Another “Death blow” to Climate Science? Soo-prahz! Turns Out it’s a Crock…
Click for Larger
Soo-prahz, soo-prahz, soo-prahz.
“Death Blows” and “Final nails in the coffin” of climate science show up in my inbox as regularly as emails from nigerian princes.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm.
Conservative media are grossly distorting a recent study on aerosols’ climate impact as a “death blow to global warming hysteria.” But the study’s author himself stated in response that his research does not contradict the scientific consensus on global warming.
A recent study provided new estimates for the rate at which aerosols — tiny particles of matter suspended in the atmosphere – deflect the sun’s rays, measuring what is known as aerosol “radiative forcing.” The study from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which analyzed data from 1850 to 1950, found that the level of radiative forcing from aerosols is “less negative” than commonly believed, suggesting that aerosols do not cool the atmosphere as much as previously thought.
According to right-wing media, the study represents a “death blow to global warming hysteria.” The reasoning behind the claim, which originated in a Cato Institute blog post, is that climate models rely on aerosols to offset much of the projected greenhouse gas effect from carbon dioxide. So if aerosols offset less warming than commonly believed, Cato claims “the amount of greenhouse gas-induced warming must also be less” and “we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting.” The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones’ Infowars, Investors’ Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh. Daily Caller even claimed that the recent study directly disputes the scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writing: “Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.”
Note: the blog post in question was penned by Pat Michaels, notorious tool of fossil fuel interests, see here:
Media Matters again, below:
But the study does nothing to dispute the scientific consensus on global warming, according to the study’s author himself. In response to media outlets using his study to make inference’s about the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide, climate scientist Bjorn Stevens published a statement on the Max Planck Institute’s website, debunking the notion that human-induced climate change is “called into question” by his study. He also wrote that his estimates of aerosol radiative forcing are “within the range” of the IPCC’s previous findings (which he actually co-authored), and that “I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously.” From Stevens’ statement:
Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth’s surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.
[…]
[E]ven a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.
[…]
So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.
Unsurprisingly, none of the right-wing outlets contacted Stevens before promoting his report as a “death blow” to climate science, which Stevens confirmed in an email to Media Matters. Instead, they relied on the dubious claims of climate-denying bloggers who distort science to fit their agenda, without bothering to understand the science itself.
This is not the first time right-wing media have distorted a scientist’s research to fit their narrative that global warming is nothing to worry about. One outlet that has been particularly guilty of misrepresenting science is the Daily Caller, whose flubs have been debunked by scientists time and time again, for journalistic malpractice such as “cherry picking” numbers to claim that penguins aren’t being harmed by climate change and publishing “a complete distortion” of a study in order to claim that global warming is “increasing biodiversity.”
To watch Pat Michaels get well and truly trashed in front of a congressional panel, by climate scientist Ben Santer, see here.
I hope scientists can one day identify the mysterious substance that permeates their collective consciousness and put it to good use.
Perhaps, phlogiston?
They certainly all seem to catch fire when someone gives a glimmer of hope that it’s alright for them to keep throwing CO2 & pollutants into the air without fear of catastrophe.
I came across links to the lowered ECS calculations supposedly based on Dr Stevens work on geek site Slashdot, of all places, over a week ago.
I believe Clive Best is to be credited with setting the deniers on fire.
Interestingly, he was apparently present at a week-long conference that was chaired by Dr Stevens, where the good doctor held a talk on why he thought that ECS estimates below 2.0 deg C are very probably wrong.
So if an umbrella blocks less water we’re getting drier. I have got this story right don’t I? It’s not just too early in the morning for me to process what I’m reading is it?
A whole bunch of deniers have drawn the exact opposite conclusion to what a study says and are claiming victory. This is setting off my skepticism metres. There just isn’t that much dumb!
“The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones’ Infowars, Investors’ Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh”. WOW!
Five of the biggest names in the echo chamber-circular firing squad-parrot world of the right wing. What about Faux News? Have they no “opinion” on this?
I have known Patrick Michaels was a charlatan for a long time—-ever since the days of his being (NOT) the VA State Climatologist and reading about his lying and whoring for the fossil fuel interests on various climate blogs. But this exhibition before Congress is an eye-opener. Santer did a great job of destroying Michaels, and I can see why Santer would love to punch him out. I got the same feeling while watching, and it’s a good thing I’m not yet crazy enough to hop in the car and drive down to the Cato Institute and slap Michaels around myself—it’s only 30 minutes away (during non-rush hour).
An excellent commentary on Michaels and the “state climatologist” flap from 8+ years ago.
Hmmmmmm. Yes, now that all the frigid temps and snow brought to VA by AGW are finally going away, going by bike s a possibility. Of course, I will still leave some carbon footprint because I have to drive the first 15 miles to get to a bike trail that leads to DC—-riding on the roads here with the F-150’s, Rams, and Escalades and their cell-phone-distracted drivers is suicidal.
And going by bike would allow me to get into Cato by taking a package along and posing as a bike messenger . I could say I needed to personally hand the package to Michaels because it was full of $$$ from Exxon-Mobil to fund his “research”, and he had to sign for it personally. And while his greedy little eyes were focused on the package, I could……Hmmmmm.
Ha – he’s probably reading this blog and now anytime someone rides up on a bike with a backpack on he’s going to need a change of underwear 🙂
Loading...
The first time around in 2010 hen I watched all through each session, including the big barph from Ralph Hall at the start, probably who Inhofe modelled himself on.
There was also the barph from Dana Rohrabacher on dinosaur farts to Richard Alley during that same Committee hearing, which I think Peter has already linked to awhile back:
Most libertarians are complete hypocrites; they saw all they want is freedom & smaller government but what they really want is to be able to live without consequence.
You and MM are right about libertarians, although if you go far enough left around the political circle, you meet some libertarians coming around from the far right—-kind of an “anarchist” melange over there.
I spent many happy hours sparring with them on Bob Livingston’s Personal Liberty Digest. Handles like Real Americans and Patriots and Warriors and Freedom Lover, and most had IQ’s in the low 90’s at best—-anyone with a brain can juggle half a dozen of them with ease and keep them spitting. I finally got banned when I beat Bob Livingston’s brains in one time too many. He was once a VP candidate for the Libertarian Party, and about as smart as Dan Quayle.
A group of my local “libertarians” are presently engaged in fighting a proposed power line that would interfere with their FREEDOM to NOT look at transmission lines and towers. They are also screaming about how it would affect their PROPERTY VALUES negatively. They live in communities that are less than 10 years old, and the proliferation of such communities in the far fringes of the DC suburbs is what makes the new power lines necessary. Hypocrisy indeed!
It’s easy to see them that way, but that really comes off as a strawman position.
Probably a more nuanced view is that libertarians believe that when given the most freedom practical, that people acting in their rational self interest, will come up with the best (not perfect) solutions to problem, and that top down solutions that coerce (meaning laws) people to do or not do a thing, are either often misguided (unintentional consequences) or evil (corruption, power grabbing).
It’s an attractive idea if you believe that people will usually act rationally, but even that leads to the same kind of power grabbing and corruption in society once concentration of wealth and influence ‘trickle up’ to an elite relative few. And lack of regulation against those things leads to that situation more easily in my view.
The occurrence of AGW is widely seen as a free market failure and a tragedy of the commons problem that libertarians have to either bend over backward to explain away, or simply just deny that it exists (or outright lie about for ‘rational’ self interest).
It’s really interesting listening to a more moderate libertarian who tries to be fair (not fundamentalist), trying to discuss AGW. The cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning are almost palpable.
I have never met a “more moderate” libertarian, nor even a “moderate” one, and never one who “tried to be fair” about anything. In my experience, they have swallowed unfathomable quantities of the right wing Kool-aid and have NO idea that they are being used by the plutocracy and the corporations as foot soldiers in several psy-wars against various things, including some that are in their own interest to support—-regulation of corporations and wall street, mitigation of AGW, women’s and LGBT rights, voting rights, immigrants, steps to address income and wealth inequality. It would be entertaining to have them perform for us except that they are allowed to vote.
You have GOT to be kidding! With all the “big” issues we face (and try to deal with on Crock), you waste time correcting punctuation errors? And one that really doesn’t change the meaning of what Media Matters said? Why?
Everybody makes some mistakes. But credubility matters; carelessness in tyeping, speling, punctuation and grammer leave us open to the charge that we’re also careless in factual matters, and rightly so. When I see some bozo spelling 4 words wrong in a post and using “to” for “too” I get very wary of him or her as very likely unable to muster the discipline and intelligence to matter in any debate. This particular mistake is one of the easiest to do right and so a very good sign of education, smarts and prufreading. Wanna win this fight? Get it right.
So, in your attempt at “educating” us on proper composition by using humor, you have shown yourself to be a “bozo” and met your own definition as someone who is “very likely unable to muster the discipline and intelligence to matter in any debate”. I will ask again—-Why?
Actually, we’re not talking much science here—–that’s hard to do whenever Pat Michaels is involved, so we’re just playing around and making fun of him (and people like you). Thanks for stopping by and contributing an inane remark. I reminds me of others you have made on other sites. (My favorite is your chastising of Heartland for the Unabomber billboard because it detracted from their image as a “professional” orqanization—-LMAO)
I have to admire how quickly stories that purport to blow a hole in global warming alarmism propagate through the Denier Sphere.
I hope scientists can one day identify the mysterious substance that permeates their collective consciousness and put it to good use.
Perhaps, phlogiston?
They certainly all seem to catch fire when someone gives a glimmer of hope that it’s alright for them to keep throwing CO2 & pollutants into the air without fear of catastrophe.
I came across links to the lowered ECS calculations supposedly based on Dr Stevens work on geek site Slashdot, of all places, over a week ago.
I believe Clive Best is to be credited with setting the deniers on fire.
Interestingly, he was apparently present at a week-long conference that was chaired by Dr Stevens, where the good doctor held a talk on why he thought that ECS estimates below 2.0 deg C are very probably wrong.
So if an umbrella blocks less water we’re getting drier. I have got this story right don’t I? It’s not just too early in the morning for me to process what I’m reading is it?
A whole bunch of deniers have drawn the exact opposite conclusion to what a study says and are claiming victory. This is setting off my skepticism metres. There just isn’t that much dumb!
“The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones’ Infowars, Investors’ Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh”. WOW!
Five of the biggest names in the echo chamber-circular firing squad-parrot world of the right wing. What about Faux News? Have they no “opinion” on this?
I have known Patrick Michaels was a charlatan for a long time—-ever since the days of his being (NOT) the VA State Climatologist and reading about his lying and whoring for the fossil fuel interests on various climate blogs. But this exhibition before Congress is an eye-opener. Santer did a great job of destroying Michaels, and I can see why Santer would love to punch him out. I got the same feeling while watching, and it’s a good thing I’m not yet crazy enough to hop in the car and drive down to the Cato Institute and slap Michaels around myself—it’s only 30 minutes away (during non-rush hour).
An excellent commentary on Michaels and the “state climatologist” flap from 8+ years ago.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2006/10/01/pat-michaels-virginia-state-climatologist-a-critical-perspective-on-the-issues/
Don’t waste the fossil fuel to drive the 30 minutes… 😉
If I recall, D.O.G. does own a bike, and enjoys a good ride 🙂 soooooo….
Hmmmmmm. Yes, now that all the frigid temps and snow brought to VA by AGW are finally going away, going by bike s a possibility. Of course, I will still leave some carbon footprint because I have to drive the first 15 miles to get to a bike trail that leads to DC—-riding on the roads here with the F-150’s, Rams, and Escalades and their cell-phone-distracted drivers is suicidal.
And going by bike would allow me to get into Cato by taking a package along and posing as a bike messenger . I could say I needed to personally hand the package to Michaels because it was full of $$$ from Exxon-Mobil to fund his “research”, and he had to sign for it personally. And while his greedy little eyes were focused on the package, I could……Hmmmmm.
Ha – he’s probably reading this blog and now anytime someone rides up on a bike with a backpack on he’s going to need a change of underwear 🙂
The first time around in 2010 hen I watched all through each session, including the big barph from Ralph Hall at the start, probably who Inhofe modelled himself on.
There was also the barph from Dana Rohrabacher on dinosaur farts to Richard Alley during that same Committee hearing, which I think Peter has already linked to awhile back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
the late Rick Piltz put up a resume of the proceedings , I do have links to other sessions if interest.
It is interesting to compare the written testimony of Lindzen, Michaels and Curry with their oral.
Whatever, as Bob Inglis commented, ‘…it is on the record…’.
Libertarians were also picking this story up => http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/
Most libertarians are complete hypocrites; they saw all they want is freedom & smaller government but what they really want is to be able to live without consequence.
The principle (sometimes I think only) text of the libertarian gospel is “Sc**w” you, buddy, I’ve got mine.”
You and MM are right about libertarians, although if you go far enough left around the political circle, you meet some libertarians coming around from the far right—-kind of an “anarchist” melange over there.
I spent many happy hours sparring with them on Bob Livingston’s Personal Liberty Digest. Handles like Real Americans and Patriots and Warriors and Freedom Lover, and most had IQ’s in the low 90’s at best—-anyone with a brain can juggle half a dozen of them with ease and keep them spitting. I finally got banned when I beat Bob Livingston’s brains in one time too many. He was once a VP candidate for the Libertarian Party, and about as smart as Dan Quayle.
A group of my local “libertarians” are presently engaged in fighting a proposed power line that would interfere with their FREEDOM to NOT look at transmission lines and towers. They are also screaming about how it would affect their PROPERTY VALUES negatively. They live in communities that are less than 10 years old, and the proliferation of such communities in the far fringes of the DC suburbs is what makes the new power lines necessary. Hypocrisy indeed!
It’s easy to see them that way, but that really comes off as a strawman position.
Probably a more nuanced view is that libertarians believe that when given the most freedom practical, that people acting in their rational self interest, will come up with the best (not perfect) solutions to problem, and that top down solutions that coerce (meaning laws) people to do or not do a thing, are either often misguided (unintentional consequences) or evil (corruption, power grabbing).
It’s an attractive idea if you believe that people will usually act rationally, but even that leads to the same kind of power grabbing and corruption in society once concentration of wealth and influence ‘trickle up’ to an elite relative few. And lack of regulation against those things leads to that situation more easily in my view.
The occurrence of AGW is widely seen as a free market failure and a tragedy of the commons problem that libertarians have to either bend over backward to explain away, or simply just deny that it exists (or outright lie about for ‘rational’ self interest).
It’s really interesting listening to a more moderate libertarian who tries to be fair (not fundamentalist), trying to discuss AGW. The cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning are almost palpable.
I have never met a “more moderate” libertarian, nor even a “moderate” one, and never one who “tried to be fair” about anything. In my experience, they have swallowed unfathomable quantities of the right wing Kool-aid and have NO idea that they are being used by the plutocracy and the corporations as foot soldiers in several psy-wars against various things, including some that are in their own interest to support—-regulation of corporations and wall street, mitigation of AGW, women’s and LGBT rights, voting rights, immigrants, steps to address income and wealth inequality. It would be entertaining to have them perform for us except that they are allowed to vote.
“In response to media outlets using his study to make inference’s about…”
“inferences” is a simple plural. No apostrophe needed.
You have GOT to be kidding! With all the “big” issues we face (and try to deal with on Crock), you waste time correcting punctuation errors? And one that really doesn’t change the meaning of what Media Matters said? Why?
Everybody makes some mistakes. But credubility matters; carelessness in tyeping, speling, punctuation and grammer leave us open to the charge that we’re also careless in factual matters, and rightly so. When I see some bozo spelling 4 words wrong in a post and using “to” for “too” I get very wary of him or her as very likely unable to muster the discipline and intelligence to matter in any debate. This particular mistake is one of the easiest to do right and so a very good sign of education, smarts and prufreading. Wanna win this fight? Get it right.
So, in your attempt at “educating” us on proper composition by using humor, you have shown yourself to be a “bozo” and met your own definition as someone who is “very likely unable to muster the discipline and intelligence to matter in any debate”. I will ask again—-Why?
Your first day on the internet?
Enjoying all of the insightful scientific discussion here.
great to hear
Actually, we’re not talking much science here—–that’s hard to do whenever Pat Michaels is involved, so we’re just playing around and making fun of him (and people like you). Thanks for stopping by and contributing an inane remark. I reminds me of others you have made on other sites. (My favorite is your chastising of Heartland for the Unabomber billboard because it detracted from their image as a “professional” orqanization—-LMAO)