« Climate Change »

Roger-
So, evidently the debate isn't over. I'm curious about your take on the major pre-emptive push back against Al Gore from the CEI et al, which uses the tag-line "We Call It Life", referring to CO2 ("they call it pollution...we call it life"). On their site they basically throw IPCC out the window and go through a step-by-step rebuttal of the TIME article, which clearly was flawed and indeed alarmist.

Clearly, in their minds the debate hasn't even started, as they continue to wave the flags of scientific uncertainty and lost jobs. But what irks me the most is that their ads are to my mind very deceptive, carefully crafted propoganda that ends, like the famous Johnson TV ad against Goldwater, with a little girl blowing on a flower, as if to imply the "alarmists" who say humans are impacting the climate system in a substantial way are the bad guys and we're the good guys because we're the ones really concerned about life.

(And speaking of Gore, anyone see him on SNL talking about how we've fixed global warming?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/14.html#a8280 )

Hi Mark-

Thanks for your comments. As far as debate being over, my sense is that it is over on a pretty narrow range of topics -- like the fact that humans influence the climate, that GHGs are a big part of this influence, etc. There is of course plenty of debate about all sort of scientific topics, like hurricanes, or future projections of climate change, but especially about what actions we should take. So I'm not at all concerned about the fact that Fox sees that a debate exists. Of course, if they use the standard drill of questioning the basics on which there appears to be a strong consensus, that will be disappointing use of their time. Hopefully they will focus a lot on policy and broader questions rarely asked.

As far as the CEI campaign I haven't seen it. I suppose it is a reaction to the Ad Council ads as well and preemptive attack on Gore. I'd speculate that they all are pretty standard political propaganda. I generally don't get too worked up about such stuff since propagada does more to rally the faithful than convert opinions (it actually serves to reinforce opinions already held, one way or the other, as might be expected). As far as their tag line you repeat "we call it life" -- are you sure you didn't see that on The Onion? ;-)

Thanks!

Roger:

I meant to link to the CEI site since, as political propaganda goes, it's a slick piece of work: http://cei.org/ .

Whether Fox actually explores the nuances of debate within the climate community or opts instead for the usual retread of the "debate" from the late 90s will be interesting to see.

I'm sure this Fox special will be as interesting and informative as their specials on "The Holocaust: fact of fiction?" and "George Bush: great President or greatest ever?"

Thanks for the link, Mark. I do not have high expectations for nuanced discussion on a TV news documentary, but we shall see!

Mark- I just watched the ads. Kind of hilarious, and as misguided as the Ad Council's. I'm not sure what the point of the strategy is. Thanks for linking.

1) Fox News is possibly the most widely consumed promoter of conservative arguments and, not surprisingly, they have been busy lately participating in the pre-emptive push back against Gore's new documentary (noted by Mark, above). Here are some recent examples:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605160009

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605170011

2) I have to respectfully disagree with Roger's notion that such coordinated propaganda efforts are basically ineffective at swaying public opinion. Just look at the high percentage of Americans who believed proven falsehoods (regarding the supposed discovery of WMDs in Iraq and links to al Qaeda) when they went to the polls in 2004. The percentage of misinformed Bush supporters was very high, I recall.

So, I'd like to see some evidence showing that propaganda does not generally work... because recent history would seem to suggest otherwise.

"I'm not sure what the point of the strategy is."

Roger, you can't be serious.

James- Thanks. I'm very sreious. I cannot see their ads having any effect on policy or public opinion. Of all the campaigns they could come up with, focusing on CO2 as "life" is in my view pointless. Thanks.

CC- Thanks for your comments. I'll address the scholarly literature on propaganda and policy in a future post. It comes up a lot. Thanks.

Roger-

You wrote: "I cannot see their ads having any effect on policy or public opinion. Of all the campaigns they could come up with, focusing on CO2 as "life" is in my view pointless."

I would be surprised if they just picked this approach at random. Rather, I think it likely that they have some data (e.g., focus groups, polls) that show that this message resonates at least w/ their base, and possibly moves "undecides" on this issue (40%-50% of people).

Regards.

I'm surprised that otherwise intelligent people would ignore the effects of CO2 on the biosphere. Of course, that fits in well with the concept of learning more and more about less and less.

CO2 is the closest thing we have on Earth to Manna. Looking at and trying to predict the simplistic physical effects on climate of CO2 (aka food) without considering the natural effects is ludicrous.

Logic 101 question:
Is life on Earth based on carbon, true or false?

Andrew- One would think ... call me a skeptic;-)

Well, surprise, Roger thinks these ads will have no effect, thus there is no need to talk about and discuss them, unlike, for example, what Al Gore is saying, which also will have no effect, but is obviously the wrong thing to do. I am so surprised.

Come on Roger, take off the mask and tell us what you really think.

Oh look, someone accidentally activated the Hemphill-bot and his "CO2 is manna" auto-message. I wonder if there's a real person behind it? I doubt it since it doesn't seem to assimilate anything other than the titles of articles. At any rate, it's a welcome change of pace from the Bahner-bot and his "methane" auto-message.

Roger,

I'm interested in said scholarly literature, however, the evidence in support of my point is abundant and clear:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm

I find it curious that you would choose to separate this issue from a discussion of FoxNews... given that FoxNews is so obviously a regular contributor to conservative propaganda efforts (e.g., follow the links I provided above).

Sorry Andrew, did I hit you to close to home? It seems you drifted off the subject and regressed back to #4 here:

http://tinyurl.com/ooet7

Again.

If you don't feel the reaction of living beings to increased FOOD is applicable, that's your academic position, as we've discussed before. However, it would be appropriate if you didn't try to link that position with reality. Some people are meant to live in the limited world of their formulae.

Next you'll be trying to link the war in Iraq with this discussion. Oh, wait, "Concerned Citizen" just did.

Steve-

"it would be appropriate if you didn't try to link that position with reality."

Not linking things with reality appears to be your job. And I think you've done a marvelous job, so I will not try to compete.

Steve.
The war is incidental. This Administration's remarkably effective use of propaganda -- and their apparent collaboration with the Fox News network in this effort -- to sway public opinion is not incidental. Not at all. But nice try.

Conc,

I agree that the Bush "team" is less than forthright, and I am no fan of theirs. But how do you know Bush has anything to do with the upcoming Fox program? Maybe we should watch it first, before throwing prejudice around?

And, if you want propaganda, try this statement of Gore's:

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is"

It, being, of course, the dreaded "global warming" of which we, in reality, actually know nothing.

Hemphill-bot-

If one reads ONLY the titles of papers --- as you've admitted you do --- then I guess it's understandable that you'd conclude that we know nothing about the climate. However, if you read the ENTIRE paper (novel concept, I know), then you'd realize that we actually know quite a bit about the climate. Perhaps Hemphill-bot Version 2 will be programmed to read the title AND abstract!

Steve- Thanks, but I had red herring for lunch and I'm stuffed.

My point is to understand how "scholarly literature" has concluded that propaganda does not work (as our host has suggested). Recent history would suggest otherwise.

Roger- Sorry... my intention was not to hijack this thread. My interest in this subject is genuine. I'll look forward to more discussion on this another time.

SH - I can't believe I'm biting on this, but here goes. Your argument only works if CO2 is a limiting nutrient for the ecotones, forest stands, crops or dominant individual species. It's not. When I asked the best forest ecologist I know whether CO2 is a limiting nutrient he replied, "hmm, not really anymore. it used to be to a small degree, i think, prior to 1850s. definitely during glacial maximums when global atmospheric CO2 was ~ 180 ppm."

Funny thing is that you're making Paul Epstein's dumb CO2-and-urban-ragweed argument for him (google him if you don't know whom I'm talking about) and you two would be very strange bedfellows.

Eli (and others) - you need to back off the ad hom, personal attacks. I've started being more aggressive about deleting specious and/or long, ranty and completely off-topic comments and besides MB you're one of the consistently guilty.

Andrew -
We've been through this several times before, and your slander is inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to stop you. I admitted I scanned a paper, then with more thorough reading didn't change my mind. That's different from reading only titles.

Kevin -

As are as the "lmiting factor" I suggest that every location is different. Maybe not in climate models, but in reality.

FWIW - since the comments veered over to the CEI ad campaign:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/linking_and_laughing.php

Kevin -

Interesting you would link to that site. One can't get much more ad hom than Lambert.

I watched the 'CO2 is life' spots and had to smile. There was nothing in them that is factually wrong and few things that are even debatable. Yet I am sure that AGW supporters will find them completely infuriating!

Welcome to the club.

For years, skeptics have had to watch countless spots, just as well done, but with a completely opposite slant on the issue. Sure the CEI spots are propaganda, but so is much of what comes from the environmental groups and Al Gore. The difference is that the CEI spots have little chance of appearing in my childrens text books, even though it is just as valid as some of the stuff already there!

I disagree with Roger that the spots will not be effective. While there may be little debate about whether humans influence climate (as does everything else in the biosphere) or that GHGs play a role in that influence, there is still a significant debate about how big the human influence is, and thus, how significant changing GHGs are. Despite the fact that even a past President has announced that the debate is over, it most obviously is not, and the average Joe has a sense of that.

Most of what has shaped the opinions of the unscientific community is propaganda of one form or another. The details of the debate are virtually unknown outside of scientific circles. The CEI spots will likely have a reassuring effect on many that see them. I just don't think that will be a very large number of people.

As to the fox special, I can't wait to read the reactions here and elsewhere. The posts will likely be far more educational and entertaining than the program itself!

Kevin-

I think the Hemphill-bot wins this one. His bald-faced and unsupported assertion that "every location is different" totally trumps your so called "forest ecologist." What does a forest ecologist possibly know? All that education simply brainwashes him.

Any idiot can see Hemphill's right.

Regards.

Jim Clarke-

You wrote: "there is still a significant debate about how big the human influence is"

Is that right, Jim? I would argue that there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human activities.

Would you mind pointing me to some peer-reviewed literature that disputes this? I'd be really interested in learning more about this debate you claim is occurring.

Thanks in advance for the journal citations.

"I watched the 'CO2 is life' spots and had to smile. There was nothing in them that is factually wrong and few things that are even debatable. "

Yet the facts are out of context and arranged in such a way that the gullible might be fooled, accompanied by language that evokes emotion.

No wonder Clarke liked it so much (BTW, I'm fascinated by that penultimate paragraph and must adjust the value of your WMI).

Best,

D

CC- I promise a post on the complicated subject of propaganda, public opinion, and elite action before too long. And, yes, I too am interested in presenting what the scholarly literature says on this! Thanks!

Andrew and Jim-

You guys go around and around!

We discussed this in some detail on several occasions in recent posts on "consensus":

"likely" = 64%-90%
"most" = >50%

Does this leave room for "significant" debate? Well, it seems to me that depending upon how you want to characterize "significance" you can both have it your own way and be absolutely correct.

Howeverm as this is a policy site, for both of you, so what? You can debate this point for a long time without ever discussing the answer to this perhaps more important question.

Thanks! ;-)

Increased CO2 means plants need less water. So, the question isn't so much about CO2 being a limiting factor, but those locations where water is a limiting factor.

http://www.co2science.org/

Sure, Steve, but I think if you review the *published, peer-reviewed* literature you'll find that the Idsos' claim on this is true only for a specific type of stone fruit tree, and then only post-harvest. Fortunately for them, this is where inductive reasoning comes in handy.

Roger-

Let's go back to what I said: "I would argue that there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human activities."

At the stated level of precision/uncertainty, there is no argument that a strong scientific consensus supports this statement ... do you disagree with either the statement or that a consensus exists, Roger?

No one argues that our knowledge is perfect, but the existence of some uncertainty (e.g., is manmade warming 65% or 85% of the recent warming) should not be used to argue (as Jim Clarke did) that "there is still a significant debate about how big the human influence is". Doing so misleads by suggesting that we have NO IDEA how much warming is manmade ... it could be anywhere from zero to 100%. That's WRONG --- we know humans are the dominat driver of climate over the past few decades.

Thus, there's room to argue the details, but not room to argue the overal dominance of human impact on the recent climate. As usual, one can construct an argument that is literally correct but incredibly misleading, something we see time and again in the AGW debate.

Regards.

Andrew,

All studies that attempt to determine the percentage of the recent warming that is man-made, use GCMs to make that determination. There are a significant number of well-qualified scientists who dispute that the GCMs have any skill (whether you like it or not). Therefore, there is still a significant debate as to how much of the recent warming is man-made.

Of those who believe the GCMs do have skill, your numbers are likely correct. But for those who question the abilities of the GCMs, your numbers are irrelevant. If the GCMs have no skill, the percentage of the human input is very uncertain, and may be much lower than you assert.

I find the arguments that question the skill of the GCMs very compelling, and the supporting evidence for the GCMs not adding up.

As Roger said, we can both be right, depending on how we look at the debate. As to policy, I agree with Roger that the problem (whatever its dimensions) can be mitigated more effectively if it is addressed as part of more immediate problems that the public can readily understand and embrace.

Dano,

You wrote concerning the CEI spots:

"Yet the facts are out of context and arranged in such a way that the gullible might be fooled, accompanied by language that evokes emotion."

Of course they are! Someone took the formula of the doom and gloomers and used it to make a counter-statement. It only upsets you because you disagree with the message. If the tactics really upset you, you would immediately cancel your memberships in Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, The World Wildlife Fund and so on down the line, not to mention tossing a few peer-reviewed conclusions and IPCC executive summaries!

What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

Andrew- Thanks. Yu ask:

"At the stated level of precision/uncertainty, there is no argument that a strong scientific consensus supports this statement ... do you disagree with either the statement or that a consensus exists, Roger?"

No I do not disagree.

But do recognize that your discussion over the IPCC statement hinges on how you two differently define "significant."

Lets be open about this, it is not a scientific debate, but a debate about the significance of the science. There is that word again -- significant, no?

Thanks!

Roger-

If Jim Clarke agrees with the statement "there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human activities" and his reference to "significant debate" is on whether humans are contributing 60% or 70% or 80%, then sure, I'll agree that there is signficant debate about exactly what man's contribution is.

But if (as I suspect) he's arguing that there is debate over the statement "there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human activities," then I would disagree. There is no reasonable definition of "significant" that would allow one to truthfully say that "significant debate" is occurring over this statement.

Regards.

Andrew- Thanks. I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I'll play along.

You write, "There is no reasonable definition of "significant" that would allow one to truthfully say that "significant debate" is occurring over this statement."

Well the IPCC is debating this statement right now and is changing key parts of it from "most" to "dominant" and "likel" to "very likely" --- all that seems pretty significant.

In any case, yawn, so what? How much does it matter that every commentor on an internet blog ascribes to the same shared, precise view of science? For that matter, so what if there are scientists who deviate in their understandings of the consensus?

Every ay policies are made where people have vastly different interpretations of the facts. As Walter Lippmann once wrote, the job of politics is to get people who think differently to act alike.

Efforts to get everyone to think the same are not the most useful mechanisms of collective action. Despite (sometimes) awareness of this reality, the climate debate always seems to be attracted to the battle over thinking the same, rather than acting in concert.

Thanks!

Back in the real world, the scientific bickering has become largely irrelevant as economic and political considerations are, at last, beginning to shape the new agenda of international climate policy and decision-making:

AUSTRALIA will steer a new round of global talks between 189 nations to build a post-Kyoto plan for climate change without binding targets....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19185398-30417,00.html

Canada will not support attempts by other countries to set deeper emission-reduction targets for the Kyoto Protocol's second phase, according to private instructions to Canadian negotiators in Bonn, Germany. The instructions obtained by The Globe and Mail also show that Canada wants the climate-change accord phased out in favour of a separate, voluntary deal....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxkyoto20/BNStory/National/home

To talk about "what percentage of warming is due to human influence" is fraudulently deceptive.

There are several modes of "human influence". It is indeed still an open question as to how much temperature increase is due to CO2 increase. There is also ruined arable land leading to a decrease in transpiration, black carbon deposits on the Arctic ice from dirty coal plants in China, etc. The rate of temperature increase appears to be beyond natural variability and I would not (could not) argue that "most" of the temperature increase is not due to "human influence".

However, CO2 emissions could be a small part of the overall "human influence" and the benefits of increased CO2 could still be greater than the costs - to the entire world. Increased CO2 and ensuing plant growth is something everyone gets a share of.

Roger-

First, I agree with you that the discussion needs to be on WHAT to do rather than focusing on the science.

That said, I still can't help myself from arguing the science. So let me clarify my previous post. There is a nearly unanimous consensus among scientists that the statement "there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human GHG emissions" is true. There IS serious debate on whether to make that statement stronger, and we'll see how that debate ends when the AR/4 comes out.

However, there is NO debate among scientists that the TAR statement should be weakened, which is what I think Clarke and the Hemphill-bot were arguing. So if they are suggesting serious debate exists over "most of the recent warming is due to human GHG emissions," then they are wrong.

Regards.

Andrew -
Let's try some "different" cherry picking. First off, let's make that 60 years. Then the last 60 years was about the same as the previous 60 years, and nobody says that the previous was due to GHG's - especially since there was a cooling trend from 1940 to 1970, without a decrease in CO2.

That all depends, of course, on whose "data" one uses. Aren't there about 7 different "histories" now? They can't even agree on whether 1998 or last year was the warmest. I'm also kind of curious how they got the temperatures of the Antarctic continent 100 years ago...

But back to your time period. What 50 years were you talking about? 1950 to 2000? The period 1910 to 1940 rose faster than that. I don't think you meant 1940 to 1990, since that rate was less than one third the rate of 1910 to 1940. The point here is, if previous natural warming was faster than the current warming, how can you be sure that the current warming isn't at least half natural? Then, throw in black carbon, denudation, and other anthropogenic factors, and what's left might be *much* less than half.

So, your comment "there is a strong consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to human GHG emissions" is highly suspect. Highly.

Roger,

Are you still planning to give us your review of the program?

BobKC-

Thanks. Not really, though I am happy to make a few comments here in response to your query. It was largely a non-event. It was not the skeptic-fest that some expected, but nor did it break new ground. Some specifics, off-the-cuff:

Minuses-

1. Asserted at the outset that there is no scientific consensus. Factually untrue.

2. Spent about the first half critiquing the science and then proceeded as if science was settled. Why then the critique?

3. Too much time on Senator Inhofe critiquing the science. Sorry, but not his expertise.

4. Allowed Bush administration official to comment unchallenged. Perhaps what he said was true, but other views are out there on Bush Admin performance, plus and minus

5. Hokey "we report, you decide" ending. This show was all about advocacy.

Pluses-

1. Accurately represented my views and those of my father.

2. Cheesey 360 degree pan around me down the block from my office.

3. Quoted me zinging GWB (on Fox News, priceless)

4. Did a good job raising the issue of European difficulties on Kyoto

5. Had interesting and thoughtful perspectives from Christy and Lomborg (though no counter views)

Bottom line, interesting, nice soundtrack, no really egregious mistakes, but no real breakthrough either.

Interestingly it was ignired by RealClimate and other usual commentors, which means that Fox must have done a good enough job that being ignored is perceived as preferrable to commenting on ...

That is about it. No worth a new post, but I'd be happy to discuss here in comments.

Thanks!

Thanks for the mini-review - I didn't get to see the show.

So - how did you zing GWB? (and are your tax records in order?:)

BobKC-

I said something to the effect that your would (quite properly) think I was crazy five years ago had I predicted that GWB would be talking about hydrogen cars and oil addiction, given his environmental record . . . ;-)

Roger,

"Interestingly it was ignired by RealClimate and other usual commentors, which means that Fox must have done a good enough job that being ignored is perceived as preferrable to commenting on..."

I can't speak for RC, but I don't think that this is necesarily a fair assumption. Not to mention, I get the sense from your review that Fox didn't do or say anything new (so, why comment?). Rather, based on the clips available from mediamatters.com and at FoxFan.com (on the FoxNews website), there is plenty to criticize as they seem to be going out of their way to sow doubt and confusion by airing plentiful views from the skeptics and little counterweight from the folks at NCAR, NASA, NAS, NOAA, etc.

To do all of this and then conclude, "we report you decide," is not just hokey, it's misleading at best and dishonest at worst.