May 12, 2015

"Obama’s Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial."

A NYT op-ed.
Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No. Instead, it applies to be first in line to drill for yet more oil in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Siberia...

And the White House gave Shell the license....

This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real. This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.

74 comments:

Bobber Fleck said...

This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real.

My hat is off to the NYT for the most arrogant, deceitful, condescending sentence of the year-to-date.

AJ Lynch said...

From Wiki: "William Ernest "Bill" McKibben (born 1960)[1] is an American environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impact of global warming".

IOW IMHO, McKibben is essentially a hobbyist. He has no formal science training and probably has made many millions as a climate change pusher. NTTIAWWT.

Magson said...

As many are wont to say: I'll believe it's a crisis when those who say it's a crisis begin acting like it's a crisis.

Coupe said...

The melting Arctic has made the Panama Canal obsolete.

MadisonMan said...

Keeping carbon in the ground is laudable, but not at all practical.

I'm waiting for the NYTimes to start pushing a nuclear agenda.

Big Mike said...

This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real.

When the scientific theories do not match the observable reality, then the science isn't real.

F**king clowns.

MRG said...

"does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No."

Shell is an OIL company, not a solar panels and wind turbines company.

Paul Ciotti said...

I wonder how many NY Times editors have ever canceled their flights to Tuscany or the south of France to do their part against global warming.

MRG said...

Obama is probably the biggest single carbon pig on the planet.

Christopher said...

Artic ice is rebounding like crazy. Antarctice sea ice is busting records and could force the relocation of Australia's Mawson research station.

Christopher said...

Artic ice is rebounding like crazy. Antarctice sea ice is busting records and could force the relocation of Australia's Mawson research station.

Fabi said...

How dare that Shell not invest its capital in a manner approved by The Times' op-ed writers! Have they no shame?

And could that third paragraph been much more hysterical? All they missed was the cute polar bears.

Brent said...

Said the editor consuming electricity (generated by removing carbon from the ground) by his very writing.

Sebastian said...

"They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground."

Science tells us nothing about what we "must" do.

jr565 said...

IS the artic in fact melting?
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/is-the-arctic-melting/

And if it is, its melted before the oil company moved

eddie willers said...

We aren't saying the science isn't real....we're saying it is wrong.

Mike said...

Excellent article "22 Inconvenient Truths" at the Watts Up With That site. One item is the observation by the IPCC that total polar sea ice remains constant. The arctic melting is offset by antarctic ice sheet growth. Too bad the anti-science NYT is too ignorant to know that. I didn't click over but I wonder if they're still crying about polar bears too.

Sebastian said...

Meanwhile, Down Under:

"Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division."

"“Challenging sea ice conditions in some parts of Antarctica, including thicker and more extensive sea ice coverage, are impacting the delivery of Antarctic scientists, support personnel and supplies to Antarctic research facilities,” Ms Rogan-Finnemore said."

Sammy Finkelman said...

If we keep carbon in the ground, then we don't need all this regulation of carbon usage, or cap and trade or...anything.

This is much too simple an approach.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well according to McKibben (who is an unhinged ideologue) Obama has just said, "If you like your climate, you can keep it."

There's a piece in the Los Angeles Times today about the "rising oceans". It appears that the earlier predictions of the speed of the ocean's rise have not been met. Instead of the ocean rising at a little better than 3/16th of an inch per year, it's rising at less than 1/8 of an inch. Why at that rate, it will have risen a whole foot in a century! They're going to be swimming for their lives in downtown Manhattan in say 2525.

chuck said...

Bill McKibben? What, the Times can't find a real scientist?

Tregonsee said...

The NYT has a long history with dealing with science and technology. In 1920, they laughed at Robert Goddard because everyone knew rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum because wasn't anything to push against. On July 17, 1969 they published the following retraction: "Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."

I am not sure the NYT will ever have the integrity to say the same about CAGW, and I have no hopes to live that long. Still, it is fun to think about.

MadisonMan said...

Arctic ice is rebounding like crazy

Nope.

When did nsidc stop providing links? SMH.

Fabi said...

You have to love not only the failed prediction of a 3/16" rise but also the claimed accuracy of measuring ocean levels to a sixteenth of an inch. Maybe that's using a decadal change reduced down to a per annum value, but I'd still like to see all the raw data.

jimbino said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pettifogger said...

Kaeptical Voter said: "Instead of the ocean rising at a little better than 3/16th of an inch per year, it's rising at less than 1/8 of an inch."

So Obama really has slowed the rise of the oceans! Who knew?

AJ Lynch said...

Yesterday, I read a Yahoo article claiming the Florida city of St. Augustine is being swamped by rising sea levels.

When I read the comments to the article, it seemed almost 100% of teh commenters disputed the article's claims and many of the commenters claimed to be longtime residents of that city.

MadisonMan said...

You have to love not only the failed prediction of a 3/16" rise but also the claimed accuracy of measuring ocean levels to a sixteenth of an inch.

I *think* you can get that accuracy from satellite -- but I'm not sure about the pixel size, and I'm pretty sure it'll be a monthly mean value. Local tidal forces near coasts will make changes hard to see.

I'm trying, in vain, to remember the name of the satellite that does this. It might be GRACE (a NASA satellite) but I'm not certain.

Peter said...

Brought to you by the "scientists" at the NYT. If their political coverage were as good as their science coverage, they'd insist Moscow, Kansas is the capital of Russia.

Has the NYT ever had a scientifically literate employee on staff?

Although the problem isn't so much the ignorance, it's ignorance coupled to arrogance: there's just no one there who can read a science paper and evaluate whether the methodology and math are any good, but that's not about to stop them from declaring that anyone who disagrees with them is a science "denier."

Gabriel said...

That's how progressives do everything. They hold protests to raise the minimum wage and ignore those who can no longer find work afterward. They make speeches about how sorry they are for not preventing genocide and then they do nothing about genocide (#BringBackOurGirls, Save Darfur).

So of course they fly to Dubai to talk about carbon emissions and then license more.

Fabi said...

@MadisonMan: Thanks. GRACE does active gravity anomaly measurements. Great science. I don't believe it does ocean level measurements, but I'll check some of my older files.

dbp said...

BILL McKIBBEN is generally correct that any oil produced will get burned, the theoretical side of it (supply and demand) is an undiscovered country for him. But other things, things that he says he is for, also increase the demand for petroleum. It is a well known phenomenon in the economics world that increased fuel economy is more than cancelled-out by the added utility of being able to go further on a gallon of gas. Yet he applauds tougher CAFE standards.

From Inwood said...

The writer of this rant talks of "climate denial of the Republican sort" Er, there is no science “of the Republican sort” — tho there is science of the crony sort. As EW has noted here I, for one, & non-Republican scientists I assume, are not saying the science isn't “real” as much as saying it’s wrong; it’s junk. When scientific theories & modeling from a “conclusion first, details second” basis do not match observable reality, then one is not a “denier’ when he says that’s wrong, that’s junk science.

Peter

Re who's in charge @ the NYT, I’d say re CAGW, the NTY is all "low, dishonest crony science"

Brent said...

" It is a well known phenomenon in the economics world that increased fuel economy is more than cancelled-out by the added utility of being able to go further on a gallon of gas. Yet he applauds tougher CAFE standards."

Putting aside whether CAFE standards are a good idea, this doesn't ring true to me. 99% of my driving is routine driving that doesn't change based on how much I spend on gas. E.G., my commute will stay the same regardless of whether I buy a car with better gas millage.

Smilin' Jack said...

This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.

What science actually tells us is that all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere, and it didn't "ruin" the world. Today's coal and oil are the fossilized remains of the lush forests that thrived in a warmer world (the Carboniferous period.)

MikeinAppalachia said...

Sea level is estimated from satellite data and tide gauges.
the satellites are (have been) Topex starting in the early '90's which was replaced by Jason 1 and now Jason 2.

dbp said...

@Brent,

It is thought that the Jevons paradox operates over the long term: Your work, home and car are not things that change very often and so you are locked-in to your driving routines. The price of gas can change a lot, but you have to work, get groceries and get back home. This is not the case over the longer term: In the longer term, you could move, get a new job or buy a more efficient car. The existence of efficient cars may distant suburbs possible. Also, highways: They give you better miles per gallon, but they also make 20, 30, 40 mile commutes possible, rather than crazy.

Terry said...

McKibben is not a scientist. He is a journalist and an ideologue. McKibben has no athority to determine what is and what is not real science (he seems to believe that science is a body of knowledge).

Fabi said...

TOPEX did the initial remote altimetry starting in '92 with Jason missions continuing to date. That there were calibration issues resulting in the TOPEX data overestimating sea level rise, is why I always want to see the raw data. But, I digress.

Fabi said...

Mike beat me to it - should have refreshed.

buwaya said...

What science ?

Anonymous said...

Be honest, everything is about money. The Global Warmonger-in-Chief gave Shell the drilling license for the "donations" they are giving his Obama Foundation post-presidency. All these threats about global warming are to raise up the price of the charity donation to the Obama Foundation.

JAORE said...

Hurricane Sandy made it impossible for President Obama to ignore climate change. Oh yeah, because after Catrina we were going to have Cat 5 hurricanes every other week, right? And yet we are in a very long, EXTREMELY quiet period for hurricanes. Do any of these guys even bother to keep their talking points straight?

MadisonMan said...

And yet we are in a very long, EXTREMELY quiet period for hurricanes.

Not quite right.

Landfalling on the United States, yes.

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, I think you'll find when you look at the data that there are fewer hurricanes, period.

Skipper said...

Perhaps the NYT will shut down all its gas guzzling delivery trucks and quit printing and distributing the paper. Good for the planet, good for the body politic.

MadisonMan said...

fewer != EXTREMELY quiet.

What I tell my students is that warmer waters equals more hurricanes/typhoons only if wind shear is not increased and dry air is not increased.

Fritz said...

10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy

1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.

2. There is a cyclical variation in the ACE of 6 and 12 months' length.

3. The contribution of ACE from the Eastern and Western Pacific is approximately 56% of the total ACE.

4. The contribution of ACE from the Atlantic Ocean is approximately 13% of the total ACE.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=al

tim in vermont said...

"Arctic ice is rebounding like crazy"

Nope
MadisonMan.

Arctic Sea Ice over the past few years.

It does seem to be recovering from its lows, and the South Pole is rebounding "like crazy."

But you guys were expecting the Antarctic ice cap to grow this much, and for temperatures to stop climbing (they are about where they were a thousand years ago) and the stratosphere to stop cooling, and you always can find the warming where there are no thermometers.

We send out hundreds of probes to travel he oceans of the planet, diving down to 2000 meters. They don't find any warming? Easy! The warming is all taking place below 2000 meters!

The satellite data shows no warming in about two decades? Easy, we will go with land based thermometer data that has to be "infilled" with assumptions, and the measurements have to be adjusted in all kinds of guestimating ways. Then, lo and behold, the one data set that has the least coverage and the most problematic data "proves" it is still warming.

You guys are amazing and inventive, I will say that!

tim in vermont said...

There is a misconception that the major challenges in physical climate science are settled. “That’s absolutely not true,” says Sandrine Bony, a climate researcher at the Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology in Paris. “In fact, essential physical aspects of climate change are poorly http://www.nature.com/news/climatologists-to-physicists-your-planet-needs-you-1.17270understood.” - Nature Magazine

So I wonder where the "misconception" that the "science is settled" came from?

MadisonMan said...

They don't find any warming? Easy! The warming is all taking place below 2000 meters!

There's a really interesting ongoing study using inverted echosounders on a line from Argentina to South Africa. When they are recovered (again), I think the data record will be something like 5 years. I'll be curious to see what it shows. The first 18 months didn't show cooling, if I'm remembering a talk correctly, and the statistical significance of that period is something to remember.

Gabriel said...

@Madison Man: Reflect on the parable of the motte and the bailey.

Except for climate science there is a twist: the named skeptics, like Steven Hayward, are in the motte saying that of course the earth is warming, of course anthropogenic carbon is at fault, and no skeptic familiar with the science denies it.

And the anonymous skeptics, like commenters on blogs and such, are tacitly encouraged by the motte-dwellers to stay in the bailey, talking about extremely quiet hurricane seasons and such.

MadisonMan said...

I'm supposed to take that seriously?

MadisonMan said...

Maybe I should've taken more liberal arts classes. The curse of double-majoring in two sciences.

Michael K said...

The test of whether I pay attention to climate alarmists is when they start to support nuclear power. When they do so, wake me up.

MadisonMan said...

@MichaelK, see my 3:50 comment.

I'm not really an alarmist, however.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Are the stratosphere and mesosphere still cooling in line with climate change model predictions, though? It's not something I see discussed much, but it seems like an important piece of evidence with which to evaluate those models' predictive use.

chickelit said...

@tim in vermont: That graph merely shows the ebb and flow over summer and winter for one year.

You should see what happens to CO2 levels each summer/winter.

n.n said...

He could be describing the selective-child policy and the abortion industry's termination of around 1 million human lives annually in America alone, but instead he is describing a statistically insignificant (in time and space) phenomenon in the Artic. He likely denies the scientific fact and self-evident knowledge that human life evolves from conception. His concern for the value and welfare of human life has an ulterior motive.

As for anthropogenic global cooling/warming/progress, climate disruption/change/evolution, he denies the short observation period; he accepts liberal inferences or created knowledge from proxies; he denies the chaotic nature of the system; he denies the limited and, in fact, insufficient skill of the models and knowledge of the scientists.

As for the windmill gauntlets, solar ovens, and other circumstantial energy producers, he denies the environmental disruption of these so-called non-renewable technologies throughout their life cycle from recovery to reclamation. He could focus on the renewable, neutral effect -- other than, ironically, the Sun's ability to cause global warming -- of the drivers, but instead spreads the fantasy of renewable, green energy production.

chickelit said...

This time-lapse video of Arctic Sea ice is quite dramatic. Not how much ice exits between Iceland and Greenland! link

Fritz said...

chickelit said...
@tim in vermont: That graph merely shows the ebb and flow over summer and winter for one year.

You should see what happens to CO2 levels each summer/winter.


Several years overlaid. Don't just look at the pretty picture. Read the captions

ELC said...

As of May 5th, daily Arctic ice volume has met or exceeded that of 2007 all this year.

See PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System) graphs here:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas

Look for the "Daily Arctic Ice Volume" graph.

You can also see that, after mid-July last year, 2014's daily ice volume exceeded that of 2007 for the rest of the year.

If you don't like this information, your quarrel is with the Polar Science Center in the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington, in Seattle, not with me. :)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

ELC said...

Hurricane activity is indeed relatively quiet worldwide. See the graphs here:

http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

The frequency and strength of hurricanes, which had been on the increase for a while, have returned to late 1970's levels.

Michael K said...

"@MichaelK, see my 3:50 comment.

I'm not really an alarmist, however."

My level of alarm, while low, is focused on sun spots. If we have a Maunder Minimum in our future, we are going to miss warmth.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...

"My level of alarm, while low, is focused on sun spots. If we have a Maunder Minimum in our future, we are going to miss warmth."

Whatever the problem is whether it is warming or cooling, the solution is always the same: A giant centralized bureaucracy that taxes and controls as much of our lives as possible.

richardsson said...

The Arctic ice cap is definitely melting and it has nothing to do with "man made" global warming. A joint Russian-Swedish scientific expedition has discovered a huge methane gas field in the Arctic Ocean and it is discharging hot gases. There was an article about this on the Earthsky.org site last July:

http://earthsky.org/earth/scientists-discover-vast-methane-plumes-escaping-from-arctic-seafloor?tm_source=EarthSky+News&utm_campaign=80f2496b16-EarthSky_News&utm_me

tim in vermont said...

Are the stratosphere and mesosphere still cooling in line with climate change model predictions, though?

That would be a big fat no!

No cooling in the stratosphere for 20 years. The theory is that the heat is "trapped" by CO2 in the troposphere (where we live) denying it to the stratosphere, thus cooling it.

Somehow though the stratosphere seems to be getting its full complement of heat, and yet the ocean is somehow warming too! And even though the two of the three data sets with the least problematic coverage don't show it, the troposphere is warming too! All the major reservoirs of heat are above average! It's a Christmas Miracle!

I would be very interested to see MadisonMan's take on how this is possible within the context of an "enhanced greenhouse effect."

Rusty said...

As I( nsit here reading this on May the 12th twentythousandfifteen its 39 degrees F.
If Algore and his accolades didn't use their private jets like water taxis at spring break, I'd be taking this shit much more serial.

Freder Frederson said...

It is thought that the Jevons paradox operates over the long term

Nice theory, but not backed up by the facts. <a href="http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html>Passenger miles traveled </a> have pretty much flattened out over the last twenty years.

Mike said...

n.n said: As for anthropogenic global [change he denies the short observation period.

This! This right here bothers me when people cite SCIENCE! (say that like Thomas Dolby for the full effect) and yet fail to see the limited utility of viewing a chaotic poorly understood system over the last 200 years. Even rounding up to 200 and assuming PERFECT DATA over that time, of what use is 200 years observation in a system between 2.5 and 4 billion years old? And they -- not we, they -- deny the relevance of factoring in how the CO2 has been up to 2000% greater in concentration in the atmosphere than it is now.

Louts!

Brando said...

So with 2012 safely behind us, the Left decides it can start tearing at Obama for any deviation from leftist orthodoxy. Maybe this is a signal to try and keep Hillary in line, maybe it's part of the usual "fire up our crowd" tactic.

But I'm curious--from Obama's perspective, what justifies this drilling in a way that the Keystone pipeline wasn't justified? Was it a matter of the pipeline itself? Because pipelines are much better for the environment than any other means of transporting the oil.

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

@ELC, per that site, 2015 ACE is far above normal. That doesn't jive (heh) with your comment

Hurricane activity is indeed relatively quiet worldwide. See the graphs here:

Just Mike said...

NYT simply pretends reality isn't real.