decision making).
Jason – defining people having a different opinion as “trolls” is a tad too fascistic to bring you any good. Anyway…can you tell me what “bad policy” I’m advocating? I thought my opinion were that we should do what is good no matter what happens to the climate, work towards making all of us adaptable and keep in mind freedoms come before everything (as long as they stop where somebody else’s freedoms start). But you sound like you know more about me than I do. Thanks.
I guess we have a different ‘opinion’ on what fascism means too. I prefer the dictionary ‘opinion’. I’ll leave it to other folks to wonder whether trying to repeatedly reframe the discussion to an argument about the words ‘panic’ and ‘drastic’ and baiting tactics such as “assuming you’re not advocating panic, what *drastic* measures would you like to see implemented…” constitutes trolling or not.
If I minded you actually holding a different opinion I’d say so.
But prey tell, do you really think good policy decisions are likely to result if the information you base your policy making upon consists of cherry picking data, on assessing the colour of CO2 rather than it’s potency as a greenhouse gas, misreading IPCC projections and deciding that your children are worth less than you are – all as espoused in the Op Ed article you are defending.
Think hard.
Martin- I don’t have to show Sks as liars. They look at the same data I look at and we interpret it slightly differently. The problem is that they (like others here and elsewhere) cannot fathom differences of opinions don’t imply dishonesty. Plus of course the constant search for an enemy to shoot down rather than a solution to the problem.
No Maurizio, that will not do. Jason may just think you are being spuriously argumentative but, I believe, you have n sowhown yourself to be just another believer in the marketplace of ideas, which is simply illogical and intellectually bankrupt.
SkS put forward their interpretation of all the data with the benefit of the collective wisdom of that 97% of relevantly qualified scientists you so detest people mentioning. You, on the other hand, are a self-appointed non-scientist; who demands the right to second-guess the judgement of the majority of genuine experts. However, you do not have any right to “interpret it differently”; you are not qualified to have a valid opinion because you are not a climate scientist: You need to get over yourself in a very big way.
You may be well-educated and you may well be highly-intellectual but, as I am sure I have referred to Professor Barry Bickmore before, you are no Galileo.
You are like a chiwawa yapping at the heels of a doberman pincher: You are an annoying distraction; but your arguments are ultimately completely devoid of any scientific rigour, merit, or legitimacy. So, I’m sorry but, this “debate” is over; but feel free to continue pissing in the wind…
Martin – whom do I detest, exactly, and where and when the hell did I ever express any such feeling???
I said you detest people (i.e. anybody) mentioning the 97% figure; but what I meant was is that you never accept its legitimacy. I think you knew this; but are once again dodging the issue (i.e. the rest of what I said).
However, when I said, “the ‘debate’ is over”, what I meant was, given that neither you nor I ever seem to say anything new, I am not prepared to waste any more time debating the same things with you.
I always refer to genuine authority; whereas you always refer to a greater authority – namely yourself: In response to my assertion that 1+1=2, you invariably say in effect “it might not be”. This is patently ridiculous; and is a complete waste of time.
It is for these reasons that my debate with you has now come to an end. However, you will undoubtedly continue your mass-debating with others.
Jason- fascists are those who define the world as us-vs-them putting people in “bundles”. Of course they can’t tolerate the “others” (Italian history having shown the world the archetype of fascism, with not so much killings, rather public humiliation and beating of opponents) . That’s exactly what people try to do when labeling “trolls” those who dare showing they don’t belong to their “bundle”. So once again stay away from it and reserve “troll” to anybody swashbuckling around looking for a flamewar.
As for cherrypicking it’s rather naive to think it comes from a single side of a political (or even scientific) debate. The best we can hope is not to cherrypick too much or too often. Anyway by definition all our policy choices are therefore wrong/badly footed.
That’s why democracy with its free exchange of ideas is important, so that everybody’s biases cancel each other out as much as possible.
I know it’s common in contemporary politics especially in the USA to pretend one’s side is right and the other’s wrong but I would have hoped the experience of WWI would have taught us one thing or to.
That’s the dumbest definition of ‘fascism’ I’ve ever read, and that’s saying something. Fascism is an important word. You shouldn’t abuse it.
What’s is even more naive is to think that the truth must always lie in the middle between two extremes. The truth is the truth. One side of the so-called ‘debate’ is a consensus of nearly every single qualified scientist, and virtually every prestigious scientific organization in the world. On the other side are a few cranks, and a consortium of proven obfuscators and outright liars who either paid by the fossil fuel industry or are demonstrated ideologues.
The cherry-picking and polemical argument from the deniers is a matter of record. Your equivocation of the two sides of this issue is sophistry, nothing less.
Every post you make here diminishes your reputation even further even as it asymptotes toward zero.
fascism as defined
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Peter- Fascism was invented in Italy. It actually might have been inadvertently invented by Pope Leo XIII and his idea of solving the class war by promoting co-operation between different parts of society, but that’s another story.
Anyway…the point of FASCism is in the “fasces” or bundles, both as symbols of power (that’s why they have been so widely used in the USA as well) and as symbols of unity among the Fascists wrt real or imagined Enemies (something originally specific to the Fascist movement in Italy – look for “Fascio” on wikipedia, I can’t add another link otherwise the comment goes into automated moderation). In fact the Italian Parliament was transformed at the time into a Guilds Chamber, where each Guild was mandated to co-operate with all others.
Britt’s definition of what Fascism has meant during various parts of the XX century is perfectly compatible with the fact that a worldview of we-good-you-bad is fascistic in nature. I’d say, of course if my side detains the Truth, cronyism and corruption will follow. Likewise for all other points described by Britt.
This doesn’t mean that calling people “trolls” because they have a different opinion makes anybody a Suharto. This “only” means we should be careful of following the initial seed of the Suhartos and Mussolinis of this world. But I understand not everybody gets this point. A hundred years ago, they all claimed they had God on their side before killings thousands in the First World War.
I can’t help but think that the etymology of the word Fascisim is entirely moot, because I accused you of trolling not for having an opinion, but for the silly hectoring style which you adopted to repeatedly push your opinion into the conversation, despite it really having very little to do with the arguments or topics at hand.
Though it does occur that by your slightly tortured definition calling me a fascist is, in itself, fascist.
Not sure Jason…we discuss an article with PANIC in the title and DRASTIC in the text, and you are upset about me wanting to talk about PANIC and DRASTIC. Eh?
Yes, we’ve been through this twice already Maurizio. Picking out two words from an article isn’t obviously representative of the whole thing, or even very much of it. Especially when the whole thing entirely fails to mention anything panicky of drastic and it’s only use of them is to try and make a fallacious argument.
I’m sure you think fallacious arguments are big and clever – but I think your on your own there.
I’m off to bed old bean. Sleep tight.
Maurizio
I think the definitions of fascism above fit the current republican party very well.
Eheheh…good one Peter!
Is that all you can say is ‘good one’? The truth IS- the GOP has fallen into the gutter politics of right wing extremism that Nelson Rockefeller warned of at the GOP convention in 1960.
Oops…I keep forgetting your ownership of The Truth. Amen to that.
I think it was 1964
“Rockefeller:
–Its danger to the party and its danger to the nation. The methods of these extremist elements, I have experienced first hand. [Crowd boos.] That’s right. Their tactics have ranged from cancellation by coercion of a speaking engagement before a college to outright threats of personal violence….Crowd boos….
Some of you don’t like to hear it ladies and gentlemen, but it’s the truth. These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror…There is no place in this Republican party…for such hawkers of hate, such purveyors of prejudice, such fabricators of fear. [Crowd boos.] Whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Birchers! [Crowd boos and begins continuous cheer of “We want Barry!] There is no place in this Republican Party for those who would infiltrate its ranks, distort its aims and convert it into a cloak of apparent respectability for a dangerous extremism. And make no mistake about it, the hidden members of the John Birch Society and other like them are out to do just that.
Chair:
Your time, Mr. Rockefeller, has expired.