BPSDBThe Business and Media Institute reports that “CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory ‘Arrogant’, and of course the freepers and other Denier wingnuts are off!
As one would expect Chad Myers’s statements are devoid of any factual basis, consisting of the usual moronic “aw shucks” barroom tales spiced with a few irrelevant factoids. This nonsense is then “substantiated” by Jay Lehr from the much discredited Heartland Institute who tries to push the global cooling fable.
Naturally the appeal of Meyers to the Deniers is the fact that he is a meteorologist. The “logic” is that climate is best known to meteorologists and hence Meyers is an authority.
So appealing is this meme that they are also reviving John Coleman‘s ridiculous appearance with Glen Beck. Who to believe?
Several problems here.
Let’s start with the fact that meteorology is not climatology. They are related sciences to be sure, but not synonyms, just as weather and climate are not.
It is very true that meteorologists enjoy a particular advantage in being able to understand climate science as a result of their training, but they do not necessarily understand it simply by virtue of being meteorologists.
As noted, Meyers offers no facts or evidence to substantiate his claim, Lehr’s statements are nonsense, as are the alleged “facts” that Coleman consistently embarrasses himself with.
The “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. If someone speaks rationally, intelligently and accurately about the facts then they are authoritative regardless of their possession of, or lack of credential.
If they spout gibberish as Meyers, Lehr, and Coleman do, then it is irrelevant whether they are meteorologists, climatologists or Rosicrucians.
As mentioned, meteorologists are better positioned to understand climate science than most, so what do they have to say about anthropogenic climate change?
The 14,000 member American Meteorological Society has been quiet clear in accepting anthropogenic climate change since 2003.
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:
“Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950″
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:
“…supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
See also: “An Open Letter on Climate Change Science to all Canadian Elected Government Leaders “
and on and on. Anyone wishing to track down every meteorological society and their statements are most welcome to do so, but it’s just more of the same as part of the consensus.
In fact the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, so we know what their statement is (hint IPCC reports).
Oddly, when one points this out to Deniers it turns out that meteorologists are actually not very credible.
In fact it seems that virtually the entire profession is corrupt and part of the global conspiracy (and here), or so I am told.
In the eyes of the Deniers two or three meteorologists who cannot seem to make a coherent statement that accurately presents the facts are eminently qualified to speak authoritatively on climate, but tens of thousands of meteorologists who make and endorse rational, fact based statements are not.
How impressed are Deniers by meteorologists? not at all. As ever for them the only acceptable credential is the a priori rejection of climate science.
And of course there is no paradox about meteorologists. The overwhelming majority are competent and professional. Those who have critically examined climate science have made their conclusions abundantly clear through their professional associations and the scientific literature.
Like any profession they have their wingnuts and nutcases, but the entire profession can not be held responsible for them any more than any profession can be.
The relevant fallacy committed by the Deniers is Unappealing Authority and applies any time the Deniers trot out yet another talking head and attempt to mask the lack of facts or relevant science by proclaiming “s/he is a meteorologist/physicist/climatologist/other.”
The correct answer is:
i) who cares? where’s the evidence? and
ii) let’s see what other _______s say if the profession is really such an unquestionable authority; and then consult the relevant professional associations listed with the consensus.
Unless the Denier has cited an esthetician or pipe fitter you will find that the relevant professional association has in fact endorsed the science of anthropocentric climate change.
Actually, for all I know the professional associations of both estheticians and pipe fitters may have as well. The ones I have met seemed sensible, rational people and I am sure that if they critically examine the science they will come to the same conclusion that any thinking person does.
Speaking of wingnuts
The Daily Kos has published a debunking of the latest screed (or as they refer to it, “this piece of crap“) from perennial wingnut Tim Ball (and here).
Meanwhile over at “The Way Things Break” there is a summary of the refutation of cosmic rays as significant factors in climate change which takes some obvious delight that in Inhofe’s Folly reference to cosmic rays as causation “appears at least 25 times.” [It’s wicked to mock the afflicted! 🙂 ]
And Rabbet recently informs us that while greedy climate scientists revel in ill gotten grants the selfless Fred Singer of Climatology Incoherence Award fame may have to sell the Rolls. Apparently climate Denialism is no longer as lucrative as it was under the Bush Regime.
Dead serious
Climate Matters informs us that:
” USGS released “Abrupt Climate Change, Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4” of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research” (available here)
I haven’t done more than glance at the highlights so I’ll just keep my feet out my mouth for now.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 68 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
So even before looking at the facts, Myers knows that it’s “arrogant” to think mankind can affect the weather. Of course, the word “arrogant” in this case smacks of religion… but after a bit of thinking, I realized that “AGW is arrogant!” is the “Oh say can you see” of Liberal Fascism, and so the real religious zealots are actually the Global Warmists!
At the same time however, Myers knows it’s not arrogant to think mankind can affect the oceans’ acidity. After all, “the oceans are so big”… uh…
Same old, same old:
1. Bloke disputes some minor details in climate science / Gore’s film.
2. Inactivists claim that said bloke therefore disputes the whole AGW theory.
3. Bloke clarifies that he still agrees with AGW.
4. Inactivists claim said bloke is being persecuted by fascist ninja inquisitors.
—-
Re. problems with beef… err, appeals to authority.
Experts and authorities do render valuable opinions in their fields as a result of their training and experience, and we can (and do, including in this discussion) look to their opinions for good reasons.
However, as your good link explains, for an appeal to authority to be justified or for someone to be credible as an authority, someone must be generally recognized by peers in the same field and the peers must hold similar views.
So, all the denier arguments that rely on individuals who are not experts in the area of knowledge under consideration or who pretend there is no agreement in the area of knowledge under consideration, have a big problem: they are bad arguments.
Deniers need to examine their positions a lot more carefully. Irrelevant or illegitimate appeals to authority abound, as do problems with evaluation, reflection and critical reasoning skills. Many like to shadow-box and value their opinion just because… well, it is their opinion.
Not very interesting.
And if one is worried about where the general question of appeals to authority leaves the problem of rational dissent, critical challenges to the status quo, etc., there is no need to fear: it is often also crucial to evaluate the status quo and come to conclusions on other relevant or rational grounds, other than appealing to an authority. Those interested in the human situation do this all the time, especially by examining the context.
In truth, deniers have fallen victim to the same influences as most consumers of mass media advertising.
Fortunately, it’s never too late to work on critical thinking skills. In fact, major social issues depend on our ability to do this, in a complex world.
cheers! 🙂
Nice one, Mike – another comprehensive evisceration.
Also, there’s actually a species of plant called the “Caucasian Wingnut”? w00t.
—-
Mike,
You know that I am a global warming skeptic. Most good scientists are skeptical about anything, until it is proven [1], as a scientific fact, BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, not opinion polls of a group of scientists,[2] no matter how venerated. You must have noted that most responsible liberals now call it “Global Climate Change” not “Global Warming”. That is an indication that whatever they originally thought, was WRONG. [3]
The history of science is full of such changes. Our ancient learned men were wrong about what the center of the universe was. Life was once thought to “generate spontaneously” from rotting food. Atomic structure was once thought to be “turtles all they way down”. These were all very popular opinions of scientists of their day. But it did not make them scientific facts. [4] In fact, these scientists, were wrong. [5]
But today we have a problem, what you consider to be “scientific fact” will have “unintended consequences” for future generations. You know I hate coal plants, I hate any burning of any fossil fuel, of any kind. But shutting all these plants down now, will have vast economic consequences for future generations, if there are any.
I want to see wind and solar develop as much as possible. I want them to become the backbone of our energy production systems. But wave energy, tide energy, and geothermal energy will have their place. But let’s say there is another Katrina, and incoming rescuers need power immediately, in remote locations to save lives. The electric grid will most likely be down for weeks, if not months. In that case, space based solar power can beam power to these locations immediately, by just erecting portable rectennas.
What I am saying is that it is difficult to say what power system will survive some calamity of the future. Power diversity, like bio-diversity, should be our goal. Nuclear power is my least favorite option, but it should be part of the mix, because we are not imaginative enough to be prepared for all eventualities.
We need multiple layers of back-ups. Look at anti-biotic drugs. They have saved many human lives, but there have devastating unintened consequences from their misuse. Garlic is a cocktail of over two hundred biological-antibiotic compounds that no bug has been able to develop a resistance to, yet.
Here in Seattle today, we are faced with a predicted 90 mph wind and snow storm that will probably knock out power for weeks. The last time this happened, over 17 people eventually died, by burning coal, and running diesel generators inside their homes, over the course of the month that it took to bring the electical grid back up. If we had communities up here, with buried Hyperion mini-nukes, running power thru buried underground powerlines, these people would not have died.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish every house around here had solar roofs and pacwind windmills too. But there are times when the wind does not blow, or it blows too much. There are times when the sun does not shine for months, we call that winter in Seattle! When Mount St. Helen’s blew, we didn’t see the sun for weeks either, due to volcanic dust in the stratosphere.
Mike I think you are well intentioned, but we must also be well prepared, for ANY eventuality. Please think about that.
—-
Hey, Tony,
I, too, am unclear about what you think and why you think it. It doesn’t help that you posted exactly the same comments in two different spots here, rather than taking the opportunity to explain your ideas further in response to others.
You sound like you care, know a lot about mechanics, and have thought about sustainable cities.
Your basis for questioning the science, though, is what?
It looks like you (quite rightly) appreciate the limits and historical context of scientific knowledge: but as GreenFyre suggests, the history of knowledge and scientific knowledge in particular is well-known in this discussion.
I can’t tell whether your difference of opinion is substantial. Are you really deeply questioning the scientific evidence and arguments that point to human-caused global warming? I’m not sure. To me, it looks like you are trying trying to have a discussion about technological solutions.
Something about your use of the term ‘progressive liberal’ makes me think your political perspective is libertarian. Is that a fair assumption? By the way, who is an ‘irresponsible liberal’? 🙂
Divergent political perspectives are to be expected, my brother. However, discussion of solutions is very limited if we are not agreeing on the basic facts.
Please tell us what you think about all the science presented here.
Tony
Oops. I meant to ask you about your use of the term ‘responsible’ liberal, not ‘progressive liberal’.
I think I had a Freudian slip, there. 🙂
When a scientific organization issues a statement about climate change, it is unlikely that all of the members agree with or support the statement.
For example, you wrote “The 14,000 member American Meteorological Society has been quiet clear in accepting anthropogenic climate change since 2003.”
In past posts, when you mention the millions of scientists who agree; it would appear that this statement comes from the sum of all of the organizations that have issued an official statement.
Personally I can only comment on the statement issued by the American Chemical Society. This organization is listed on the wiki site “Scientific opinion on climate change”. The ACS currently has over 160,000 members. Many of these members do not perform any research associated with climate change. It would be impossible to tell you how many ‘qualified’ chemists agree with this statement; it would be a total that is substantially less than 160,000.
I am a 12-year member of the ACS and I do not agree with the statement as it is written. Official statements from these organizations are written as political statements using science as justification. This does not mean that every member agrees.
—-
Every organization starts delegating because no one can look into everything. Through a process you select members who’s competence you trust and they deal with whatever it is in detail, be it accounts, member policy, or critical examination of some aspect of science.
—-
Mike
I agree (and the emphasis above is mine).
Patently true, since you are a member and disagree.
But since you disagree with the ACS but acknowledge that their statement is based on science, what exactly do you base your beliefs on?
Plainly, it isn’t science.
Mike & S2-
My occupation involves physical chemistry at a compressed gas manufacturer (i.e. oxygen gas not petroleum gas). It does not involve climate change; so the best that I can do is read the papers and form my own opinion on what the data means. It would mean that choices 1 & 2 would involve a career change. Therefore, I have chosen to do #3.
However, my reason for disagreement does not have to do with the existing science. It is the predictions of future events that are based on interpretations of this science that cause my disagreement. Chemists have not historically made official statements like this. This would imply that the organization is more concerned with the politics than the science.
Mike – The use of “rational analysis” is interesting. I wonder why you would believe that I am irrational for disagreeing with a political statement. I never said that I disagree with the science.
S2 – “But since you disagree with the ACS but acknowledge that their statement is based on science, what exactly do you base your beliefs on? Plainly, it isn’t science.”
– This is an interesting comment and the last sentence makes an assumption that shouldn’t be made yet. I never said that I disagree with the science.
However, my reason for disagreement does not have to do with the existing science. It is the predictions of future events that are based on interpretations of this science that cause my disagreement. Chemists have not historically made official statements like this. This would imply that the organization is more concerned with the politics than the science.
In other words, JCP has uncovered a vast conspiracy of Marxists who have successfully infiltrated the upper echelons of the American Chemical Society.
All from the one little fact that “chemists have not historically made official statements like this”.
(erratum: first para should be quoted)
“In other words, JCP has uncovered a vast conspiracy of Marxists who have successfully infiltrated the upper echelons of the American Chemical Society.”
Wow – a large leap in what I have said. There is nothing wrong with the heads of organizations being political. I do not have to agree with them. Nothing more.
You keep insinuating that the leaders of the ACS have hidden political motivations. If that’s not a conspiracy theory, then what is?
Political motivations are not necessarily evil – and I have never claimed that they are hidden.
My concern is that the current leadership is expanding beyond the organization’s traditional core values. Chemists, as an organization, should not be concerned with using taxation to stop CO2 emissions; we are not economists or politicians.
However, we have gone well past the intent of the original comment – which was:
Not every member of a scientific organization will support that organization’s statements. There may be additional valid reasons why an organization will issue a position statement that has nothing to do with the underlying science.
So in an effort to diplomatically defuse this situation, am I correct in saying that you do not agree with their statement because you view it as a political statement from a group that has no bearing making political statements?
What, then, would you consider a statement of science that concludes that business as usual cannot be sustained? The conclusion may sound political, but if it follows completely from every point brought about through the scientific method, is it still a political statement?
Brian D – I don’t view this as a situation; but thanks for the offer to diffuse.
First paragraph – correct. When a non-political organization makes a political statement, it will make others question the entire message. We see something similar when scientists receive funding from sources that have questionable motives.
Second paragraph – the ACS statement would have been just as powerful without including recommendations concerning taxation and Foreign Policy. The ACS statement explains the problem and what is needed at the scientific level. How this work is funded is not best answered by scientists. It did not add anything to the statement.
No one questions the need for a price on carbon or international cooperation to solve the problem. It’s only “political” if you don’t believe there’s a problem in the first place.
That’s true, and I apologise for assuming otherwise.
I think that the statement you are referring to is this one:
ACS Statement on Global Climate Change
Are you saying that you would be happy with the statement if they removed all the recommendations?
They do not need to remove all of the recommendations. Only this one:
“Recommendation 2a – The U.S. should immediately adopt nationwide goals for rapid and deep reductions in
CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and develop effective economic drivers to achieve these goals.
Options such as emission cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, or emissions taxes need to be devised, tested and
implemented on a national basis. The U.S. should work closely with all major greenhouse gas emitter nations to
secure their commitment to similar greenhouse gas emission reductions.”
ACS could have stopped after recommending reductions in emissions. The remainder is political and not based in science.
cce – I view politics as an effective way to solve certain types of problems. Unfortunately, politics can create problems as well.
Deniers, doubters, & skeptics will question the need for a carbon tax. Many chemists will fall into these categories. These same chemists will not deny the science (the good ones will question the science & review the experimental data). That is why I see it necessary for the ACS to issue a statement based only in science.
JCP:
So what you’re saying is that the ACS should recommend only to do more research to study the problem, but not recommend any measures to actually solve the problem? And this is because the latter part is “political”? Why do you consider the former to be non-“political”, but the latter “political”? What’s the distinction here exactly?
frankbi – would you want economists to make recommendations on how to advance the science? The economists do not have the training to completely understand the science. Scientists do not have the training to completely understand the economics. The solution needs to be collaborative.
The ACS Statement recommends research to advance the technology. This is a necessary part of solving the problem. This is the part that the membership can actually work on – the “non-political” part. There are politcal aspects to these recommendations; additional funding, additional availability of government resources (laboratories, data, etc.). But these are justified. The membership can use the gain to work on the solution.
The “political” part is the recommendation that does not come from the membership’s training and knowledge. This could have been handled differently in the ACS statement. There was no need to list this as a formal recommendation. This is a recommendation based on other’s knowledge and training. Additionally, the ACS members cannot perform any work to advance this recommendation.
My questions for you:
Why would an organization recommend something that is not part of the membership’s collective knowledge?
Why would an organization recommend something that the membership can not advance?
But you can say the same about the rest of the statement, which draws heavily on other sources. So what’s the distinction here again? Why’s it not “political” to recommend to study the problem further, but it’s suddenly “political” to recommend how to solve it?
Greetings JCP,
“Why would an organization recommend something that is not part of the membership’s collective knowledge?”
Because the kind of society we create is a collective project. The recommendation(s) suggest the view that members should take a position, based on the science and on their social positioning as citizens with professional status that can positively or negatively impact the crisis.
Science is value-laden. I think we have gotten over pretensions to the contrary in a post-positivist era.
Until relatively recently, science has largely concerned itself with how to do things i.e., instrumental reason, rather than with what should be done. I applaud your organization for its capacity to self-consciously (rather than unconsciously) politicize the issue with and for its members. The implicit conservatism of western science and its pretensions to value-neutrality are major contributors to the modern crisis. I would suggest that modern scientists do not erode their credibility by being participants in social change: quite the contrary, they risk reducing their credibility at this time if they make pallid recommendations, rather than recommendations with the necessary depth, and national and international scope.
“Why would an organization recommend something that the membership can not advance?”
The membership can advance it. They can do so directly by raising social and ethical questions within their profession, by participating in policy formation, and by pressing their professional association to form alliances with others who are responding to the climate crisis — among other things.
You do, however, make your own view of the matter quite clear.
Cheers! 🙂
First for Martha – I cannot disagree with anything that you say. It is only a different viewpoint than mine. I do not see any problem with individual scientists using their knowledge to work on social policy. I feel that it is not a statement that the organization should make for all of the members. Chemistry would probably have a larger percentage of skeptics that other sciences. We are used to looking at the very ‘small picture’. Climate change is a very ‘large picture’.
Before I get any comments like ‘I can leave the organization if I don’t agree with their views’ – The ACS does many good things and provides many services for its members and for the community; this issue is trivial compared to the benefits that they provide.
For frankbi – the way that a scientist is best able to solve these problems is by advancing the understanding of the science and improving the available technology.
It is not political to work towards solving the problem; it is political to recommend solutions that are not based on that organization’s training and knowledge.
JCP:
me:
JCP:
You’re not answering my question, JCP. You’re just repeating yourself.
frankbi – I apologize if my answer (x2) does not satisfy. I believe that I have answered.
ACS should not comment on social policy or foreign policy (not an absolute statement).
JCP: Understand this: Choosing to recommend to policymakers that the group should study the problem further is a social and foreign policy decision — to wit, “Take no action to address the concerns, and take what it deals to us”.
So not only is that a policy recommendation, it also doesn’t jive with an understanding of the risks involved. (These risks are detailed in the IPCC Working Group 2 report, while the monumental scale of the challenge is detailed in Working Group 3. )
What would be a sound recommendation from the ACS, in your mind?
I was less than clear as well as inconsistent in my previous post.
ACS could comment on social policy and foreign policy. ACS should not offer official recommendations concerning social policy and foreign policy in this statement. It will be the opinion of the writers of the statement and not based on any work of the membership. No matter how educated this opinion may be; it brings into question the underlying reason for stating this opinion.
As you have stated; the IPCC report has already covered the many different areas that need to be solved. By regurgitating the IPCC report without relying on the work of the membership, it becomes political. It can appear that the ACS leadership may be trying to say ‘We agree – now gives us money’. If you look at the official statement, three of the recommendations are for additional funding – which is needed.
Taxation to reduce CO2 emissions could work; but it may accelerate inflation. As energy costs increase so does the cost of just about everything. Chemists do not have the experience, training, or knowledge to fully evaluate this – so it should not be included as an official recommendation. It would be better to strive towards advancing technology to reduce the dependence on energy. This is where scientists and engineers can provide the greatest good.
JCP
I’m wondering, who would you say has the experience and responsibility to discuss social and economic policy and make some recommendations to help form national or international plans in response to climate change?
I’m also wondering about applied chemistry. Do you think the field can and/or should shape how advances in technology are used?
Having read the recent discussion, these would be my questions at this point.
thanks 🙂
Martha – I would assume that there are economists who are best suited for this type of discussion. I haven’t research this enough to give a concrete answer. I know that it isn’t chemists.
All chemists have the training to be applied chemists. The major difference is the outcome of the research. And yes, this field has – in the past and definitely in the future – shaped how advances in technology are used. For example, there is work being done on solar panels that has private and public funding. It would have been very difficult to get the public funding 10-20 years ago.
The amount of funding hasn’t changed significantly – the priority for funding has shifted away from other field including health related work in biochemistry and medicinal chemistry. So we may be working on alternative energy at the expense of human health. This was a choice made at the political level; choices made by Congress & choices made by Executive Offices.
Are we better off with these shifts in priorities?
This is a ethical choice that will get different answers based on the scientist’s interests and research. I would assume that this would get different answers from the general public as well.
Now I will get off the soapbox and hope that I answered your questions.
Greetings JCP
My father is a retired chemist. I have enjoyed speaking with you, here. Thanks you for taking the time to explain your view.
I am interested in the ability of citizens to influence social policy. Citizens have very limited opportunities to do so at this time, unless they are in government, or belong to think-tanks or have executive roles. Professional associations and individual citizens have not generally been prepared to participate in discourse about policy, but I see this as a result of being denied relevant and regular forums and opportunities to interact, discuss and influence social policy; and also a result of the unique status we ascribe to policymakers.
I don’t see good reason for such separations between the decision-makers, and the people impacted by the decisions.
Your professional organization is doing what I think it should do, although in time, I hope it will also interact directly with ordinary citizens to receive their input on the issues e.g. energy and the environment.
My view is that citizens and workers (in all areas of employment, but perhaps especially health care, education, energy, and foreign affairs) are as responsible as any economist for participating in and influencing decisions that affect us. A more informed citizenry is badly needed, as are opportunities for discussing and evaluating policy options.
So my perspective is very different from yours.
But we already knew that. 🙂
Thank you again for the discussion, and Happy Holidays!
Martha –
Happy Holidays to you as well.
It takes a lot of different views to reach the best decisions. The most important part is knowing what you are talking about and staying civil during discussion.
It was nice to have both during the discussion.
my question is-
Why is CNN airing these kinds of shows? I had the impression CNN was more or less centrist. I know they have Lou Dobbs, who doesn’t have a clue when it comes to global warming and plays a role in the disinformation campaign, but he is established as a tv talking head, which makes it at least understandable. I wish he had stuck to stock market commentary.
By the way, Keith Olberman did a spot last nite on MSNBC about George Will’s nonsense about climate change. Something about an academic source Will had quoted, who said he misinterpreted what they said. More like twisted it like a pretzel.
It got me thinking that maybe someone like Olberman could do a regular debunking with the help of scientists. What I imagined, was Desmogblog doing a piece on whatever denial baloney they happen to be debunking that day on their website, but on national TV. Something like that anyway.