Peabody Coal Funded Climate Change Deniers

Anyone following the current events associated with the science of climate change should be aware of how the fossil fuel industry funds the anti-science climate change deniers. There is hard evidence of this in government filed documents, court documents, and insider statements. Now we can add the bankruptcy documents Peabody Coal filed with the court to that list. You can read an in-depth article about the list here.

When I reviewed the list I wasn't surprised to see some familiar names, people I've debated the issues with over the years. One I find very notable is Richard Lindzen. This is important because he spent years telling everyone he didn't receive any funds from the fossil fuel industry for his research. What he failed to say is that he was receiving massive amounts of funds for 'consulting' services. It is well-known, by his own admission, he was receiving money from ExxonMobil the whole time. Now, we find he was also receiving money from Peabody Coal. No wonder he left Harvard.

Another favorite is Roy Spencer, the former scientists who has been caught so often falsifying his data and writing false papers that he can no longer get published in any journal. The last time he did the editorial staff resigned in protest. He has sacrificed every bit of credibility he ever had, but he is still collecting money from Peabody Coal.

The Idso family also showed up. Yet another group of former scientists who thought easy money was preferable to hard work.

Willie Soon, the infamous engineer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims in public to be a climate scientist and was caught hiding his fossil fuel payoffs.

Oh, and CFACT, those guys who produced the anti-science film 'Climate Hustle'? They're on the list.

Speaking of disgusting groups (and we were), how about ALEC? In case you don't know this organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council arranges for law makers to meet with donors. In these meetings the donors will arrange for the law makers to submit bills favorable to the donors industry in exchange for financial support. This way, the name of the donors and their industry are not associated with the bill. ALEC does not deny this and this activity is not illegal (remember who rights the laws). To no surprise, we see ALEC received funds from Peabody Coal.

And, it is to no surprise to see the anti-science political party is well represented on the list. No fewer than eight separate Republican organizations received funds from Peabody. Two Democrat organizations are listed.

It is interesting to see the documentation of how this corrupt corporation was able to spread it's influence far beyond the purview of mining coal.

Review: Merchants of Doubt

Merchants of Doubt is both an excellent book, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, and an excellent documentary, by Robert Kenner. I highly recommend both of them for anyone that has any interests in what is going on in our society today.

The book is technical with lots of science, dates, and people. It is not an easy read, nor is it a pleasant one. The history of the people involved with deliberate deception for the sake of companies and at the expense of the public is alarming and, at times, depressing. Oreskes and Conway do a thorough job of exposing these people, providing a large amount of documentation in the process. While the book reads much like a newspaper article and is very in depth, the documentary is easier to follow, but does a much more superficial job. That is to be expected - the book is 274 pages long and the documentary is 93 minutes. You could not possibly cover the same amount of material in a documentary and, to their credit, they don't try.

Reading the book brings out a few interesting points. The first, and most obvious, is the history of deception and the success these people have had in this regard. Take a look at the list of things the public has been deceived about by the Merchants of Doubt:

• Smoking
• Second-hand smoke
• The Strategic Defense Initiative
• Acid Rain
• CFCs and the ozone hole
• Global warming
• DDT

In every case, conservative groups have put the public at risk while helping industry to make a bunch of money.  What really makes it alarming is they have routinely known they were wrong. The tobacco industry knew smoking causes cancer way back in the early-1950s. The fossil fuel industry knew manmade emissions cause global warming back in the 1960s. The dangers of second-hand smoke was proven and known in the 1980s. The Strategic Defense Initiative was well known to be unfeasible, even by the people pushing it, from the very beginning. The link between the ozone hole and CFCs was never in doubt scientifically (DuPont, one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers, realized the danger of CFCs early on and quit making them). The economic and ecological damage as a result of acid rain (and the causes) was understood all along. And, the widespread danger of insecticides and DDT is fully known, even by the people pushing them.

Why is that? Why have the conservatives become the anti-public, anti-science group? Oreskes and Conway make the convincing case that it isn't about money, it's about ideology. To these people pushing anti-science, anyone that opposes them is a liberal and a liberal is someone who wants to destroy the country. To them, defending these horrible things is about freedom. We need to allow coal companies to belch out massive amounts of sulfur and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in order for the country to be free. It is important people smoke so the country will be free. DDT, SDI, CFCs and every other cause of these groups is all about keeping the country free. Opposing them means you want to take freedom away from the American people.

It never seems to enter their minds that someone could be a liberal and loyal American at the same time. They accuse someone of being a 'liberal' the same way you accuse someone of being a murderer or rapist. To these people, 'liberal' means someone who wants to destroy the country and civilization. One of the terms these people use for people who oppose them is 'watermelon' - green on the outside but red on the inside. According to them, if you are concerned with the environment, you're a communist, even though they know the science is correct.

I find this to be very interesting. Basically, I'm quite conservative on many things. After all, I spent 35 years in military intelligence. You don't do that and walk away with a cheery viewpoint of the world at large. And, when it comes to fiscal matters, I am a definite hawk. Believe me, my family gets quite a laugh when someone accuses me of being a liberal. And yet, I find myself on the opposite side of the fence from the conservatives on each of these issues. The reason for that is I accept the science and go where it leads me.

You can deny the science all you want, but it will keep right on doing what it does. The universe is not sentient. There is no "Mother Nature" looking out for us with a gentle hand. If you say manmade emissions won't cause global warming, that is your right. But, those manmade emissions will continue to cause global warming. And, if you say smoking doesn't cause cancer, that is your right. But, people will continue to get cancer from smoking. Nature doesn't need you to agree with it. It doesn't need your permission.

So, these Merchants of Doubt have protected the industries by causing people to question the science. And, they continue to do it. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, it is very effective. After all, the truth caught up with the tobacco industry, but it took fifty years for it to happen and millions of people died in mean time. Eventually, the truth will catch-up to the fossil fuel industry. I just wonder how many people will eventually die because of them. It's already in the millions. And, don't forget about the irreversible damage to the environment.

Is ideology really that important?

In summary, if you have any interest in the topic at all, I highly recommend you watch the documentary (available over the Internet) and read the book.

Climate Change Will Be A Problem For Republicans in 2016

I am not aware of any Republican running for president who is an advocate of acting on climate change. Admittedly, I make a great effort to ignore politics and I won't take a serious look at the candidates until October of next year, just before I make my decision on how to vote. Between now and then it's just a bunch of posturing. And, since I am a die-hard independent, I don't get to vote in the primaries.

But, I follow climate change very closely and I have seen the comments made by those who have declared they're running. This posting on ClimateProgress ranks the candidates from being the least to most extreme on climate change denial. The one they ranked the least extreme is former New York governor George Pataki who was on a commission which found climate change to be an urgent threat, but has not stated what his personal views on the subject are. Of note is John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey. They both have stated they 'believe' in manmade climate change, but then vetoed or canceled every initiative that came their way. Speaks one way, acts another. That isn't good for someone running for office. Ted Cruz is the candidate they rank as the most extreme, quoting him as calling climate change the "pseudoscientific theory."

In comparison, Hillary Clinton has announced her renewable energy policy. Clinton stated,  “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.” Her competition on the Democratic side have taken even stronger stands on the subject.

What this means is there is a very clear divide between the two parties - those who support climate science and those who are opposed to it. Will the voters even care enough to make a difference in the election? I believe things are not going well for the Republicans in this regard. The weather extremes we have been witnessing in recent years continue to get worse with a number of disasters striking us here in the U.S. It is no longer a case of saying, 'Gee, those poor people in Africa. I'm really sorry for what is happening, but what can I do?" Now, it's becoming "My family and my friends are being hurt by this stuff. We have to do something!"

Once people think climate change is affecting them, they will be more inclined to factor it into their decision-making process. The two main parties have made it clear which side of the issue they sit on. I do not believe there is any chance the number of people who reject climate change will increase between now and election day. But, I do believe there is a significant chance the number of people who accept the science will increase. There are many reasons to believe that, but one thing in particular stands out - El Nino.

The El Nino we are currently in is growing fast. In just three months, it went from being weak (.5 Oceanic Nino Index (ONI)) to moderate (.7 ONI) and is now at .9. The computer models are pretty much in agreement it will continue to get stronger into the fall, peaking out in the October-November-December period. The official forecast is a 90% chance it will continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter and an 80% chance it will continue through early spring. Take a look here:

Source: National Weather Service

What we are looking at is a record of the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Pacific from South America on the right to Indonesia on the left. Time goes from top to bottom. If you scan the graph from top to bottom you can see how the sea surface temperature along the equatorial Pacific has changed with time, Aug 2014 - Jul 2015 in this particular case. Hot colors (yellow, orange and red) represent elevated temperatures compared to the long-term average. Shades of blue represent cooler temperatures. It is very easy to see how the temperature anomalies along the equatorial Pacific have greatly increased over the last year and this increase appears to be continuing. I would not be surprised to see the ONI increase to somewhere around 1.5 before it begins to fade. That would make this a very strong El Nino event. In comparison, the extreme event of 1997-1998 reached a high of 2.3 ONI.

What does this have to do with the presidential election? El Nino events bring chaotic weather. Strong El Ninos bring lots of chaotic weather. And, people don't like chaotic weather. As the news stories build up with more and more people realizing something isn't right, candidates telling them there isn't any problem and it's all a hoax will begin receiving a less favorable reception. Campaign managers will tell you, a small shift in public opinion can make all the difference.

Maybe I'm too close to the issue. It is entirely possible the typical American will not care about this issue, one way or the other. But, if they do, I believe the news about climate change over the next 15 months before election day will not go in favor of the Republican candidate. So, all of you die-hard Republicans out there, I suggest you get used to the idea of President Clinton the Second. After all, you are the ones who will be responsible for putting her in the White House.

Deniers and the Scientific Method

When I made my Global Warming Skeptic Challenge I had the requirement any 'proof' had to be done via the scientific method. I stated the reason for this was to prevent 'Because God said so' arguments (I still received those kinds of arguments but was free to refuse them). Most of the submissions I accepted did not follow the scientific method, but if they were anywhere near the realm of a logical universe I went ahead and accepted them (and some were pushing the limits).

Several people tried to claim global warming isn't real because it violates the scientific method. Their logic was the scientific method requires 100% accuracy. One test failure means the theory is invalid. Therefore, if you can find even one test failure of a global warming theory, the whole thing is invalid. Very bad logic and I showed how the submissions were invalid. Take a look here and here.

Let's refresh our memory of what the scientific method is. There are many ways to say it, but they all state basically the same thing: 1) Observe something; 2) Form a best guess hypothesis to explain the observation; 3) Test the hypothesis; 4) Observe the results; and 5) Repeat as long as necessary until it always passes the test.

It is very simple, but wildly misinterpreted and misused.

A common failure of understanding was stated above, i.e., one test failure completely invalidates the theory. This is not only false, it's total nonsense and even a moments thought will tell you that. If we threw out everything after one failure, nothing would ever be accomplished. A test failure simply means more work needs to be done. It is entirely possible the hypothesis being tested is completely wrong, but it is also entirely possible there is merely one small omission or error that can be easily corrected. Claiming otherwise is a false argument.

Another failure of understanding is the oft-quoted statement 'you cannot prove a negative,' sometimes even quoted as 'you cannot prove or disprove' anything via the scientific method. Both statements are not only false, but very false. The fact is, every experiment proves, or disproves, something. Every valid experiment is designed to do just that. It's called the null hypothesis and is the thing the experiment has to disprove or reject. I usually give the following example: Suppose I tell you the door is locked, but when you try it, you find it is unlocked. You just proved a negative. A little thought will give you any number of similar examples.

Another of my favorites goes to the test. Any scientific test must have what is known as an option to fail. Many people interpret this to mean the theory has an option to fail and this invalidates the scientific validity. No. The option to fail only applies to the test. Suppose I give you a multiple choice question: How much is 2 + 2? You look and see all of the answers are '4'. There is no way you can get it wrong. There is no option to fail. This test says nothing about your understanding of the question. It is the option to fail that makes the test valid. It is never taking that option that makes the theory valid.

And, there is one more failure of understanding that prevents people from accepting science - we may learn new science that invalidates what we think we understand today. This is one of the most common quotes I hear from people who reject the science of manmade global warming. The most common form of this false argument concerns the Newsweek article of the 1970s.

This is one of the worst of the false arguments. Here is an article on this subject that explains it very well. The author, Ethan Siegel, gives a very nice description of science and the process of scientific discovery. Part of this, as he explains, is that we occasionally find something that uproots what we previously thought to be accurate. But, that is only part of the story. We cannot simply throw away everything we previously understood. As Siegel explains, there are three requirements for a revolutionary scientific advancement:

1.) It has to reproduce all the successes of the previously existing theory.

2.) It has to explain the new results that contradicted the old theory.

3.) It needs to make new, testable predictions that have not been tested before, and that can either be confirmed and validated or refuted.

That first part is really important to our discussion here. Is it possible we will learn something new about climate change that we don't know about today? Absolutely. But, and this is the important part, any new understanding has to be able to explain everything we understand today. In other words, all of the science we know today will have to become part of the new understanding. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, Newtonian mechanics were not discarded. It is part of relativity and, if you do relativity correctly, you get Newtonian mechanics at low velocities (less than about 90% the speed of light), which is why our world is dominated by Newtonian mechanics.

As a result, any advances in science will increase our understanding of climate change, but never invalidate it. This is true because any advancement must be able to explain all we observe today as part of the advancement. It is building process, not a tearing-down one.

Tom Harris - Paid Shill

[UPDATE: A commenter (Hey?) provided a link to an article at the website Scholars and Rogues (see comments below) that is so good I am posting it here:
 

Tom Harris – hypocritical peddler of deceitful climate change editorials (corrected)]

 
Tom Harris, the fossil fuel industry shill, has objected to me calling him a shill. Per his comment on my posting concerning the campaign against wind power:

TomHarrisICSC Christopher Keating

Only an idiot or someone being dishonest would say that calling someone a paid shill is not name calling. BTW, I have no employers. You just made that up too.

To which I responded:

Christopher Keating Mod TomHarrisICSC

My, my. Look who's resorting to name calling.

Shill, n. the confederate of a gambler, pitchman, auctioneer, etc. who pretends to buy, bet, or bid so as to lure onlookers into participating.

The fossil fuel industry pays you (directly or indirectly, it makes no difference and you know where the money is coming from) to make false statements promoting their business and undermining their competitors for the sake of fooling the public. That is being a shill. And, it also qualifies them as your employers.

Or, would you care to rehash your long, storied career working on the behalf of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries?

The thing that I wonder about is why you are so determined to deny this when the public record on it is so extensive.

 
Mr. Harris' response to this follows:

TomHarrisICSC Christopher Keating

Are you a liar or just forgetful, Keating? I have told you several times in the past that I have never worked for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. In fact, as I explained to you before, I was an anti-tobacco activist and was instrumental in getting smoking banned on long haul flights in Canada.

Mr. Harris says I'm either a liar or forgetful, thereby questioning my credibility. Let's look at the facts and you decide.

He denies this, but he has a long track record that is hard to hide. He was the Executive Director of the now defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), which was controlled by energy business lobbyists. He was the Director of Operations for High Park Group (HPG), a registered lobbying firm for energy clients, and worked for APCO Worldwide which promoted fossil fuel interests. He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute which is a leading climate change denier organization, promotes tobacco interests, and is funded by the fossil fuel industry to spread climate change denial misinformation. Possibly his worst reference is his association with the so-called ‘Friends of Science,' even though they are the furthest thing from being friends of science, or society for that matter. This group has been shown to receive its funding from the fossil fuel industry, something they went to great lengths to hide (why is that?).

Today, Mr. Harris describes himself as being the "executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition" (quote taken from his postings). The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was founded by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in 2007, which is a climate change denier organization and is cosponsor with the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). In turn, ICSC created the Australian Climate Coalition, another organization devoted to denying climate change, and the Climate Science Coalition of America. Yes, the last one is also an organization devoted to denying climate change. 

As for the tobacco industry, it should be stated that Mr. Harris proclaims strongly he has never been involved with promoting the tobacco industry. Yet, he was with APCO Worldwide, which has a strong record fighting for tobacco. Mr. Harris says he had nothing to do with that. That is very misleading. Even if he wasn't directly involved, by working for APCO and promoting them in their efforts, he is promoting tobacco. And, if Mr. Harris found their involvement with tobacco so objectionable, why did he take the job?

But, there's more. After APCO, Mr. Harris became strongly involved with the Heartland Institute, which is a major promoter of the tobacco industry. Once again, by promoting Heartland, he is promoting the things they do. And, in both cases, he knew about their involvement with tobacco before he became associated with them. In that light, it is not possible to say Mr. Harris does not promote tobacco. His efforts are most certainly promoting that industry.

Now, as the "executive director" of ICSC, one of Mr. Harris' functions is to go every media outlet he can find and post editorials and letters either promoting the fossil fuel industry or undermining their competitors. A casual review of these letters finds them full of inaccuracies and falsehoods.

For instance, Mr. Harris states the “debate rages in the science community” about how much human activity affects climate change. This is an extremely misleading statement because he uses it to call into question the issue that the science is settled. Yes, the science is settled (much to his dismay). Manmade emissions are creating climate change. There is no debate in the climate science community on this issue. Is there work to do on the details? Of course. There is even debate on the particular details. This does not qualify as a ‘raging debate’ on whether manmade climate change is real or not. With the exception of a few fossil-fuel supported individuals, the climate science community is essentially in unanimous agreement. Which brings up the question – why is it so many of the people who insist manmade climate change isn’t real are also receiving funds from the fossil fuel industry?  

I saw one today where he stated 6.5% of all grain grown is diverted to produce biofuel for the purpose of fighting climate change. In fact, the major purpose for converting grain to biofuel is to reduce imports of oil by substituting ethanol for gasoline. So, why did Mr. Harris make such a misleading statement?

And, of course, it has already been discussed how he is engaged in a campaign against wind power. 

So, you decide. Am I a liar or forgetful when I state Mr. Harris is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry? 

And, it is not name-calling, either.

What if Climate Change is Real?

This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.

What if Climate Change is Real?

Inhofe's Snowball

Senator Inhofe, would you care to throw your constituents a snowball?

Guest Submission: Denier Comments in Local Newspapers

The following letter was sent by Peter W. Johnson as a guest submission. This is a letter he sent to the editors of two of his local newspapers in response to a comment on the opinion page of one—The Duluth News Tribune. He also sent it to the editor of the Superior Telegram, since it also publishes many of his comments about climate change.

About Tom Harris's opinions in our local newspapers

RE: The value of knowledge

This is meant to inform you about the credibility of Tom Harris, a man-made global warming denier whose comment appeared in today's Duluth News Tribune. Here is a link to a reputable website which documents the ideas and credibility of known AGW deniers like Tom Harris:

http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris

Tom Harris does not have a degree in climate science but rather, a Masters of Engineering (thermofluids). Yet, he has accepted funding from climate denial organizations which work to aid the credibility of deniers in order to publicly rationalize the policies of large energy companies. Mr. Harris is also closely affiliated with The Heartland Institute—a conservative organization known for funding and supporting AGW deniers. And as he mentioned, he is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, which is yet another notorious man-made global warming denial organization dedicated to discrediting the work of tens of thousands of truly qualified scientists who understand that the current climate change crisis is real, and is caused primarily by human activities. Harris has also, to date, not published a single peer-reviewed paper in any reputable scientific journal.

As far as the (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) which Harris mentions, this also, is a group dedicated to funding AGW deniers and which works towards discrediting the findings of 97% of today's peer reviewed climate scientists. The name is a variation on the name of the iconic Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or, the IPCC. However, since the IPCC's message is the direct opposite of the message disseminated by the NIPCC, and prestigious climate science organization all over the world refer to its findings, this very similar name may have been chosen with the intent of fooling laymen who are not as familiar with the climate analysis of the IPCC, as many scientists are. Here is a link to inform you about the NIPCC:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html

In general Harris's contention that reducing CO2 emissions will not help make the world safer, or even help at all, is absurd;

It's true that we may reach a tipping point after which the planet will perpetuate its worsening climate, but to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not help reduce the occurrence of extreme weather events, or help in any way, frankly makes no sense at all. If we have a fever, we know that taking aspirin may help. If we have to lose weight, we know exercise will help. And if we want to become successful in any field of work, we know that education will help us immensely. We also know that, if man-made greenhouse gasses are heavily produced by man, and if they are causing the planet to warm, (as they are), then reducing their amounts in the atmosphere will invariably help!

And as far as the billion spent on climate “finance” which Mr. Harris's letter to the tribune claims—even if that figure is accurate, we still need to recognize the untold billions that will be needed to clean up and recover from the devastation wrought by extreme weather events that are caused by AGW, as large losses of human lives which has already become manifest as one of the most tragic costs of such extreme weather events! We also need to honestly ask ourselves if maintaining a livable future for our children and theirs, isn't really more desirable than the ever increasing and devastating consequences of our own inaction?

The press sorely needs to become aware of the backgrounds and motivations of many supposed climate science “experts,” in order to become edified about what is really at stake. It's my sincere hope that soon, newspapers and journals everywhere, will print the ideas of AGW deniers, but in close proximity to, and including, direct scientific rebuttals of the many specific misconceptions and lies being spread by deniers.

Sincerely, Pete W. Johnson

Guest Submission: Making A Scam Work

A Guest submission for Dialogues on Global Warming

RE: Making a scam work;

Considering the clever subterfuge being employed by man-made climate change deniers we need to consider the supposed legitimacy of those who deny man's culpability. And since we are apparently having more and more, intense, and extreme weather around the world, it is particularly interesting that Global Warming deniers have been ramping up their game in an effort to deny any significant dangers caused by the vast release of Co2 into our worldwide environment.

One article about a “peer-reviewed” study that was published in the 2-14-13 issue of Forbes claimed that a peer reviewed, (survey) determined that a majority of scientists remain skeptical about the proposition that global warming posses a huge threat to mankind, and, also that, valid research about this threat, fails to affirm a need for urgency regarding climate change. But interestingly, the study was done by the APEGA, or the Association of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists of Alberta, and wouldn't you know—the professionals in that survey were heavily representative of Geologists, which are the least likely scientists to affirm the dangers of man's role in climate change. 

In scientific terms, a survey is really nothing more than a glorified poll lacking real controls and objective methodology. Furthermore a genuine Study, found that 97 percent of actively publishing earth scientists agreed that human activities are changing global temperatures. But apparently, since the study cited in Forbes was authored by Lianne M. Lefsrud at the University of Canada, and, Renate E. Meyer, a professor of economics from The University of economics in Austria, who also studied at The Copenhagen Businesses School in Denmark, the Forbes study was heavily representative of Geologists working in the oil industry categorized as “economic geologists,” who study geology primarily to examine its role in commercial applications—you guessed it—this last group tends to be the most skeptical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. So how objective is a survey that's conclusion highlights scientists who already doubt man's role in global warming? And how strange that scientists working for the advancement of oil interests in Canada, might be biased—Ya think?

The long study citing their opinions is also full of largely unintelligible ten dollar words, that are confusing to even the most intelligent among us. And the APEGA sponsored study itself, admitted that its methodology represented “a convenience, (non-probability) sample, of self-selected respondents, similar to the general APEGA membership.” Furthermore although the survey was sent to 40,000 members of the APEGA, only 1077 completed surveys were received—just 2.69% of the total!

Here is one paragraph from page nine of that lengthy (30 plus page) “study,” which illustrates the convoluted language and terminology used:

Data analysis

“From our research question, we developed theoretically informed coding categories based upon a review of the identity, framing, professional competency, and legitimation literatures to heuristically circumscribe the discursive construction of expertise. As we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0 in an iterative manner.”

Wikipedia's Online dictionary defines some of these words including;

1. Heuristically: A heuristic method such as one using a mathematical algorithm that solves a problem more quickly, but is not as certain to arrive at an optimal solution. 2.Discursive: (A) to digress from the main point; rambling. (B) A philosophy using reason and argument rather than intuition. 3.Iterative: Of a procedure that involves repetition of steps to achieve the desired outcome. In computing this may involve a mechanism such as a loop.

So, aside from the fact that conventional climate scientists, as well as all other kinds of scientists have (always) relied on reason and logic more than intuition, and that the words “legitimation,” and, “literatures,” are not really used very commonly—If we included the definitions of all of these questionable terms, including those of the more common words, “circumscribe,” and, “theoretically,” we might end up with a paragraph which reads something like this:

“From our research question, we develop coding based on categorical guesses, reviewing identity, framing, professional competency, (I.E. the ability of professionals to determine results based on accuracy and legitimate knowledge) and (literatures?) which legitimizes such research and then uses mathematical methods to arrive at a quick solution that is not certain to be the best answer. Our methodology which circles around in a rambling digression from the main point in order to establish the self proclaimed expertise used in our survey, is based on facts, not intuition. And, as we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0. in a procedure including repetitive steps to achieve the desired outcome by using a computing loop.”

If you ask me this is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual application of jargon to justify studies which are rife with vagueness and which lack real credibility due to institutional bias!

The fact remains that without giving undue credit to (fox guarding the hen house surveys), that commonly advance the special interests of big oil and other Co2 producing companies, 97% of actively publishing climate scientists remain convinced about man's primary role in global warming.

And, getting back to that article about this study in Forbes, posted by “James Taylor,” (a contributor), is it any wonder that Forbes includes a disclaimer written in extremely fine print, stating that: “Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own?”

Peter W. Johnson

Superior, WI

The Senator With The Snowball

Senator James Inhofe is one of the biggest disgraces of the United States. This is a leading member of the U.S. Senate and he uses that platform to repeatedly demonstrate just how ignorant he is. I shudder to think what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. education system every time this man opens his mouth.

If you aren't familiar with him, he's the man that claims "manmade global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." He's the guy that says climate science is a conspiracy by Barbara Streisand and the Weather Channel. "It's all about money. I mean, what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"

What's funny about that statement is Inhofe has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, making him one of the top recipients of oil money. Hmmm. Do you think there's a link between all the money he gets from the fossil fuel industry and his fight to protect their interests at the expense of his constituents?

Inhofe is also famous for coming out every time there's a cold day in the winter (when its supposed to be cold) and make some statement about how it proves climate change isn't real. Then, he disappears on those winter days when the temperature hits a new record high. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever. The rest of the world knows he's an idiot.

Now, he's done it again. He brought a snowball into the Senate and claimed it was proof climate change isn't real. But, it backfired. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took him to task about it. Whitehouse cited numerous authoritative sources saying climate change is real and then repeatedly asks, who are you going to believe, these excellent sources? Or, "the Senator with the snowball." Watch the video.

There's nothing we can do about Inhofe. We're stuck with him. But, we can be thankful to Senator Whitehouse for the new catch phrase for all of the people that reject science and think they're clever: they are another Senator with a snowball.

Why the Fight?

I recently had a disagreement with some friends because I had no opinion on an issue that was important to them. The particular issue isn't important. What is important was how they were very upset with me because I did not have an opinion one way or the other. I did not have an opposing opinion to them, I just did not have an opinion at all. They were very incredulous and I feel they treated me very badly, even worse than if I had actually held an opposing viewpoint.

When they asked me how it was possible for me to have no opinion, I told them you can't have an opinion on everything. I have not done the research on the issue in question and I have friends and family on both sides. My life will not change because of this particular issue, either way it goes. It isn't my fight.

But, I reminded them there is an issue that is important to me and that I am informed about. They all know my stance on climate change. I also know there are those of my friends that agree with me, those that disagree with me and there are even those that have no opinion on the matter at all. I don't hold that against them. I respect their viewpoint and try my best to not get on my soap box about climate change when we are together.

This is my fight. I wish it was theirs also, but I am not going to force the issue on them.

This is the single most important issue of our day. It is more important than Islamic terrorism. It is more important than AIDS and Ebola. It is more important than Russia in Ukraine. It is more important than anything else you can think of. And, the reason is simple. This is the only issue that will affect every single human being on the planet. It will affect every single living organism on the planet. It will affect the very planet itself. There is nothing that measures up to that standard. Additionally, it will affect almost every other issue you can name, mostly in a negative manner.

Why get involved with the fight? That is easy and has been said better than I can ever say it. In addition to science, I enjoy reading about history and I am reminded of a speech I read many years ago given by Theodore Roosevelt in Paris, 1910. It is formally known as "Citizenship in a Republic," but is more commonly known as the Man in the Arena speech. I think it says everything that needs to be said. Here are some excerpts:

The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.

Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."

Wow! What a line. "The men who quell the storm and ride the thunder."

And, that is why I fight. So, where are you? Will you be the critic that doesn't count? Or the man in the arena? After all, it's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced.

Emotions Rule Climate Debate?

I saw an article today, Emotions, not science, rule U.S. climate change debate: study.
If you're at all familiar with the ongoing debate you probably don't need to read any further than that. Yes, it is all about emotions. Science has most certainly taken a back seat on this issue. Hell, science is on the side of the road trying to hitch a ride. Rejecting science is the rule of the day.

You know how you can tell this is true? Just ask someone what they think of Al Gore. WARNING: Don't stand too close when you do. Al Gore is not a scientist and his stand on climate change is irrelevant. What is important is what the science says. But, try convincing a denier. It is amazing to see how quickly they will froth at the mouth (sometimes literally and I'm not exaggerating) at the mere mention of the man.

Why is that? Really. Why do deniers go crazy when you mention Al Gore? Why do they hate him so much? Is it because of his movie? Is it because he won the Nobel Prize? I don't think so. That doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Like I said, Gore is not a scientist and he is irrelevant to the question about AGW being real or not. But, I don't think there is a single topic that gets a stronger reaction than Al Gore. I wish I could tell you how many people have told me AGW isn't real because Al Gore ...... (fill in your sin/crime of choice). The fact is, there have been so many I can't tell you how many there have been. The worst part? These people really do think it proves AGW isn't real. Al Gore has become the focus of everything they want to vent about when it comes to climate change.

So, how do we get past this and address the problem? I don't really know and I don't think the authors of the paper do either. Here is what they say:

"Strategies for building support for (climate) mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public's understanding of science," Ana-Maria Bliuc, a professor at Australia's Monash University who co-wrote the study, said in a statement.

So, the science isn't the issue. I'll agree with that. The science is conclusive and anyone that believes AGW isn't real is simply rejecting science. There is nothing you can do to convince them the science is real. Read some of the submissions to my global warming challenge. I had people state any science that disagrees with them must be rejected. No amount of science will convince those people they are wrong. Consequently, you have to find another way to get through to them. What could that way be?

Then, they say,

Instead, scientists who want action on global warming should try to change the relationship between believers and deniers, said Bliuc, a social and political psychologist.

This sounds a little simplistic. Yes, the relationship needs to change. Any suggestions? Unfortunately, they also say,

Both groups generally agree that climate change is real, according to the study based on an Internet survey of U.S. residents. But the two camps differ on whether human activity is causing warming.

I can say from my own personal experience, this is not a true statement. I have met few deniers that say global warming and climate change are real. In fact, most of the deniers I have met insist it is not happening and any statement about 'the climate has always changed' is meant to divert the conversation. It is their way of avoiding the question. The truth is, based on my experience, most people saying that do not believe the climate is changing, naturally or otherwise.

But, the authors do say something that of merit,

In the United States, the two camps are divided largely along political party lines. More than 70 percent of Democrats say the earth is warming mainly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, according to polling data released by the Pew Research Center in January.

In contrast, among Republicans just 27 percent hold this view; more than 40 percent say there is no solid evidence that the planet is getting hotter, and 30 percent say climate change is due mostly to natural environmental patterns.

Ah, there we go. No, we do not need to convince the public, we need to convince the Republicans. That is what it all boils down to. We need to get the Republican leaders on board if we want to address this problem (Disclaimer: I am a devoted, life-long independent and do not belong to any political party). There is some indication of progress on this front. However, I do not believe the problem is going away anytime soon. Republican leaders are ensconced in the the position that AGW is not real and they will not do anything to address it.

In conclusion, I do not agree with the authors of the paper. I do not see how it is possible to convince the deniers to take action and I do not see any way the relationship can be changed. As long as they are attacking climate scientists and engaging in character assassination, there will be no civil discourse. The best I can hope for is to educate anyone that has not made up their minds, yet.

Not a very hopeful assessment, but I think it is realistic. I would be interested in hearing any suggestions, though.

Chinese Coal Production Down - Why It Matters

Chinese coal production in 2014 was down slightly from 2013. China dug up 3.7 billion metric tons in 2013 and 3.5 billion metric tons in 2014, a drop of about 5.4%. Imports were also down by 10%. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend and not just a one-year blip. This may be the result of China's declared program to reduce air pollution or it may be due to economic issues. Either way, less coal burning is a good thing, and for a number of reasons.

Obviously, reducing CO2 emissions is going to be helpful in the fight to prevent climate change. Less of the stunning air pollution that Chinese cities experience is also certainly good. But, there is a less obvious benefit - world stability.

The Department of Defense has stated climate change is an issue of national security and presents an "immediate risk" to the country. This risk comes from things such as food, water and energy insecurity. The issue of climate refugees will also cause international tensions.

Just how bad can this get? Take a look at an extreme scenario - a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Such a war is not far fetched at all. In fact, they have already come frighteningly close. Past clashes between the two nations have not been the result of the effects of climate change, they have happened simply because the two nations don't like each other. But, since they can get that close without complications we can easily conclude additional stressors have the potential to push them over the brink.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan, even if limited to just their region, would truly devastate the planet. The total death toll would number in the billions of people. A recent study estimated a regional nuclear war between these two countries would put approximately 5 terragrams of soot into the atmosphere and affect the Chinese climate for at least 10 years. After one year, grain production in China (the world's largest grain producer) would be down 35%. Even after four years, production would still be down 25%. It is estimated the effect on European and American farm production would also be severe. They conclude this would put a billion people at risk of famine.

Now, I am not saying climate change is going to be the final straw in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although I would really prefer to not take that risk. What I am saying is this is an example, albeit an extreme example, of how climate change is a cost we just cannot afford to pay. Even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, if climate change leads to a regional conventional war it would not be to our benefit. Have we benefited by regional wars in parts of the planet far from our country? Isn't it in our best interest to try and prevent these conflicts? The effects of climate change is one more reason for people to start fighting, possibly even the final straw. Therefore, it stands to reason it is on our best interest to remove these complicating effects and help reduce international tension before it even begins.

Hopefully, the drop in Chinese coal use is a sign we are making progress in the battle to do something about it.

The Cost of Climate Change Keeps Going Up

Let’s discuss the cost of climate change. The fossil fuel industry and its lackeys keep telling us climate change is good for us – the more the better. Literally, that is what they are saying. For example, take this quote from The Spectator:

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

By the way, his "expert" for all of this information is Richard Tol, an economist and well-known denier with a reputation for getting his facts wrong. In one of the big "Oops" moments in denier history, he analyzed the 97% consensus statement in an attempt to disprove it and - surprise! - proved it was correct. He has no scientific background that I am aware of.

I thought we could take a look for ourselves and see just how much global warming and climate change are costing us now and likely to cost us in the future.

One of the ways to look at the cost of climate change is to examine the economic cost. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Right now, the government puts the social cost at $37 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted. We are currently emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that comes out to about $1.5 trillion per year. Yes, that was trillion, with a 't.' And, that expense is not only incurred every year, but is also increasing as emission amounts increase.

That is horrible news, but it gets even worse. Researchers at Stanford University examined this figure and have estimated it is more likely $220 per ton. That comes out to a staggering $8.8 trillion per year! Every year! And, climbing!



Why the big difference? The Stanford group included the effects current damage does to future growth.

“If climate change affects not only a country's economic output, but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time,” Frances Moore, co-author and environmental scientist, said.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they are on the high side with their calculation. It is possible, but it is widely believed the government figure is way too low. Just for the sake of argument we'll say the value is at the midpoint between their value and the government's value. The economic cost at that rate is then about $5.2 trillion per year. That amount is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

By the way, the poorer you are, the more you'll be affected. Poor countries will fare worse than rich ones.

Keep that figure in mind when someone tells you climate change is good for you.

Then, there is sea level rise. A study found the sea level numbers for 1901 - 1990 were overstated and, as a result, the data shows the rate of sea level rise since 1990 is 25% higher than previously thought and accelerating.

If you live anywhere near a coast (as the majority of the human population does), you might want to think about how much damage you will incur as a result of rising sea levels and the cost of protecting yourself.  Factor that in when calculating how much climate change will cost you.

How about drought? The current drought in California is likely to a more common story in the future and will result in a series of ripple effects, such as increased wildfire, loss of timber, floods, erosion and degraded water quality, just to name a few. The drought is estimated to be causing California billions of dollars per year in economic damage, mostly to farmers and agriculture workers. Those are the people least able to afford the damage.


Then, I saw these little tidbits in Scientific American (August 2014, vol 311, no 2, pg 22-23):

Five National Landmarks Threatened by Climate Change:

• Statue of Liberty - After Superstorm Sandy, the National Park Service began work on flood-proofing Liberty Island. Cost: Unspecified.
• Faneuil Hall, Boston - The city is planning building renovations that may include flood-protection walls. Cost: Unknown.
• Cape Hatteras Light, NC - In 1999 the National Park Service moved the lighthouse 2,900 feet to protect it against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels. Cost: $11.8 million.
• NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston - Installed new roofs to protect withstand more severe hurricanes. Repairs from 2008's Hurricane Ike cost about $80 million.
• Mesa Verde Nation Park, Colorado - The National Park Service is performing prescribed burns and treating the cliffs to protect against flooding and erosion. Cost: Unspecified.

The American taxpayers will be footing the bill for all of those expenses.

Still not convinced? How about the study that showed as temperature goes up, economic productivity goes down? A team at the Bureau of Economic Research found that every day life gets more expensive as the temperature goes up. They found a country's economic activity decreased by about 1% for every degree over 59 degrees F. The damage comes from increased costs associated with higher temperature. For example, if you have to pay more for electricity because you are running the air conditioner longer, you have less money to spend on other things. Notice that the people who benefit from that situation are the same ones responsible for creating it in the first place and are so eager to convince you it isn't a problem. As the temperature goes up, the total damage to economies around the world will amount to many billions of dollars.

Not enough? Take a look at this article in Eos that shows how climate change is causing cholera to spread. More epidemics around the world. Expenses for those epidemics will be in the billions of dollars.

I also saw this quote in Physics Today:

As the average global temperature rises, mountainous areas across western North America are experiencing significantly less ice and snow. A hundred years ago, Glacier National Park included some 150 ice sheets, but today it has only 25. The implications are vast for the surrounding areas. Rising air and water temperatures are affecting local ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. And because at least 80% of the water supply in the US West comes from its mountains, the loss of the natural reservoir that glaciers provide is also being felt by cities, farms, and industry all across the region. Although manmade global warming has a significant impact on the ice retreat, it is not the only cause. And the shrinking glaciers are only the first symptom of larger changes to come, says Daniel Fagre at the US Geological Survey.

To bring it home, take a look at this list I saw of seven ways climate change can kill you:

• 1. Bug bites that kill
• 2. Breathing problems, including asthma
• 3. Less nutritious food
• 4. An allergy season that goes on forever
• 5. Heat waves
• 6. Too much or too little water
• 7. Sunny days that make you dreary

And, the fishery industry is expected to lose between $17 and $41 billion between now and 2050 due to climate change.  Also, don't forget that ocean acidification results in a declining shellfish population.

There is plenty more and I don't need to go through it all, but I thought I would mention one last piece of news. That blizzard that hit New York City this past week cost the city $200 million in lost economic activity. Severe weather events like this are already becoming the norm. Tell me, how many 'storms of the century' have there been in the last few years?

So, I think we can see from just a very small sampling that we can definitely say global warming and climate change are not good for us. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

But, you know who will make money off of climate change? The same people that are hell bent for everyone to believe its good for us.

Air Pollution Provides Model of Success

"Urbanization and Air Pollution: Then and Now," by David D. Parrish and William R. Stockwell appeared in Eos, Earth and Space Science News, Vol 96, No 1, 15 Jan 2015, page 12. The article was about events concerning air pollution since the 1940s, but it provides an interesting analogy for how to deal with climate change. The situation with air pollution was very similar and many of the problems were the same.

The authors wrote of how bad air pollution was in the 1940s and 1950s, stating, "Episodes of high levels sulfurous smog killed or sickened thousands in Donora, Penn, in 1948, as well as in London in 1952." Continuing, they state, "These events were the result of very high emissions of sulfur dioxide, smoke, and other particles during stagnant, foggy weather conditions." Additionally,

At its height in the 1950s and 1960s, air pollution got so bad in Los Angeles that reportedly "parents kept their kids out of school; athletes trained indoors; citrus growers and sugar-beet producers watched in dismay as their crops withered; the elderly and young crowded into doctors' offices and hospital ERs with throbbing heads and shortness of breath"

The situation they describe was one where high levels of manmade emissions caused all sorts of environmental issues - similar to the situation with climate change.

They then state,

In North America and Europe, the coupling of industrialization and air pollution required the creation of air quality standards and regulations for emissions sources such as vehicles, electrical power generation, and industrial facilities. The success of these efforts has caused the most severe air pollution episodes to be distant memories in those regions.

If you didn't know the article was about air pollution it would be easy to think they are discussing actions to control climate change in this discussion. Even the sources of the emissions are the same.

In Los Angeles, scientific and engineering advances combined with political and societal commitment sustained over decades resulted in remarkable air quality improvement.

Of course, the issue is cost and they state, "Looking back, has the improved air quality in our cities been worth the large expense required?" Again, the parallels are interesting, in a grim, scholarly way. Today, we are faced with manmade emissions that are destroying the climate and causing all manner of deleterious effects on people. The only way to deal with the problem is to address the source, but the question is how much is it going to cost?

The EPA said the cost of air pollution control was an estimated $520 billion between 1970 and 1990 (constant 1990 dollars). At the same time there have been benefits and the EPA estimates monetized benefits to come to $22 trillion. That is about 44 times as much as the cost. The cost-to-benefit ratio is very good. With the success of air pollution control measures, you would think it would be easy to convince the populous and governments climate change legislation is a good thing. I mean, who wouldn't like an investment where you get $44 for ever $1 you invest? The problem is people have forgotten how bad it used to be.

Progress there and across the United States occurred over such a long period that many have forgotten how bad air pollution once was and have failed to notice the gains made. In fact, most people alive in the United States today never experienced the very poor air quality of Los Angeles that occurred in past decades. This fading societal memory poses another challenge: how to ensure that improved air quality is not compromised as communities focus on efforts to spur depressed economies and deal with other urgent societal problems.

People forget. They forget how bad it was; they forget how we fought the problem; they forget how we overcame the problem. But, the worst part is they forget there was even any problem to begin with.

Once again, the analogy is a good one. People don't believe how bad the climate change problem is; they don't believe we can overcome the problem; they don't believe it is to our benefit to overcome the problem; but, worst of all, they don't believe there is a problem.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II

The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.

From: David Okner

Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: "dogw.email"

Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

And I’ll respond to your response:

1.  The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather than invoking logical fallacies.

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

'

3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway. The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to your side. That is not a valid argument.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

4. The book is full of references, which you would know if you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book. Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a lot of things, but who cares.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.  There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture. You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

7. What? More character attacks about motives and also ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels. It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

A point made in the book is that some people have humans as their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive, because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies to evade.

Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture. The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

-David

Response:

Paragraph 1:

One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909

http://industrialprogress.com/about/

http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely nuts, not overtly harmful.

Paragraph 2:

No, the best background to integrate science is a science one.  You continue to demonstrate your logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And, no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials. Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all, according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.

Paragraph 3:

Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project work so hard to hide that information.

Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein. I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your false arguments in line, please.

Paragraph 4:

I would love to debate him in a public forum.

Paragraph 5:

Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least affordable sources of energy of all.

But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr. Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the environment is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is nothing more than a crock of horse manure.

Paragraph 6:

This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

 Source: World Health Organization

Paragraph 7:

Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?

More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.

Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:

It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault you, but it’s for lying.

Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”

Some of the several false arguments you make with your statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean, it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the same time.

And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why) has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely false argument with nothing to support it.

Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein on these issues in a public forum?

By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.

In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly bad failure of logic and science.