Year 2, Month 10, Day 25: But They Say There’s A Hell. What The Hell. What The Hell Do They Think This Is? Do They Think About That?

The October 21 Irish Times also reports on the Richard Muller study:

An analysis of 1.6 billion temperature records dating as far back as 1800 gave results that are similar to data series by the British Met Office, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature said in a report published today.

“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously,” the project’s founder, Richard Muller, said in a statement. “This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

The project was established to try to produce a definitive temperature series after climate sceptics – including US senator James Inhofe – said leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia showed data were manipulated. The British school helps compile the Met Office temperature series.

Three inquiries into the contents of the leaked e-mails found scientists hadn’t manipulated data, though they had tried to avoid disclosing data.

Wonder what Inhofe will say about this? Sent October 21:

We can be glad that the team of scientists from the University of California has verified the data on Earth’s rising temperature, but if the best news we’ve got is that some formerly doubting researchers are now convinced that important data on climate change really and truly wasn’t fabricated, things have gotten pretty grim. Those scientific skeptics may have been well-intentioned, but their stance has been adopted by conservative ideologues in American politics as an excuse for inaction — and by the complacent American news media as a way to avoid doing actual journalistic work. The UC study was commissioned by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, who have been supporting climate-change denialists for many years, and who must be terribly disappointed by these results.

This is a crisis of the utmost urgency; only a commitment to genuine action from the world’s political leaders would constitute genuinely good news.

I will award one free Internet to anyone who can identify the provenance of this post’s title.

Year 2, Month 10, Day 24: I Pity The Fool

Erstwhile climate skeptic Dr. Richard Muller is changing his tune for the second time this year, reports the LA Times:

Remember when scientists who had cast doubt on global temperature studies boldly embarked on an effort to “reconsider” the evidence?

They have. And they conclude that their doubt was misplaced.

UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller and others were looking at the so-called urban heat island effect — the notion that because more urban temperature stations are included in global temperature data sets than are rural ones, the global average temperature was being skewed upward because these sites tend to retain more heat. Hence, global warming trends are exaggerated.

Using data from such urban heat islands as Tokyo, they hypothesized, could introduce “a severe warming bias in global averages using urban stations.”

In fact, the data trend was “opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.”

Researchers conclude that “[t]he trend analysis also supports the view that the spurious contribution of urban heating to the global average, if present, is not a strong effect; this agrees with the conclusions in the literature that we cited previously.”

The literature they cite is the basis for the conclusion that the Earth has been warming in an unnatural way during the period of human industrialization.

There is another version of this news published by the Wall Street Journal. The comments demonstrate the nut of my letter exactly. Sent October 20:

When scientists change their minds, it means they’ve learned something new and important. This would appear to be the case with Dr. Richard Muller, the no-longer-skeptical physicist from the University of California.

When ideologically driven politicians change their minds, on the other hand, it means they are trying to avoid learning something new. We now have the opportunity to watch this happen in real time, as conservative Republicans who have in the past regarded Muller as an important authority (because of his contrarian climate-change stance) will now rush to rebrand him as a liberal hippie treehugger whose opinions are irrelevant and unrealistic.

Having their most heartfelt beliefs continually undercut by inconvenient facts must be terribly difficult for conservatives. The GOP’s climate-denial cohort must be feeling terribly betrayed by Muller’s act of intellectual honesty. It almost makes one feel sorry for them.

Almost.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 10, Day 23: Governor Canute?

The Iowa State Daily, a college paper, comments on Rick Perry’s denial industry:

It is a sad time we live in when scientific findings are censored and silenced in favor of personal or political biases. This cannot be more apparent than in the recent example of Texan officials doing some unofficial editing of a environmental report.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has a contract with the Houston Advanced Research Center to report on the state of Galveston Bay, but their recent paper was apparently too full of references to climate change, destruction of wetlands or sea level to pass muster.

It’s probably not surprising, really, considering that the TCEQ has several top officials appointed by Rick Perry, who shares similar views on climate change.

This is a rehash of a number of earlier letters on similar themes. It’s too bad that this material continues to be relevant and useful. Sent October 19:

It was during the Bush presidency’s boom years that an unnamed administration official mocked journalist Ron Suskind as a member of the “reality-based community.” The aide went on to say that America was an empire, “and when we act, we create our own reality.” Of course, reality-based reality eventually caught up with the previous president and his team, most notably in the form of Hurricane Katrina and in the utter failure to find the Iraqi WMDs we were assured were there.

But the Republican party’s political experts still believe that troublesome facts can be negated with the right combination of photo opportunities, obfuscation, and stout denial. Maybe so, in the surreal world of electoral politics.

In the reality-based world, however, no amount of bluster can stop the rising sea levels in Galveston Bay, and denying ideologically inconvenient data can never be the foundation of good policy or good government.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 10, Day 22: Today Is The Tomorrow You Worried About Yesterday

The Columbus, Indiana “Republic” runs an AP article on the censorship of climate science in Texas:

GALVESTON, Texas — A Rice University oceanographer says the state’s environmental agency is refusing to publish his research article on a Texas bay unless he agrees to delete key references to rising sea levels and human involvement in climate change.

Professor John Anderson has declined the proposed edits by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, calling the changes to a report on Galveston Bay “censorship” and an attempt to mislead the public.

Consequently, the state agency said it will remove Anderson’s article, which deals with long-term sea level rise and mentions manmade climate change, which commissioners have publicly questioned in the past.

Republicans are the hardest Sapir-Whorfians of us all. If there are no words for the problem, there is no problem. Presto! Sent October 18:

It is an axiom of many politicians that many difficult problems are easily solved by eliminating them from the historical record. Military records and embarrassing photographs can be destroyed or made to vanish; statements are rendered “inoperative”; actions can simply be firmly denied. A compliant media enables this behavior by fostering a simulacrum of journalism in which the presentation of two divergent opinions is considered “objective.”

But when policy is based on science, absolute veracity is essential. The recent censorship of climate scientists’ work in an oceanographic report on Galveston Bay is a case in point.

Climate-change denial may be electorally convenient for Texan lawmakers, but rejecting actual measurements and analysis when they don’t fit a preset ideology is both unethical and stupid. Rising ocean levels aren’t Republican or Democratic; the greenhouse effect is neither conservative nor liberal.

Those who politicize scientific research destroy the value of both politics and science.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 26: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

The Sept. 22 edition of the Cypress Times (TX) notes the idiotic readiness of conservative voters to reject climate change and evolution in one fell swoop:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—While nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Americans believe there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, and nearly 6-in-10 (57%) Americans believe humans and other living things evolved over time, a new survey finds that approximately half of Americans who identify with the Tea Party reject both (50% reject global warming and 51% reject evolution).

The new PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey was conducted by Public Religion Research Institute, in partnership with the Religion News Service, amid back and forth among Republican presidential candidates on religion and science, especially the issues of climate change and evolution.

I guess I just felt like lecturing them a bit on how dumb they’re being. Note the Old-Testament metaphor in my final sentence. Sent Sept. 22:

That many Republican primary voters enthusiastically repudiate evolutionary theory and global climate change is a sad indicator of the state of education in America. These same voters are perfectly ready to endorse scientific results when they’re ideologically neutral — just ask any “tea-party” member to give up antibiotics, chest x-rays, air travel, telephones or the internal combustion engine and see how far you’ll get. It’s also acceptable when science is used to support conservative policy objectives, as in the application of the latest and most advanced war-making technology — all developed by researchers applying the scientific method.

This method — the testing of falsifiable hypotheses — has created an understanding of the world overwhelmingly more accurate than any other in human history. To reject scientific results when they’re ideologically inconvenient — as in the case of climate denialists — is to bow before the golden calf of willful ignorance.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 11: I Didn’t Feel Like Writing Today, But I Did Anyway. So?

The Evansville IN Courier-Press runs a carefully neutral assessment of the state of scientific opinion on climate change and extreme weather:

The destruction wrought by Hurricane Irene has sparked another round of debate over global climate change, with believers advocating urgent action to address what they fear is a looming environmental catastrophe and doubters characterizing the issue as a hoax created to promote a political agenda.

And it is emerging as a major political issue, with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, leading in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, counting himself among those who doubt that burning fossil fuels has an impact on the earth’s climate.

“I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question,” Perry said during a stop in New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary.

While a vast majority of climate scientists readily acknowledge that man is contributing to what they perceive as a problem by producing greenhouse gases, few at this stage are willing to declare that global climate change is leading to an increased frequency in hurricanes like Irene, although they don’t dismiss the possibility.

The comments include a great deal of idiocy. Sigh. This letter was written with multiple delays and a great drooping lack of motivation. But By Grabthar’s Hammer, I wrote it and sent it on September 8, whether I’m proud of it or not. Here you go:

America has a science problem. The overall level of scientific literacy in our country is shockingly low, a state of affairs that bodes ill not only for our country’s future, but that of the world as a whole. Nowhere is this more problematic than in reporting on climate change, a profoundly important issue for our species’ future. When scientists discuss the relationship between large-scale phenomena (like the greenhouse effect) and local events (a particular storm or some other form of extreme weather), they’ll use careful language that describes the relationship precisely, minimizing its emotional impact. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of climatologists are absolutely convinced that anthropogenic climate change will bring a drastic worldwide increase in extreme weather events — and that only rapid action can avert catastrophe. When news media give equal weight to the opinions of a few contrarians, it is both scientifically ignorant and deeply irresponsible.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 10: How’s That Pray-For-Rain Thing Working Out?

Anne MacQuarie has an excellent op-ed in the September 7 issue of the Carson City-based Nevada Appeal. It’s great:

…it’s been interesting to watch the Republican presidential candidates refine — if I can use that word for so blundering a process — their views on climate change.

Current wisdom — backed by some polls — is that the Republican base thinks human-caused climate change is a bunch of hooey and that we can’t do anything about it anyway. Candidates are falling all over themselves to, instead of lead, agree. Here’s a rundown of some of the candidates’ views, including current frontrunners Perry and Bachman.

Rick Perry believes “the issue of global warming has been politicized” and “scientists have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects.”

Regarding doing anything at all to alleviate or halt climate change, Perry says he doesn’t want America “to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

It’s a fine thing to be able to slap Rick Perry around a bit. He must never be allowed anywhere near national governance. Think Bush was a disaster? Perry will make us nostalgic for Dubya. Sent Sept. 7:

When Republican politicians discuss climate change, the projection is thick on the ground. Rick Perry’s assertion that scientists have manipulated data for financial gain offers a window into the mindset of people who’ve specialized in greed-driven data-manipulation for years. These are the same folks who cherry-picked intelligence to sell the American public an unnecessary (albeit profitable) war, remember? That they ascribe the same motives to others should be no surprise.

Scientific method is the best tool we have yet found for arriving at verifiable truth in reporting and analysis. While there are unethical scientists who are driven by pecuniary motives, they are a decided minority; most researchers are propelled by intellectual curiosity — a state of mind completely foreign to the GOP mindset.

Let’s agree, however, that there are some climate scientists who are decidedly guilty of data manipulation for personal gain. They’re on big oil’s payroll.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 8, Day 26: King Canute Redux

The August 7 Sacramento Bee (CA) describes the importance of computer modeling in the future of climate science, and notes that a certain group of political types don’t like the idea:

Better computers should help with the difficult climate problem of clouds, which interfere with energy flow between the Earth and the sun in two ways, Kinter said. They reflect some of the sun’s energy back to space, a cooling effect, but also absorb and send back some energy the Earth emits, a warming effect.

Computers also are used to simulate how particles known as aerosols scatter or absorb heat in different ways, and how they interact with clouds.

Thousands of scientists around the world are working on better climate models. Kinter and his group focus on how predictable extreme events such as floods, droughts and heat waves will be as the climate changes.

(snip)

“Almost overnight, the question changed to ‘What is the impact of this climate change on our human and natural systems?’ ” said Lawrence Buja, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “We need to (present) as convincing a case as we can.”

But in the latest sign of distrust for computer models, House Republicans put a provision in a foreign aid bill to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Naturally. Psychopaths, all of ’em. Sent August 8:

Has there ever been a major political party in America that has been so loud and proud about not being based in reality? It’s not just computer models that Republicans distrust, it’s any and all forms of verifiable information and research, as witness the anti-factual bias of Fox News, the GOP’s house media organ.

The climate crisis is real, growing and extremely urgent. The long-term consequences of a runaway greenhouse effect are far more significant globally than any other so-called “security” issue (an assessment with which Army and CIA analysts concur). Yet conservatives continue claiming the problem doesn’t exist. Of course, once the evidence finally overwhelms them, they’ll start yelling that “free-market solutions” (along with tax breaks for the very wealthy) are the only way out. My question: why would anyone want advice from people so hubristic they claim to be exempt from the laws of physics and chemistry?

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 8, Day 25: Cockroaches and Grasses?

More on the “Prairie grasses will do okay” story, this time from the August 7 Colorodoan, and featuring the researcher in charge describing his methodology. It’s pretty interesting:

CHEYENNE — On the plains west of here Thursday, plant physiologist Jack Morgan inspected some grasses growing on a plot surrounded by a hollow hoop beneath an array of small heaters suspended from metal rods.

“Can you hear the hissing sound?” he said. “That’s the sound of the CO2 being emitted. It does it at a controlled rate, and we measure it in the middle of that ring.”

What Morgan, a rangeland scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Fort Collins, really is measuring is how rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as a result of climate change might alter how grasses and weeds grow in the western Great Plains – critical information for ranchers and cattle owners who could see their businesses reshaped by climate change.

There are, alas, negative consequences to positive consequences. Hence this letter, sent August 7:

Jack Morgan and his research team are offering something rare: a positive side-effect of climate change. While their findings of plant resilience are very welcome, it’s important to keep a sense of the larger picture. Increased drought resistance is crucial on a climatically altered planet, because there’ll be more droughts — along with more extreme weather of all sorts. The prognosis for Earth’s environment over the next millennia is pretty grim; extreme losses of biodiversity are probably inevitable, even if prairie grasses do better than expected.

Powerful forces in our media and politics have been actively denying the scientific basis of climate change predictions for many years. As the evidence keeps mounting, we’ll start hearing a “global warming is good for us” message instead, in which studies like Dr. Morgan’s will be misapplied to advocate against meaningful action on climate and energy issues. This must not be allowed to happen.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 8, Day 16: If This Ends Differently, I Will Be Extremely Surprised. Extremely.

The July 31 New York Times reports on Charles Monnet, the scientist who (along with Jeffrey Gleason) wrote the “dead-polar-bear” report that stirred things up among the Bushies. He’s been suspended on “integrity” issues, with the inquiry focusing on the very same report. Gee. Why does this not smell legit?

The federal government has suspended a wildlife biologist whose sightings of dead polar bears in Arctic waters became a rallying point for campaigners seeking to blunt the impact of global warming.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement notified the biologist, Charles Monnett, on July 18 that he had been placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into “integrity issues,” according to a copy of a letter posted online by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Documents posted by the group indicate that the inquiry centers on a 2006 report that Dr. Monnett co-wrote on deaths among polar bears swimming in the Beaufort Sea.

Come on. What’s more likely? A grossly corrupt scientist — or a bureaucracy that doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing and is staffed with stupid vengeful people? Maybe I’m an idealist about scientists, but I’ve seen a lot more vicious bureaucrats than I have corrupt research scientists. Sent July 31:

When government investigates scientists, the results are often comical at best and Kafkaesque at worst. Whereas the mechanisms of law and administration are readily susceptible to egregious misuse, those of scientific research are far harder to corrupt. The allegations of misconduct against Dr. Charles Monnet are likely to prove a singular example of this fact. Dr. Monnet, whose work was terribly inconvenient for the previous administration’s corporate sponsors, is probably the victim of a toxic combination: a scientifically ignorant bureaucrat with a grudge. We’ve heard this story before; it’s “climategate” — with bears. Although repeated investigations totally demolished the East Anglia non-scandal, the lies about it continue to spread. Similarly, we can expect eventual inquiry to vindicate Monnet and Gleason’s findings while their names nevertheless endure continued calumnies from the ignorant and vengeful. All of us are the losers thereby, for the world needs good scientists more than bad bureaucrats.

Warren Senders