Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

Published Jul 01 2009, 08:09 AM by David S. Bernstein

Jeff Jacoby once again rounds up whatever climate-change debunkery he finds floating in the conservative flotsam, and churns out a column scoffing at Al Gore. This should keep him in the good graces and high click-throughs in the right-wing blogosphere, but earns him another whacking from my little blog.

To Jacoby's credit, he at least leaves out the current fave theory of the denial crowd, concerning the allegedy suppressed contrarian views of an EPA scientist. The less said on that the better.

Anyhoo, Jacoby tosses out a few examples of how unsettled the debate is. First up, the Polish Academy of Sciences. The brief opinion document from its Geological Sciences Committee (produced in February, not July) does indeed caution restraint in public policy, arguing that we don't know enough to say how much of the global warming is human-caused:

The present warming coincides with elevated contents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.... It is certain that increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is connected partly with human activity. Therefore, all steps that restrain this emission and agree with principles of sustainable development should be taken, starting from a cease of extensive deforestation, especially in tropical areas. Various adapting measures that can mitigate effects of the recent trend of climate warming should be implemented by political decision makers.

That's from a translation; the original is in Polish. It is important to note that A) this was not a scientific paper, but a two-page statement; B) this committee is one of 107 in the Academy, including some that are more specifically focussed on environment and climate; and C) the academy as a whole fully endorses the IPCC report.

Jacoby also cites wacky French socialist Claude Allegre -- I'll let you and your Google bar have fun exploring his unique views of the world -- who, while fully acknowledging global warming, now claims that there's not enough proof to say that it's caused by man's actions. That's just something he likes to say -- he's never published any serious scientific paper about it or anything.

Ivar Giaever's "new religion" comment is even sillier than Allegre's thoughts. Giaever, a retired physicist who admits to having no expertise on the climate, was pushed into participating in a global warming panel last year that he didn't want to be on, during which he expressed skepticism that global warming is as bad as everyone seems to think. (He noted that he prepared for the discussion by doing some Google searching.)

Next, Jacoby reports on an open letter to Congress signed by six incessant warming deniers, only one of whom (the ubiquitous Richard Lindzen of MIT) is a climatologist. He also points to climatologist John Christy, who absolutely agrees that human activity is warming the environment, but claims that his model shows this warming to be more moderate than those generally accepted.

Here's the bottom line: it is perfectly reasonable to debate the economic costs of different approaches to combatting climate change, and if Jacoby would stick to that I would be happy to take him seriously. (I personally believe that those on the opposite end of the issue err in downplaying the necessary economic costs of a serious approach.) But it is impossible to take Jacoby seriously if he asserts such nonsense as "the debate over global warming is more robust than it has been in years." It is not. There are some serious scientists who argue that the effects of human-caused warming will be less severe than the generally accepted scientific view, just as there are some who argue that the effects will be more severe. But there are only a handful who continue to deny that it's real and serious, while there are dozens and dozens of serious scientific organizations -- each representing hundreds or thousands of members -- who all agree otherwise. There is a constant stream of peer-reviewed work updating and improving upon warming theory, compared with none in the debunkers' corner. Jacoby and others can continue to trawl for the occasional grumpy skeptic or out-of-context quote, but they cannot build from that a serious debate on global warming.

New In The Phoenix -- Boston Pays $3.8m Settlement

Connolly Issues Denial -- Phoenix Calls For Crowdsource Investigation!

4 Comments

Michael Pahre said:

David,

Claude Allegre won the Crafoord Prize in 1986 for his work in geology. That is one big frigging deal of a prize. It is awarded on a rotating basis for fields that do not have a Nobel Prize (such as astronomy and mathematics), and is considered to be that subject's equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

You should not reject out-of-hand somebody like him who has legitimacy in science evidenced by a prize like the Crafoord. You should instead stick to debunking one-by-one his ideas on climate change that you consider wacky.

July 1, 2009 11:26 AM
Pam-I-Am said:

Concurring with Michael, using the suggestion of Lindzen not-being-credible-wink-wink as a premise without supporting the slap with anything tangible simple feeds the notion that liberals consider name-calling a substitute for math skills.

Also, jump past the did he get the month right thing -- it again perpetuates the liberal, "I'm right he's wrong minutia, nyanee nyannee poo poo in place of facts" protocal -- and get yourself to a larger and more telling awareness that weighs an MIT staple like Lindzen against a paunchy post-relevant two time grad school drop out in search of a niche like Al Gore. If we're to be taken seriously we need to wake up and smell the agenda.

On the plus side, saving face when the facts are dropping all around you is best saved for a seasoned politico.

Here comes the dreaded math part. There is a cost-benefit analysis here that seems to be the elephant in the livingroom for many: if the cost of producing electricity/gas/fuel oil/wind power/energy ends up 50 - 90% higher, therefore exceeding most people's ability to buy it ... won't that be the same as not having it at all, and at that point why would we need a planet if we couldn't sustain a way to live on it?

Hello?

Certainly it was unintentional but you also seriously underplayed the number of dissenting scientists at the Polish Academy of Science event. People should Google that and get a look at what was said, by whom, and in what, (spiraling) numbers.

Lastly, continue to call Chicken Little if it makes for good sound bites and votes since you've apparently successfully completed the training for that -- but do be aware that when you finally wake up, you will feel so used.

July 1, 2009 7:30 PM
David Roberts said:

David, good on you for taking the time to debunk this stuff (better you than me -- it's endless).

But don't be so quick to accept the scary economic cost figures the same conservatives are throwing around:

www.grist.org/.../2009-06-26-overestimate-costs-climate

July 1, 2009 7:32 PM
Dr. Manhattan said:

The debate is quite simple, I still cannot figure what the fuss is all about. FACT : The alarmists' claims are grounded on climate models and little else. You cannot "observe" that carbon dioxide is impacting the atmosphere, you need figure it out of mathematical models parametrized to fit the modeler's preferences.

Once you figured this out, you start to inquire about climate models. Then you find out that mathematical models are not better at predicting the climate than economic models are at predicting the economy. Eeven most alarmists will not pretend that mathematical models are very reliable tools.

So the question you need to ask yourself is : are you sure you accept to doom western civilization in the name of worthless models?

July 2, 2009 2:25 PM