Scrutinizing Outlandish Climate Claims
Several weeks ago, I pointed out how several popular climate skeptic blogs had disingenuously parroted the headline from that skewed Rasmussen poll:
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Shortly afterwards, I noticed a similar copy and paste job by Ronald Bailey at his libertarian outlet. Like the climate skeptics I cited (Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill), Bailey wasn’t at all skeptical about Rasmussen’s methodology, particularly the phrasing of the question that elicited that eye-popping figure.
Shockingly, Fox News played up the Rasmussen poll, too.
So I can’t say I was surprised yesterday to hear Texas Governor Rick Perry, a darling of the Tea Party, and the newest Republican entrant into the 2012 Presidential race, state:
I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.
This, combined with other previous statements on climate change by Perry, has Marc Morano, the proprietor of Climate Depot, in full swoon.
Back on planet earth, however, Perry’s climate change-related claims get thoroughly vetted today by Glenn Kessler, who writes the “Fact Checker” column at The Washington Post. Kessler concludes that
the governor is willfully ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little evidence. He has every right to be a skeptic “” all scientific theories should be carefully scrutinized “” but that does not give him carte blanche to simply make things up.
Several months ago, in a post lauding Kessler’s “Fact Checker” column, I wrote that it was
important to gauge the accuracy of what newsmakers say about climate change, stem cell research, vaccines, evolution, and so on.
I also said that top newspapers should have a similar fact-checking column devoted just to science and precisely the kinds of high profile statements made recently by Perry. Today in the Washington Post, Kessler provides a shining example of how it would be done.
Some of us wonder where Perrry gets his informatiion from which to make decisions.
From Glenn’s fine article, I note:
“Another Perry spokesman, Ray Sullivan, provided links to a number of recent articles that he said demonstrated skepticism in the scientific community. We reviewed the articles, and they are anecdotal in nature, not evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.”
The “to” link is to:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery/29919
Since politicians like Palin can make obviously wrong statements concerning simple facts (e.g. Paul Revere) and her supporters will simply adjust their view of reality to match it rather than criticise, I don’t hold out much hope for more complex and debatable topics.
Even amongst Republican and Republican-leaning people that “know better” the general policy and political discourse is so toxic they still feel a strong pull towards the likes of Perry in order to save the Republic from that America hating communist in the White House.
How to fix it? I would hope the Tea Party debacle regarding the debt limit opened some eyes not just among the electorate but among those in politics that thought it safe to court irrationality to win votes. You can safely attack evolution without having to worry about reality showing up and forcefully correcting you while climate change will take time to make itself evident. However, once you’ve voted Glenn Beck’s cognitive toolkit into office there are many many areas where the consequences will be felt quickly and severely. Sane fiscal policy is just the first and easiest casualty.
sharperoo,
An interesting op-ed in yesterday’s NYT argues that the Tea Party “is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.”
Not sure if this is wishful thinking or on target, but the piece is definitely worth a read.
I think the larger political discourse will remain polarized and toxic but as to “how to fix” the politics, I’d say open primaries would be a good start, so that such a narrow minority doesn’t hold such sway. Who knows, with more moderate politicians, that might even lead to a saner discourse.
Keith,
“Who knows, with more moderate politicians, that might even lead to a saner discourse.”
I don’t believe it’s just a case of moderation though. At the moment the moderates seem to be outsiders in the political world which in itself tells you bad things about the situation. There needs to be a step beyond “Let’s stop fighting and find a sensible way through” and into “Let’s find a sensible way through by actively fighting and defeating irrational views”
In modern politics moderates have become appeasers seeking calm in an arena increasingly designed to hold fights instead of debates. The last few years have shown that such negotiations end with the moderate leaving the table with about 5% of what they wanted.
Keith, I hope you also caught John Huntsman injecting some sanity into the GOP race.
The reality-based community should encourage people like Huntsman, even if there is not universal agreement on all political fronts.
It’s a sad day when politicians have to be applauded for mild acceptance of mainstream science, but applauded they should be.
sharper00 Says:
August 18th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
In modern politics moderates have become appeasers seeking calm in an arena increasingly designed to hold fights instead of debates.
Everybody believes that their position on a given issue is reasonable and moderate. Lot’s of that is driven by having different perspectives. It’s quite difficult to see things thru the lens of those with different perspectives even if one makes a ‘good faith’ effort.
Let’s take Governor Perry’s ‘unreasonable’ position on Climate Change.
Texas has more windmills then any other state. They have 10 GW of windmills.
Here is the American Wind Energy Organization BRAGGING that during a recent Texas heat wave windmills operated at 17% of capacity. (50% lower then random chance, 1800MW/10265MW capacity)
http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=9369
Who is the crazy one? Greens that believe windmills operating at 17% of capacity is something to brag about or Governor Perry who has decided Climate Change is a scam?
I missed moderate Joe Romm’s outrage over the complete misrepresentation of the facts as to how well the Texas windmills performed during the recent heat wave in Texas.
I don’t care about Perry one way or the other, but the Wash Post column is ridiculously inept. To define scientist so as to exclude Freeman Dyson is really stupid. To state that an opinion is a misstatement of fact is also really stupid.
There really was a petition project signed by the number of people that Perry claimed. Whether or not those people are sufficient to constitute scientists because their science-based education may not include a PhD is a question of opinion. The Post grossly oversteps a reasonable evaluation of the claim in its haste to post the maximum pinocchios.
As for whether Perry is correct about data manipulation, the Post doesn’t really address that question. Instead, it relies on a ridiculous appeal to authority re: consensus. In reality, the evidence is sufficient to claim that Mann, Rahmstorf, Briffa, Steig, Jones and others have manipulated data. Doesn’t have to be fraud to be manipulation.
All in all, a political hit job devoid of reason or logic.
It would ne nice if they would fact-check what the other side says, also, but that seems highly unlikely from the Washington Post.
harrywr2 (6)
You are are conflating a number of things. What does Texas windmills have to do with what Perry says about climate change–specifically the parts about the statements that the WaPo’s Kessler’s examines?
Stan (7)
Just look in isolation what Perry says–don’t extend it out to what you think the Post should be looking at.
ChuckL (8)
The column is only addressing very specific statements by Perry. As to examining specific claims made by “the other side,” I’m not averse to that at all.
Yes.
Exactly.
More like this please.
Keith, in the words of Inspector Clouseau, “…beuht, …zet ees eexectly wheut I said.”
Welcome to the wonderful world of what some people insist on calling “the deficit model”. That is a world where journalists check what prominent people are saying and call them on it when it isn’t true. Apparently this is not always too much to ask. That’s half the battle.
Now for the hard part. Find the people who ARE telling the truth and explain it so the public will understand it.
Thanks in advance.
Keith, I think there is substantial evidence to back up his claim that a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data. Anyone familiar with the machinations of GISS, CRU, and the IPCC with regard to all kinds of strange adjustments and extrapolations has to admit that there is a lot of manipulating going on. A lot of it has been criticized, a lot of it has been questioned, and a good bit of it has been exposed as groundless. We can disagree about the overall impact on the theory of CAGW, but I can’t imagine anyone in good faith denying that manipulations have been made.
Just look at the computer models. Every single one of them manipulates aerosol cooling in order to massage the output to match desired results. They have no basis in the physical science for all the different numbers they choose to use. But they each happen to choose whatever number makes the model line up in a way they approve. If that’s not manipulation, what is?
Michael,
Don’t get too excited. As I mentioned, I’m for this sort of thing across the board.
Lots of people will never be reached, including those that believe in the deficit model. 🙂
Speaking of which: “Now for the hard part. Find the people who ARE telling the truth and explain it so the public will understand it.”
Since this happens everyday in multiple venues, I am left to conclude that you are hopeless.
Stan (11):
I just can’t bring myself to engage with you on this sweeping assertion. But if you or someone can point me to “substantial evidence” (that is credible) demonstrating that a “substantial number of scientists have manipulated data,” by all means, lay it out there.
I’ll tell you what, though: the scientist who can make this case will be one very famous person.
Who needs moderate politicians?
Chamberlain was moderate. Churchill was an extremist. Gandhi was an extremist. George Washington was an extremist.
Keith, you say “But if you or someone can point me to “substantial evidence” (that is credible) demonstrating that a “substantial number of scientists have manipulated data,” by all means, lay it out there”. This is where you lose credibility with many – Do you honestly believe that McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s or McShane’s exposure of Mann’s utterly false statistical manipulation that was used to mine hockey sticks is not credible. You may not be schooled in linear algebra, Keith, but this is where naivete reveals itself.
I notice that you fail to engage on the obvious case of the climate models. Or the other specific instances I cited.
You might want to consider why it is that you just can’t bring yourself to engage.
But note, you are perfectly fine with the Wash Post calling Perry a 4 pinocchio liar. You don’t want to engage with specifics, but broad brush libel you’re just fine with.
It’s ok for people to disagree with Perry. It’s not ok to call him a major liar because people have a different opinion.
Someone looking for a 4 pinocchio liar from the political arena should start with Al Gore. Especially since his lies have netted him hundreds of millions of dollars.
Given all the BS we expect and get from so many blowhard politicians while campaigning, it is particularly peculiar that the Wash Post should set its sights on these comments by Perry. There are so many inviting targets out there where the lies have been far more egregious and the payoff astoundingly lucrative.
You (all) MUST read this post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?commentpage=1#start-of-comments
it is from the Guardian (U.K.)… Perry is a genius!!!!
Stan (15),
I’m perfectly fine with the Post characterization of Perry–related to his very specific claims–because it’s accurate.
I asked you to lay out all this evidence. I guess that means I’m engaging with you, after all.
Bob (14):
Leaving aside the never-ending dispute over the hockey stick, how does this constitute a “substantial number of scientists”?
Keith you say, “Leaving aside the never-ending dispute over the hockey stick, how does this constitute a “substantial number of scientists”? It is retorts like this that leads me to believe I shouldn’t engage on your otherwise fine blog. You have led a sheltered existence on this issue. Rather then give a lengthy retort myself on your comment I will disengage because you are still at the starting line.
Good grief. The debate can’t be even close to over when the basic science is still so riddled with errors.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/#more-45359
Whats so surprising that 69% of Americans think that some scientists have falsified evidence for AGW. 69% of Americans are undoubtedly right about that.
Thanks, jorge c, for that Guardian article. Thats the lowest the “settled science” has gone yet.
The Guardian is supposed to be a leading broadsheet in the UK.
What are they smoking at NASA ?
“Another recommendation is that humanity should avoid giving off the appearance of being a rapidly expansive civilization. If an ETI perceives humanity as such, then it may be inclined to attempt a preemptive strike against us so as to prevent us from growing into a threat to the ETI or others in the galaxy. Similarly, ecosystem-valuing universalist ETI may observe humanity’s ecological destructive tendencies and wipe humanity out in order to preserve the Earth system as a whole. These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets. We acknowledge that the pursuit of emissions reductions and other ecological projects may have much stronger justifications than those that derive from ETI encounter, but that does not render ETI encounter scenarios insignificant or irrelevant.”
It’s quite easy to be a skeptic when the alternative is this total crock.
And note the flowery language – never using a short or clear word when they can use 5 long, pompous, vague words instead.
Strewth.
Mr. Kloor –
Perry’s language might be a bit over the top. It is also not quite right to call AGW concern a “hoax” or “fraud” as persons like me are tempted to do. But we are dealing with some sort of pathological sociology here. The article Jorge supplied should be ample testimony. What we skeptics are protesting is that a fractional degree increase in global mean temperature (the science behind which seems pretty solid but could be wrong) gets tied to the predictions of the IPCC (very shaky), the hysterics of Michael Tobis (very little basis in reality) and the nonsense of the Guardian article (demented).
When all these secondary, or derivative conjectures/conclusions get labelled “science” and are bestowed the same certainty as measurements of GMT we skeptics cry foul. Maybe our language is inflammatory becuase this phenomenon is so weird that there are not good words lying about with which to label it.
Climate Central has been absolutely excellent, with a only a few minor quibbles, as far as coverage. So minor I can’ t even remember them.
A couple things to keep in mind about the “extremist” Rick Perry from the very same Washington Post that KK cites:
“Perry served in elective office as a Democrat, albeit a conservative one. He even was the Texas chairman of Al Gore’s 1988 Democratic presidential primary bid. And in the 2008 GOP primary, he endorsed Rudy Giuliani, a candidate whose positions on gun control, abortion and gay rights are, by the standards of today’s Republican party, downright liberal.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-rick-perry/2011/08/17/gIQA0izuNJ_story_1.html
And yes, the five myths is an “opinion” piece- so is the “fact checker.” This is a typical election year spin-up – any GOP candidate that shows popularity will be attacked as an “extremist.” McCain was the “maverick” darling of the NYTimes and Wa Post for his “liberal Republican” stance until he started looking good in the primaries and it was suddenly claimed that he was a wing-nut freak.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Perry has witnessed the claims of enviro nuts in action- everything from the “success” of wind in his state to the mindless exaggeration of the impact of the BP oil spill (I’m still looking for that promised oil slick up here on Virginia’s beaches). Perry has also held a front row seat for the impact of California’s witless energy policies (hint, they’re clean because they have to buy it from companies outside of California). As for claims of wild non-sense out of the warming movement, once again you don’t need crazy right wingers- just read Lynas or Monbiot. Right wingers all, I suppose.
Keith Kloor Says:
August 18th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
harrywr2 (6)
You are are conflating a number of things.
Correct, those of us that don’t subscribe to the ‘Extreme Green’ conflate much just as those who do subscribe to ‘Extreme Green’ also conflate much.
A belief that ‘many’ cliimate scientists distort evidence is based in fact. The technically correct English Language use of ‘many’ is to describe 3 or more.
Obviously 3 out of 10,000 scientists ‘cooking the books’ would be a quite good level of integrity in any field.
Without knowing how many climate scientists it’s not possible to accurate judge the integrity of the field as a whole. If there are only 10 climate scientists and 3 of them have suffered ethical lapses that would indicate the field has serious ethical problems. If it’s 10,000 then the field has a ‘few bad eggs’.
The windmills built to combat ‘climate change’ don’t work well in heat waves. ‘Greens’ tell us how much energy they generated in a heat wave while leaving out how much energy they should have been generated.
That’s how ‘white propaganda’ works. Critical facts required to evaluate a claim are left out.
Politicians plays it, green advocates play it.
If I go to the NASA website and read the page on Greenland Ice Sheets a ‘critical fact’ is missing, how long will it take for the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt at the current rate of melt and current rate of melt acceleration.
Are people who deliberately leave out critical facts liars and frauds?
Big Coal tells me that there is 250 years of coal in the ground without mentioning that extraction costs are skyrocketing.
NASA tells me the Greenland Ice Sheets are melting without mentioning it will take 10,000 years for them to melt.
The Solar Panel Manufacturers tell me how much electricity their panels will produce at noon on June 21st on a clear day without mentioning how much they will produced the rest of the year.
Windmill manufacturers tell me how much electricity their windmills will produce without mentioning that they don’t work very well in cold snaps and heat waves.
Hydro-fracking extraction costs are the best kept secret in the history of man.
We live in a world where the presentation of ‘selective facts’ allows us all to believe whatever it is we wish to believe.
Perry’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, which I suppose makes him a top candidate for Republicans, for similar reasons Bush was.
Someone recently asked Perry what his views on evolution were and he claimed creationism was taught in public schools.
Then there’s the matter of his academic performance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html
Not so good in the science or econ classes.
I never can quite understand why some types of people don’t have a preference for leaders who are smarter than them. That’s not the only important quality, but it’s an important one. Maybe it’s a control thing. Maybe it’s related to reasons why they prefer the unqualified views of Watts/Bastardi over the consensus of experts on climate science. How many over at those anti-science blogs questioned that poll? Perry says stupid things, but a lot of people want to hear that.
@3, Keith Kloor links to what he calls “an interesting op-ed.” I agree the piece is interesting but probably not for the reasons Kloor intended. You see, the piece says:
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
That’s right, the good ol’ “the Tea Party is racist” meme is still alive and kicking.