5/09/2015
To the Editors of the Duluth
News Tribune,
RE: another misleading article on global warming in the
Tribune;
Hello Chuck and other Tribune editors,
I have decided to share my criticisms of deniers, with long
comments like this made for the Tribune. 300 words is not nearly enough to
ensure an adequate rebuttal of those who try to deny the massive evidence that
supports climate science. So by answering in more detail to you, I hope I can
make you aware of all the lies and misconceptions currently, and often
deliberately, being circulated by AGW deniers.
Just think back to the days when tobacco executives
deliberately lied to Congress, and denied the dangers of tobacco just to
preserve their profits. Then inject those lies on steroids into our present
controversy, and you magnify the significance of climate denial much more.
There is really far more material wealth at stake, for big oil CEO’s and
executives who need to circulate lies and deceptions in order to maintain the
status quo, than there is for those of us who try to tell the truth---no matter
how poor we might be. Toss in unlimited campaign funds, tremendous amounts of
dark money, and no real accountability, and one begins to discover what's going
on!
Sadly the Tribune published another misleading Local View
commentary, this time by Karl Spring, the former chief Meteorologist at
KBJR/WDLH and Fox21—TV in Duluth, which was also accompanied by a misleading
cartoon meant to portray the idea that the science establishing global warming
as being caused primarily by man, is not settled and only has made correct
projections erratically at best.
However, most meteorologists typically lack the same extensive
academic background that climate scientists possess. While climate scientists
focus on historical knowledge of world weather patterns, a meteorologist
typically requires only a Bachelors degree to qualify for his job which often
includes an emphasis on mathematics. But some meteorologists working today
still lack any degree at all, and pick up the knack to forecast weather
thorough their job experiences. Typically a meteorologist's forecasts may lack
long term accuracy, due to the fact that local weather forecasts include many
more short term variables than does climate science, which additionally concerns
global worldwide trends that are more easily determined by a number of
methods—including reports from weather stations all over the world, including
satellite surveillance, plus a large number of other data gathering techniques.
It is far more difficult to assure us that we will not have a rain storm three
days from now, then to analyze the direct observational proof gathered by
climate scientists and provided by worldwide monitoring. But still, climate
scientists typically require much more extensive educational backgrounds
because of the many technical aspects included in their fields, and usually
Masters degrees or PhD’s are held by competent and peer-reviewed researchers.
Here is a link describing some of the kinds of knowledge that might compliment
the job of a climate scientist:
Another good link describing the many kinds of knowledge
involved in obtaining graduate degrees in climate scientists is:
Actually, both the cartoons included in the Tribune, and the
many of the ideas expressed by Mr. Spring, lack validity and represent common
myths about the findings of climate scientists;
In the early days of the ecology movement in the 60s and 70s
some climate scientists falsely believed that temperatures might drop during
the coming decades and centuries. But even then, more than six out of 10
believed global warming would happen—along with a number of researchers who
officially abstained from taking positions, and even fewer who outright denied
climate warming. So actually, more than 60% correctly believed then, that climate
change would include a gradual warming trend, while very few truly believed in
global cooling. Part of the problem had to do with the widespread use of aerosols
and their effects on the ozone layer, but aerosol sprays were regulated and the
ozone layer was largely restored. Additionally the rapid development of better
and more accurate technology quickly convinced many dissenters, that global
warming was in fact taking place, despite the plot of a popular but fictitious Hollywood film which included a global cooling theme, and
which left a false impression on many viewers.
About the rain forests. They really have been depleting
rapidly and amount to millions upon millions of acres lost. What was observed
by scientists originally, indicated a complete catastrophe in the making by the
turn of the century. But here is a (paste) from a website that details some of
the reason why deforestation has recently diminished in many South American
countries:
“For most of human history, deforestation in the Amazon was primarily the product of subsistence farmers who cut down trees to produce crops for their families and local consumption. But in the later part of the 20th century, that began to change, with an increasing proportion of deforestation driven by industrial activities and large-scale agriculture. By the 2000s more than three-quarters of forest clearing in the Amazon was for cattle-ranching.”
The result of this shift is forests in the Amazon were cleared faster than ever
before in the late 1970s through the mid 2000s. Vast areas of rainforest were
felled for cattle pasture and soy farms, drowned for dams, dug up for minerals,
and bulldozed for towns and colonization projects. At the same time, the
proliferation of roads opened previously inaccessible forests to settlement by
poor farmers, illegal logging, and land speculators.
But that trend began to reverse in Brazil in 2004. Since then, annual forest loss in the country that contains nearly two-thirds of the Amazon's forest cover has declined by roughly eighty percent. The drop has been fueled by a number of factors, including increased law enforcement, satellite monitoring, pressure from environmentalists, private and public sector initiatives, new protected areas, and macroeconomic trends. Nonetheless the trend in Brazil is not mirrored in other Amazon countries, some of which have experienced rising deforestation since 2000.”
But that trend began to reverse in Brazil in 2004. Since then, annual forest loss in the country that contains nearly two-thirds of the Amazon's forest cover has declined by roughly eighty percent. The drop has been fueled by a number of factors, including increased law enforcement, satellite monitoring, pressure from environmentalists, private and public sector initiatives, new protected areas, and macroeconomic trends. Nonetheless the trend in Brazil is not mirrored in other Amazon countries, some of which have experienced rising deforestation since 2000.”
In other words, environmentalists, conservationists and
business interests, accomplished what they were supposed to—they used education
to enable depletion levels to drop—because scientists had done their jobs—not
because they were completely mistaken! However, the implications by deniers
that there was never even a problem, are very wrong, and positive action to
preserve the rainforests are still very much needed.
Misconceptions about the idea that Himalayan glaciers could
be gone by 2010, or that the Arctic's ice
could be completely gone by 2014, are also partly the product of misquoting
climate advocates like Al Gore, whose actual words did not support that idea.
What he actually said was:
“Last September 21 (2007) as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported that with unprecedented distress that the north polar ice cap is “falling off of a cliff,” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by US Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Note that there is a difference between the words “could”
and “will.” And also a difference between the words “estimated,” and “without a
doubt.” There is also a clear difference between saying, “in as little as 7
years and, “no more than 6 years.” The year 2007 plus 7 more, adds up to 2014,
so critics jumped all over Mr. Gore for his error. But 2007 plus up to 22
years, adds up to the year 2029, which is still a lot more than 7 years away.
Al Gore also said:
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
So, again, a 75% chance is not the same thing as a
certainty, and the fact is that the Arctic ice pack is now nearly free of ice
during the summer. So many scientists are worried that the ice loss is
progressing even faster than they had projected! And, the many ploys used by
deniers include cherry picking short term variations in one spot (during the
winter), which then falsely produced an inaccurate indication that a cooling
process was evident, instead of (GLOBAL) warming as a (WORLDWIDE TREND)! Cherry
picking is also among the usual culprits used to support many other unfounded
ideas about global warming. Here are a couple of links that examine the mistaken
ideas concerning Al Gores supposed errors;
And finally here is a link to the Propagandaprofessor.org
site which include links providing exact quotes of what Gore actually said:
About inconsistencies in the measurements of rising sea
levels; Here's another a link to a website:
And here is a (paste) from a website explaining the issues
involved with world ocean levels:
“Before the advent of satellite measurements in the 1990s, tide gauges were the main way scientists observed how sea levels changed. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea with reference to a fixed point, usually on land, meaning most measurements are taken along coastlines.Tide gauges have their limitations, Hay says, with a lack of readings in the early twentieth century and in the southern hemisphere:
'The incompleteness of these records makes obtaining estimates of global mean sea level very difficult.'In their study, Hay and her colleagues found another way of using the tide gauge records, as she explains:'Local sea level differs from global sea level due to a variety of factors, including ongoing effects due to the last ice age, heating and expansion of the ocean due to global warming, changes in ocean circulation, and present day melting of land ice. All of these processes produce unique patterns, or 'fingerprints', of sea level change that can be modeled.'By looking for these fingerprints in the tide gauge records, the researchers can then estimate the contribution each one makes to sea level change. Then by adding them all together, they get a new estimate of the rate of global change.Using this approach, the researchers estimate sea level rise for 1900 to 1990 of 1.2 mm per year. This is lower than the 1.5mm per year from the IPCC. But they found a much better match between two sets of figures for the more recent period of 1990 and 2010 which both show faster sea level rise of 3mm per year, (the underlining is for my emphasis that this fact is directly relevant to the cartoon's contention on the Tribunes opinion page, which implied that projected sea level increases were grossly inaccurate).
Slower sea level rise in the last century makes the increase in recent years appear even more rapid, Hay says. 'You can see this in the figure below.' etc.”
Although the seas are not going to suddenly engulf large
amounts of land areas, the sea levels keep increasing, and by using better
methods to calculate them, scientists often see an increasing rate due to
factors like increased arctic ice melts etc. In some low elevation areas, sea
levels have already disrupted the normal levels, so that many coastal areas are
actually covered by greater amounts of water than before. Scientists never said
this would happen all at once, or in a very short period of time—regardless of
what many deniers might claim.
Recently climate scientists have also been convinced by
data, that global warming is in fact, contributing to the severity of storms
and extreme weather events. Again this is happening slowly, but global warming
can lessen the temperatures differences between adjacent areas both north and south
of the jet stream. This allows cold Arctic temperatures to penetrate further
into southern latitudes, thus creating the “Polar Vortex” effect. And while
some extreme events have not significantly increased, the severity and strength
typical in these weather events, appears to result in many more record breaking
events. Mr. Spring tries to deny all of this by claiming that as civilization
populates more areas, locations which may previously have had only 20 record
breaking events, may now have 200—thus he totally ignores the fact that many of
these records specifically denote cities and areas of the country where records
are based on data from exactly the same cites and geographical areas i.e we
definitely know when New York city (for example) has broken a long standing
temperature record! We also know that large snow storms, increased droughts,
more intense heat waves and flooding, are happening more often. Though they
cannot by themselves be directly linked to the effects of global warming,
scientists have finally been able to verify definite associations between
global warming and extreme weather patterns. And, although world wide
temperature averages are definitely on an upward trend, that doesn't mean that
different areas are not experiencing other kinds of weather extremes which may
include new low temperature records. This is something climate scientists have
always asserted. Remember that the weather in California
may include droughts and heat waves, while Australia may be having colder
temperatures than average—or visa verse. So, no one weather event can be used
to definitely prove or disprove the process of global warming—although many
different ones—(over time) may be used to affirm it!
In the cartoons above it, and in Mr. Springs commentary
itself, the Tribune effectively succeeds in falsely discrediting many of the
very real factors that are parts of climate change. Mr. Spring's mention of the
fact that the amounts of water, gasses, and minerals on our planet remain
basically the same, is really a pretty naïve argument. For one thing, carbon
based fuels and the total amount of CO2 might be considered as remaining
constant as part of the “oblate sphere” that is our Earth, but the oil and
carbon based products we use now, have been extracted after millions of years,
from areas deep beneath the surface, and are taken from deposits of decayed
vegetation and various life forms that became our presently used petroleum.
Because we are now extracting those deposits, which then influence our current
atmosphere and environment, the rate of our world wide temperatures is now
increasing more rapidly than it has in more than 600,000 years, and once it's
in the atmosphere, CO2 causes world temperatures averages to rise more quickly
than they previously have---even at all times during all those hundreds of
thousands of years! Scientist have always acknowledged that during certain
geological periods CO2 levels have been very high, but our present
accumulations have happened over a much shorter period of time than was the
case in eons past! So, it's not just about amounts. It’s about the incredible
(rate) of temperature increases in our worldwide environment. But obviously, if
we were to try to breath nothing but CO2, try to breath underwater, or try to
hold our breath long enough to survive a tsunami, we obviously can not
foolishly conclude, (as some deniers claim), that excessive amount of any
naturally occurring greenhouse gas are only beneficial to human life?
Somewhat strangely, Mr. Spring also implies that climate
science and our opinions about it, have become an exercise in religious debate.
Personally I have no quarrel with people who believe being good stewards of the
earth is a religious responsibility. However all that we really need to be
motivated by is the desire to save our own behinds while recognizing that, what
climate scientists are telling us, does not allow us to postpone taking actions
in ways which truly might address the urgency of our global situation.
Am I an alarmist—certainly! I really want the Earth to
sustain human life as long as possible, and, I am all in favor of ensuring our
ability to live without having to regularly face extreme climate disasters that
may threaten to destroy or damage the vast and beautiful earthly garden we live
in, and which sustains our lives.
Its really people like Mr. Spring who are part of
well-funded attempts to deny the facts that have been revealed by climate
scientists, and who consistently use numbers and facts to mean anything they
wants them to mean. He implies that actually accepting the real facts denotes
some sort of evil plot on the parts of those who accurately acknowledge what is
happening to our environment now, or, is even some sort of sin against God?
But, because of court decisions like Citizens United, we are making it much
easier for plutocrats and wealthy manipulators, to use obscenely large amounts
of money to control our political system, and, thanks to deniers, delaying the
truth will absolutely ensure a climate change disaster. But it's strange how
organizations like those of deniers, which claim to know the real truth, often
think nothing about ignoring the many problems we will encounter in the
future—just because they dare do nothing but hide their heads in the sand!
Many climate scientists are atheists and many are not. This
is not a religious war, nor should it be about politically fueled ideological
debates. But unfortunately, that's what AGW deniers seem to want us to think!
Just like the tobacco industry, they only need to succeed in furthering
unfounded doubts in order to ensure outrageous industry profits—even though
allowing extremely harmful weather events to besiege the environment only
ensures that their prodigious wealth may really help to destroy our
environment! All the while, they think nothing about accusing thousand of
scientist all around the world of promoting a hoax!
All of us, (including deniers), are threatened by climate
change. So, if deniers win, all of us will lose. Yet the cruelest the joke is
on them—simply because all the money in the word is without worth, if we have
no safe and livable world to spend it in. Life may continually go on, but we
might very well, no longer be able to come along for the ride!
Sincerely, Peter W. Johnson
