Lukewarmers, Denialists, and Other Climate Change Skeptics

Reason ^ | July 5, 2011 | Ronald Bailey

[neverdem]

Impressions and reporting from the Sixth International Climate Change Conference

Climate change politics is very nasty. So nasty, in fact, that the mud started flying even before the start of last week's Sixth International Climate Change Conference (ICCC6) in Washington, D.C. Hosted by the free market Heartland Institute, the conference gathers the world's climate change skeptics and their heterodox friends—and controversy reliably ensues.

The Prebuttal

The day before the conference started, the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) arranged to have a media teleconference [MP3] as a kind of pre-emptive strike. The CAP teleconferencers included Joseph Romm who runs CAP’s climate blog, Pacific Institute hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick, and former House Science Committee chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). Romm characterized the ICCC6 as part of “a dwindling number of increasingly vocal people who spread disinformation on climate science and who attack and harass climate scientists.”

Romm then cited a June 28 statement of concern issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which deplored the “harassment, death threats, and legal challenges” being faced by some climate scientists. The AAAS specifically mentioned recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiries about the work done by climatologist Michael Mann, the principle scientist behind the “hockey stick” paleoclimate data suggesting a dramatic recent rise in average global temperatures. The AAAS letter concludes, “We are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.” I agree.

At the ICCC6, I mentioned the AAAS letter to climatologist Patrick Michaels, who is now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Michaels puckishly replied that he was happy to...

[Jack Hammer]

All this man-made climate change folderol has clearly spawned an entire generation of scientists who are so wedded to fat government grants and all the other, related perks that spreading the delusion that mankind has somehow managed to upset the entire planet’s climate has become a garden industry.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx for the ping SunkenCiv!

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Incorrigible]

Bump

[LibLieSlayer]

Climate mafia meeting... where is the FBI and the RICO ACT?

LLS

[KarlInOhio]

All this man-made climate change folderol has clearly spawned an entire generation of scientists who are so wedded to fat government grants and all the other, related perks

President Eisenhower noted this in his farewell address (which does include much more than the warning about a military-industrial complex).

In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

[BfloGuy]

Excellent post. Thanks.

It was very interesting to hear from the "luke-warmers" -- scientists who believe that CO2 emissions do have a warming effect, but who aren't screaming that the sky is falling.

[Jack Hammer]

Nice catch; you must have a near-photographic memory.

[palmer]

I am one of those lukewarmers, and have been for many years. When I first studied it in the 90's I figured we were in a natural uptick in temperature and it turned out we were. But underneath the natural fluctuations is a fairly steady rise of perhaps 0.1C per decade (1C per century). It shows up pretty nicely in the satellite record:

That kind of steady rise is nothing to worry about. For one thing it is unlikely the feedbacks will increase with temperature since increased water vapor, particularly when the increase in uneven, leads to cooling. The great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica might melt a bit but at such a slow rate that sea level rise might go from today's 1 inch per decade to a few inches per decade. That kind of rise is easy to handle.

Also "extreme" weather may increase (or some types may decrease as climate models suggest) but we have to be prepared for extreme weather regardless of any changes in climate since it happens all the time. The best case for extreme weather is probably severe rainfall. So that means more dams and a change in policy which currently keeps dams full for environmental or recreational reasons.

So sea level rise is a nonissue and extreme weather is a constant that we ignore at our peril. What else should we worry about? Warmer winters (lower heating costs)? Increased plant growth? Some people make a case for CO2 lowering the pH of the ocean. But ocean pH varies widely naturally now, so I don't think that's much of a problem either.

[neverdem]

These are the good guys, not the moonbats.

[Publius6961]

Bookmark

[LibLieSlayer]

Thank you... good guys in this are so very rare I did not recognize them.

LLS