When last we left the Daily Mail’s Don Surber, he was having a hard time understanding fractions. See Basic climate science update: Debunking Don Surber.
Over the weekend, Don chimed in with more disinformation about climate change, in a column headlined “What should our temperature be? Let’s examine the evidence of global warmth.” The problem is, the column does anything but examine scientific evidence, and at the end devolves into some kind of anti-tax thing that has nothing to do with climate science.
As I’ve written before, I promised myself when I started Coal Tattoo that I wouldn’t spend too much time debunking the Daily Mail’s coverage of these important issues. So, I’ll just address a couple of the things Don wrote here, and then we can all move on.
First, Don asks, “Are not global temperatures cyclical?” and he continues:
There is evidence that global temperatures may have been higher 800 to 1,300 years ago. One of the climatologists implicated in the Climategate scandal, in which countervailing data was suppressed, has admitted that this could be true, although he limited it to the Northern Hemisphere.
OK, now Don offers no evidence whatsoever that any “data was suppressed” by anybody. And in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
But to Don’s larger point, about whether global temperatures are cyclical. This is a common climate skeptic argument to write off this issue as just evidence of a global temperature cycle, but that’s just not correct. As this study shows, warming during the period Don cites appears to have been regional, rather than global, in nature, and to have been sporadic rather than continuous.
Second, Don wonders, “Why are only the possible negative effects of global warming being considered?”
Well, scientists have tried to outline the potential positive and negative impacts of climate change, and you can read a pretty plain English version of those efforts here. The bottom line? The negative impacts on global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
Third, Don writes, “Why are the errors discovered recently in the 2007 report on global warming all tilted toward exaggerating the negative effects.”
Regular readers of Coal Tattoo know this just isn’t true. If you missed it, just read the post headlined Climate Science update: One key way the IPCC lowballed the estimates.
Don also repeats the popular skeptic attack on the IPCC’s errors regarding Himalayan glaciers, without pointing out the most important fact: They are still melting very quickly.
And, Don cites the other argument against the IPCC report used a World Wildlife Fund report as proof that global warming would turn 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest into grasslands. It’s true that the IPCC report listed a World Wildlife Fund report as its source … but that was a simply citation error. The 40-percent figure actually comes from and is consistent with published, peer-reviewed studies, as the Web site Skeptical Science points out.
Don closes this week’s column with this:
There are basic questions that need to be answered. Science can help us by being impartial. So far it hasn’t.
He’s right. There are basic questions that need to be answered — like will West Virginia face up to the realities of global warming? And the media can help, by getting the science right. So far, Don Surber hasn’t.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
I sometimes despair — what, indeed, is the point of arguing with people who are determined to clap their hands firmly over their ears, and chant “La la la la la la la!!!” as loudly as they can? Don Surber isn’t going to change, and neither are those who populate his echo chamber.
Talk about wishful thinking…
And of course, wishfully thinking, if we were to take the flip side of your statement, that when entering into philosophical argument your position is justifiably immovable? (Where is that hand clapping and silly singing coming from???) Am I also to understand that by the very representation of your presence in the debate that we should all realize unequivocally that your “enlightenment” would be the logical and prevailing point from which we begin compromise? Really, I would think that we could do better than this.
There is nothing wrong with populating an echo chamber when you are correct. There ultimately is no valid reason not to be insulated from “other” voices that are filled with lies, distortions, agendas, and innuendos. The real, simple, fact of the matter, is that there is enough skepticism, and outright contradiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
within the scientific community and represented by true academic perspectives to seriously doubt the conclusions posed by the IPCC and others. The ice may very well be melting at unprecedented rates. Even that subject is open for debate. The climate may be warmer than it has ever been. That certainly is not settled. But if anyone believes that human activity is the culprit for any of those anomalies, or that human efforts can have any real effect upon those situations, based upon the evidence as currently represented, it is a matter of faith and not of science.
But then, this IS Ken Ward’s bully pulpit (blog). He can have his say. He can write in terms that represent his views (opinions really, don’t let anyone decieve you), as the final authority on all things philosophic, economic and political and call it journalism. That is his privilege. It does not mean that he is correct.
Before you cast stones at someone else’s echo chamber, make certain that you have the doors and windows open on your own.
rsl
I have no idea what the first part of your comment says … but I would just point out that nowhere in there do you provide any scientific evidence to indicate that my criticism of Don Surber’s column is off the mark.
Personally, I hope Coal Tattoo tries to get beyond the echo chamber (frequent reader and commenter Casey would call it “group think” I think) and allow a reasonable discussion of issues and a polite exchange of facts, evidence and science that supports various views on those issues.
It is my “opinion” that journalistic coverage of climate change should correctly explain, cite and detail scientific findings, yes. But I would hope that getting the science write in newspaper stories or columns wouldn’t be that controversial of a thing.
I support Don Surber’s right to hold whatever opinions he wants and to express those in his column (though he obviously doesn’t need my support to do that). But, readers deserve accurate science, even in opinion columns.
Ken.
Really, simply, fact of the matter, is what kind of syntax anyway? I say too many commas make for a confusing statement, let alone confuse the argument.
Anyway, the only fair (and obvious) conclusion I reach from rsl’s post is this: If anyone refuses to believe that our actions could be changing the climate, it’s a matter of faith (or just stuborn conviction) and not science.
What is a real effect anyway?
Monica V.
Regarding Surber’s point #1, it is my understanding that M. Mann smoothed the data for the early years and did not for the later years. This had the effect in comparison of somewhat hiding the early warm period and accentuated the later warming period resulting in the hockey stick graph. His findings have been verified by several peer review studies but his method of display was a little misleading.
There are several investigations currently on-going that should determine if information has been suppressed by climate scientists.
Mr. Ward,
The first part of my comment, and actually the entire statement, are addressed at Rich’s dogmatic take that any view outside of his own (formulated and supported by you I might add) is wrong. I would hopefully create an awareness in Rich that what he supposedly despairs of in others, he may actually be guilty of himself. I don’t believe I needed any scientific evidence to support that assertion.
Red Desert, I did not use really and simply in the sentence together. I used real and simple. Perhaps your reading of my post is the real problem? I am sorry you were so easily confused. Obviously, your inability to argue the fact of the statement led you to attack me from a rudimentary and elementary level. I was not aware that the criteria to post was that grammatcially it must qualify for a graduate thesis. I guess we can also disdain Mr. Ward’s statement from above then, since he so erroneously used “write” instead of the correct form of “right” in his comment? Forgive me for any errors in syntax I may have created in this post. I will try to be more basic in the future.
As far as defining a “real effect” I am afraid that would be an explanation that would require more space than a blog comment would allow. Suffice to say that a demonstrable, repeatable cause and effect relationship would be a good start. Not assumptions based upon models, based upon theories, based upon personal preference based upon personal gain and benefit. However, if you will open your attitude to embrace the possibility that those who you blindly commit your trust may not be telling the whole truth, then you can expect to find legitimate fact that supports contrary points of view to the IPCC GHG/Global Warming scare tactic.
Shame on me, but I love these posts. It’s like SuperFriends vs. The Legion of Doom, with Ken in the Superman suit and Surber out there in his Brainiac get-up. Sorry, but I was unduly influenced by Saturday morning cartoons.
The larger point is this: the “skeptics” seem to be in that camp whose operational model was best espoused decades ago when Ronnie Reagan declared “facts are stupid things” (he meant to say “stubborn,” but he was “The Great Communicator,” so never mind).
Just as the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Becks, et al. screeched “There’s NO global climate change because it’s snowing in February,” thus mistaking “weather” for “climate,” so, too, does Surber confuse “region” with “global.” The skeptics get positively wistful about Europe’s “Little Ice Age,” never realizing, apparently, that the world is not comprised solely of Europe. Granted, THEIR world is, but the real one ISN’T.
Therein lies the rub: debates between positions based upon science and reason, versus positions based upon faith and dogma seldom yield much in the way of tangible outcome. It’s like one person arguing that we should prepare for snow based upon a meteorologic forecast, and having the other person screech “but my fortune cookie says it’s going to be sunny and warm!” There is an utter disconnect between reason and “faith.”
In the grand scheme of things, Ken is correct in not taking on too many of Surber’s attempts at climate-skeptic apologia no matter how entertaining such posts may be. It’s like the old adage about wrasslin’ with a hog: best not done because you both get covered in mud and the hog likes it.
The parallels between creationists and GCC deniers very entertaining.
I see now they claim that wikpedia is a serious source of info. You can assume that wiki page was created by someone who works for a PR firm that works for Exxon.
If you want to know what scientists ACTUALLY say (& Don Surber etc clearly don;t want to know about that) you can simply go to the web site of any actual science organization such as the National Academy of Sciences, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
If you want to know Exxon and Massey what you to believe, just read the Daily-Mail.