Percentage of People Who Reject Science

I recently saw a poll reporting there are many people who believe smoking is harmless. After everything that has come out on this subject, including the tobacco companies admitting to conspiring to deny the reality, there are still people who think it is harmless to smoke. It occurred to me this, and other, polls could be used to find a rough, back-of-the-envelope percentage of people whom simply reject science.

What we need to do is find the percentage of people who, for a lack of a kinder phrase, fall into the tin hat category. We can do that by looking at polls on certain antiscience topics. And, to be clear, I consider all of these issues (and others) to fall in the same category. If you feel offended because some belief you hold is grouped in with others you reject, you probably need to examine your beliefs.

Let's begin.

The percentage of people who believe smoking is harmless: 4%.

The percentage of people who believe second hand smoke is harmless: 18%

The percentage of people who believe in creationism: 42%

The percentage of people who believe the Moon landings were faked: 7%

The percentage of people who believe global warming is a hoax:  23%

Average: 18.8%

I think this gives a rough estimate of the percentage of people who simply, no matter what, will reject science. This needs to be taken into account when considering issues of science - approximately 20% of the population is a lost cause when it comes to science.

NOTE: I wanted to include Holocaust deniers in this, but there has apparently been no poll on this topic since 1994 and it was very controversial when they did. That most recent poll indicated fewer than 2% of Americans denied the Holocaust.

Tom Harris Exposed

Tom Harris is a noted fossil fuel lobbyist and devout climate change denier. He works as the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Besides working to further fossil fuel interests, he has done the same for the tobacco industry. What a resume.

(UPDATE: Mr. Harris has objected to my above statements concerning his resume and has demanded a retraction. He acknowledges he worked for the Ottawa office of a Canadian PR and lobbying firm called the High Park Advocacy Group (HPG), where he was the Director of Operations. According to the Lobbyists Registration System, Government of Canada, HPG is registered as a lobbying firm for several energy industry clients. He also acknowledges he worked for APCO worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Center (formerly Coalition) (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests. According to Wikipedia, "an industry-funded lobby group and crisis management vehicle, and was created in 1993 by Phillip Morris and APCO in response to a 1992 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report which identified secondhand smoke as a Group A (i.e. confirmed) human carcinogen. TASSC's stated objectives were to: 1) discredit the EPA report; 2) fight anti-smoking legislation; 3) proactively pass legislation favorable to the tobacco industry. Philip Morris hired APCO Worldwide, a communications consultancy with expertise in crisis management, handling sensitive political issues, lobbying, media relations, coalition building, opinion research, market entry, corporate social responsibility, and online communication. APCO's designed strategies for TASSC aimed at establishing TASSC as "a credible source for reporters when questioning the validity of scientific studies" and to encourage the public to question – from the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies." All of Wikipedia's statements have references supporting them. Mr. Harris' complaint is that he did not serve as a lobbyist and he was not involved with APCO's efforts in regard to TASSC. You may see our entire conversation below in the comments section. - CK)

Some time ago, through means I am not clear on, Mr. Harris (NOTE: Mr. Harris has been introduced as Dr. Harris by the denier lobbyists, but he is not a Ph.D. He has a Masters of Engineering.) was able to be the lecturer for an earth science class at Carleton University. Basically, it was a science disaster. Hang on to that statement, I'll get back to it.

Before I go on, let me explain that I am not attacking Mr. Harris here. I have no desire to say anything bad about him. I do not know him and cannot speak to his character. As far as I know, he is a good father and husband, gives generously to good causes, likes cats and dogs and is well respected in his community. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Harris is a very nice person. And, I will say this, he has been civil in our discourse, something very lacking from oh, so many deniers.

The purpose of this posting is not to discredit Mr. Harris. What I want to do is expose the industry he works for. I want to discredit his cause - the denier lobbyist industry that is so determined to lie to and deceive the public. It is unfortunate that Mr. Harris has decided to be a member of that group.

As it turns out, I received a guest submission on some statements Mr. Harris made to some local papers. You can read the submission here. Along with the comments, which is what makes this interesting. So, let's discuss them.

Mr. Harris, it seems, took exception to the article and commented,

TomHarrisICSC

The above article is either all wrong or irrelevant, riddled as it is with logical fallacies. But then that is standard stock for people who are angry when their supposedly 'settled science' is shown to not be so settled after all.

The following article lays out a sample of the many scientists who do not support the dangerous anthropogenic climate change hypothesis: http://www.worldcommercereview...

Tom, your target

This started a series of comments, especially a couple in particular,

cunudiun

Your introduction hit all the right notes. I would add that a simple Google search for "Tom Harris Carleton University" will reveal a lot about a particularly sordid episode in Harris' life.

Christopher Keating

Yikes! That's embarrassing.

Do the search and you'll see what I meant by my response. Apparently, this hit a nerve with Mr. Harris, who engaged with me a series of comments.

TomHarrisICSC

Here is one of my replies to this adolescent attack from an employee of Carleton (I understand the university was not pleased to have one employee attacking another in the press without taking any internal steps first):

https://youtu.be/Zeb5XWjSKlA

Christopher Keating 

Strangely enough, professors at universities have freedom of speech. If a university employee wants to denounce you in public, they have a right to do so. It's amazing how you want to silence your critics.

 

TomHarrisICSC

The person was a post doc, not a prof. Do you support a university employee smearing another university employee (I was a sessional lecturer) by going to the press before they have even tried to sort things out internally first (I have never even met or spoken to the person; the first I heard of him was when he went public in the press with his attacks). Do you support a university employee misleading university administrators to get video tapes of my lectures and then launching an error riddled attack in the press without examining the notes I provided students? Interestingly, he is no longer employed by Carleton.

Christopher Keating

Internal procedures are for grievances. Like I said, employees (post-docs are still employees) have the right to freedom of speech. In your case, where you are deliberately misleading students and misinforming them, I fully support his right to speak up on the matter. That is his civil right, maybe even his civil duty. By the way, post docs are temporary employees, typically employed for fewer than three years total. What I find interesting is how you once again distorted the facts to make it sound like he was fired when you have supplied nothing to support that conclusion.

TomHarrisICSC

I stopped reading when you wrote, "In your case, where you are deliberately misleading students" as that is just another insulting logical fallacy. Do you claim to read minds now?

Christopher Keating

I read some of the statements you made and I know they were deliberately misleading. Such as saying "Interestingly, he is no longer employed by Carleton." Deliberate deception.

TomHarrisICSC

Has he returned to Carleton?

Christopher KeatingHas he? Do you know? And, how is that relevant, one way or the other? Post-docs usually move on to another institution. Again, you are deliberately trying to deceive. The specialty of deniers. Why don't you try some science, instead?

Do you see how he is manipulating the facts? He makes it sound as if the problem isn't his teaching in the classroom, the problem is with a post-doc not using the internal grievance system. Then, he implies the post-doc was fired for his actions and not allowed to return. Both of those statements are unsupported (and probably libelous) and certainly intended to deceive.

But, he wasn't done. Take a look at this exchange that took place after I challenged him to a debate. He wanted me to cover his expenses.

Christopher Keating

Doesn't work that way. I pay my way and you pay yours.

 

TomHarrisICSC

Being a prof at a major university you have access to far more funds than I do and are undoubtedly paid far more than I am as well. Will you or your university cover my costs? You issued the challenge to debate, not me.

Christopher Keating

I am a retired professor and the only funds I have access to are in my personal savings. You, on the other hand, are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Go to your friends at the Heartland Institute.

TomHarrisICSC

There we go - the typical misleading motive intent logical fallacy from someone who "knows the truth." Forget about my agreement to debate you. It would be a waste of my time to debate someone who uses such infantile arguments.

Christopher Keating

Oh, please. The reason you won't debate me is because you know you'll be embarrassed in front of an audience if you have to justify your answers. Tell us you aren't supported by the fossil fuel industry. 

TomHarrisICSC

No, looking over your site, I see that it would be easy to defeat you in debate. For example, your poll question, "Is global warming real or a myth?" is ridiculous.
Why does it matter who helps cover ICSC's operating costs?

Christopher Keating

Because of a pattern of behavior. Why is it every denier I know of is funded by the fossil fuel industry? Why is it they routinely lie and deceive about this fact? Why is it you are defensive about this? Where is your research? Where are your satellites? Where are your research ships? Where are your scientific expeditions? Where are your published papers? Where are your models? The only thing you bring to the table is doubt. And, that is done to protect your masters - the fossil fuel industry.

TomHarrisICSC

If you think I am a liar, then why do you ask who my funding sources are? You would not believe anything I answer unless it fit your predetermined idea of who fund us.
Your question is just another logical fallacy - motive intent (and ad hominem,, since you claim me to be dishonest).

I would eat you alive in debate.

Christopher Keating

I ask because I already know you are funded by the Heartland Institute. I just wanted to see if you would admit it. And, no, you would never stand a chance against me. Go home and try to tell yourself otherwise.

TomHarrisICSC

You say you asked because you already know the answer. Oh, I see, you were trying to trick me.

I am off line for a while. I understand that Heartland donated to ICSC in 2007 (I started in 2008 at ICSC). Since then all donations are confidential to protect donors from harassment from people like you.

Christopher Keating 

It is certainly not harassment to ask what your motivation is. After all, we require our politicians to reveal their supporters for just that reason. Deniers just don't want anyone to realize they are being paid to lie by the very people that are causing climate change and stand to lose money if we do anything about it. Very suspicious.

TomHarrisICSC 

Yes, it is It certainly is harassment, and a logical fallacy to boot, to ask what your motivation is.

Christopher Keating 

If that is true, then why do deniers keep invoking that tactic with regards to climate scientists? Are you telling people to do as you say and not as you do?

Again, we see he threw out a strawman and tried to change the subject. When asked if his funding came from the fossil fuel industry, he refused the answer and tried to change the subject. If his funding did not come from the fossil fuel industry, what not say so? And, if it did, why wouldn't he be willing to admit it? Why the need for secrecy when it comes to his motives? These kinds of questions are very valid. That is why they are allowed in courts and why politicians must reveal the names of their donors. And, as I referenced, if this isn't important, why do the deniers constantly question the motives of climate scientists who receive government funds for their research?

So, why all the fuss? What is this all about, really? Go back to the beginning. In the 2010/11 school year, Mr. Harris taught an earth science class at Carleton University, Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective" (ERTH 2402).

The course caused an uproar, which led to an investigation. The results of that investigation were released on February 28, 2012, Climate Change Denial in the Classroom: A report on the course "Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective" (ERTH2402) at Carleton University. You can read the entire report here, and it is very damning. Some of the highlights of the report are:

We describe a case in which noted climate change deniers have gained access to the

Canadian higher education system through a course taught at Carleton University. These academics are closely associated with a number of organisations that have involvement with the energy industry.

*****

Carleton University teaches a range of courses on various aspects of climate change and the vast majority adhere to the highest academic standards. However, the content of this particular course is heavily biased against the scientific consensus concerning the

anthropogenic causes of dangerous climate change. Through an extensive audit of the

course material, we identify 142 claims made during the lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that run counter to established scientific opinion.

*****

However, it is important to note that the unbalanced nature of the course, the lack of peer-reviewed literature cited, and the non-science audience mean that the course fails to constitute‚promotion of debate‛ and instead merely presents a biased and inaccurate portrayal of contemporary climate science.

  *****

First we note the lack of scientific evidence that is actually cited in the course.

Rather than present the peer reviewed literature for his students, Harris frequently claims to have spoken to or emailed scientists to ask them for their opinions on particular issues.

As a result, many of Harris’ arguments do not appear to be based on peer reviewed published research.

*****

Like much of the climate change denial movement, Harris' course is structured around concentric sets of arguments. The first line of defence is to claim that climate change (more specifically, global warming) is not happening. This makes the title of our report accurate: as well as a role for humans in contemporary climate change, Harris disputes even the existence of and our ability to detect warming in global temperatures in the face of substantial scientific evidence and, therefore, qualifies as a climate change denier.

*****

Perhaps the best summary of the questionable arguments used in the course is given by Harris in the final lecture, where he provides take-away slogans for the students:

• “The only constant about climate is change.” (TH) 

• “Carbon dioxide is plant food.” (TH) 

• “There is no scientific consensus about climate change causes.” (TH) 

• “Prepare for global cooling.” (TH) 

• “Climate science is changing quickly.” (TH)

There is a lot more, including an appendix detailing the 142 false claims made by Mr. Harris. 142! The class was for three 50-minute periods a week for 15 weeks. That means he was making a false claim (not including repeats) every 16 minutes, on average.

You can see a more substantial review of the report on Climate Progress, here.

In conclusion, we can use Mr. Harris' own tactics. It turns out he is no longer teaching at Carleton:

“Thank you for your concern on this. The course in question has not been offered this year, and Tom Harris is no longer teaching at Carleton University.
Best regards,
Malcolm Butler
Dean of Science”

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.

El Nino is back. What does it mean?

El Nino is the name given to the natural cycle that involves the eastern Pacific getting warmer in the area close to the equator. (La Nina is the name for the alternative cycle when the waters there are cooler. The two together are known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation - ENSO.) This is one of the most significant natural cycles and occurs every few years. It has the potential to change weather around the world. Take a look at this graphic showing the sea surface temperature anomaly. The darker the red, the warmer it is relative to the long-term average.

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

You can clearly see how the water temperature off western South America is warmer than usual, which is the classic definition of El Nino. The name comes from how local fishermen noticed the change  in the water and how it seemed to always arrive in the late fall - about Christmas time. El Nino means 'the boy' and refers to the Christ child of Christmas. The name has stuck.

But, the important thing is to notice how the warm water stretches all the way across the Pacific Ocean. The significance of this lies in the fact that warm water creates atmospheric low-pressure areas which results in thunderstorms. There is now a Pacific Ocean-wide corridor of low pressure which will allow thunderstorms to develop and travel all the way from Asia to South America. One of the things this leads to is a change in the Hadley Cells.

Hadley Cells are circulation patterns in the atmosphere. Warm air near the equator rises and then travels towards the poles at high altitude. When the air reaches the mid-latitudes it sinks back to the surface and travels back towards the equator. This circulates heat and causes the trade winds. A stronger El Nino results in stronger Hadley Cells. Live Science has a nice graphic here showing how this all works.

You can probably see where this is going. More heat is being circulated through-out the world as a result of El Nino. Changes in the heat and water vapor input in a given region will result in changes to the weather in that region. How much of a change and what kind can be expected? That is a big variable. Some regions will experience greater rainfall. Others will experience droughts. Depending on the strength of the El Nino event, the effect could be anywhere from very mild to catastrophic.

Some of the most dramatic example of El Nino effects is a series of famines that have occurred in what is modern-day India, including the Great Famine of 1876-1878 (5.5 estimated dead) and the Bengal Famine of 1770 (10 million estimated dead). These famines occurred when the monsoons did not occur and the crops failed. The famines were greatly aggravated by British mismanagement.

What has been found is that severe droughts in India always occur during El Ninos, but not every El Nino leads to droughts in India. The apparent link seems to be where the Pacific is warmest. When it is warmer in the Central Pacific, India has droughts. When it is warmest in the Eastern Pacific, India is spared. Take a look at the plot of surface temperatures, similar to the plot above.

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

The figure above showed the difference from the average. This plot shows the actual average temperature. The way I interpret this data is that it is warmer in the Central Pacific region than in the Eastern Pacific region off of South America. This could be bad news for India. The good news is that Britain is not handling the management any more.

But, El Ninos are not bad news for everyone. Actually, for us in the U.S. it will be a good thing. A typical El Nino brings mild temperatures and more rainfall for the southern half of the country. This would be particularly welcome in the mid-Plains and the Southwest where drought has been raging for many years. In fact, several states out here are at risk of running out of water.  More rain would be good.

So, let's talk about the White Elephant sitting in the middle of the room. Is global warming affecting the ENSO cycle? Quite simply, we don't know yet. There are some that believe a connection exists, but more data is needed. What is known for sure though, is the El Nino affects the short-term accuracy of our computer models. The models are highly accurate when predictable conditions exist. But, unpredictable events like ENSO and volcanic eruptions disrupt them. The good news is that when the events occur and are included in the models, the models once again become highly accurate - in excess of 95% accurate and getting better. I have not heard what the models are forecasting with the this current El Nino included, but I will keep a look out for any news.

Severe Weather in the United States

There was a very interesting article in the May 6th issues of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. The article, Severe Weather in United States Under a Changing Climate, takes a thorough look at the way various aspects of severe weather have changed since the 1950s and the message is pretty definitive. There is a nice graphic (figure 1 in the article) that shows the frequency of different kinds of severe weather in each decade since the 1950s. It takes a little bit of reading because there is so much information in the figure, but certain things really stand out right away. Below is a summery of some of the information in this paper.

Damages due to billion dollar events
The NOAA/NCDC Billion Dollar Weather website lists 151 weather/climate disasters resulting in at least $1 billion in damages that have occurred since 1980. The damages for these events have all been adjusted to reflect constant dollar values (2013 dollars). The total amount of damages exceeds $1 trillion. That comes out to about $3000 for every person in the U.S., or roughly $100 per year on average. The total for 2011 was for about $200 for every person ($60 billion total) and $360 per person in 2012 ($110 billion total). These costs are only as a result of the billion dollar-plus events and include such events as major heat waves, severe storms, tornadoes, droughts, floods, hurricanes and wildfire. The list does not include expenses such as increased expenses for utilities, food and increased insurance that are the result of daily climate change conditions.

Temperature extremes
The article states the average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees F since 1895 with most of the warming occurring since 1970, "culminating with the warmest year on record in the United States in 2012." They found there has been a significant increase in the number of record high temperatures the last two decades. There has been a significant drop in the number of record low temperatures over the same period. Heat waves have become more frequent across the U.S.

Precipitation extremes
Over the last three decades the heaviest rainfall events in rainy areas have become more frequent and the amount of rain in heavy rain storms has been significantly above average. Other areas have seen significant decreases. The total number of extreme snowstorms has been substantially higher the last three decades.

Floods and droughts
There has been no nation-wide trend detected for droughts, but regional trends have been detected. In particular, the on-going drought in the western U.S. has resulted in the driest the region has been in 800 years. Floods have followed the same pattern. We don't know enough yet to detect a nationwide trend, but regional trends have been detected. In other words, it appears the regions that tend towards the dry end are getting drier and regions that tend toward the wet end are getting wetter.

Hurricanes and severe storms
There has been an increase in the intensity, frequency, and duration of category 4 and 5 (the strongest) storms in the Atlantic. The number of category 3, 4 and 5 storms in the North Atlantic since the year 2000 is the greatest since the 1950s. This increase in activity is linked to higher sea surface temperatures. The number of strong tornadoes and East Coast winter storms have not been seen to have changed over the last 60 years.



As we all know, weather forecasting is complicated and difficult. So, too, is the climate. But, what we see is a very clear picture that severe weather in the U.S. is becoming ever more severe. We may not have all of the details worked out just yet, but there can be no doubt that the weather is changing in response to a changing climate. And, once again, we see the end user is the one that gets stuck paying the bills. Everyone always passes increased costs on to their customers. The people at the end have no customers to pass it on, so they get stuck.

So, when you decide to deny climate change and resist efforts to do something about it, be sure to pull out you checkbook and make out a check to the rich and powerful.

Have I become a target of the Heartland Institute?

I may be flattering myself, but I may have become a target of the Heartland Institute. If you are not familiar with this prize group, they are one of the prime climate change denier organizations. If they really are targeting me then I am truly flattered.

I made some comments on a blog posting by Tom Donelson on a website called Texas GOP Vote pointing out many flaws in his claims. What happened? I got challenged to a debate by James Rust of the Heartland Institute. He wanted each of us to put up $10,000 for a two hour debate. The winner got to donate the money to his choice of charity.  I don't work for charity, and I certainly am not going to be crazy enough to pay $10,000 for every chance to debate a denier. With their stack of money I would go broke very quickly. Instead, I invited him to take up my $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. So far, no submission from him. Funny, if it is as much of a sure thing as they claim, you would think it wouldn't be any trouble for them to prove their point. Well, what do you expect, after all.

Then, today, I received a comment from Russell Cook, also of the Heartland Institute. It seemed to me to be some kind of intimidating message. He wanted me to reveal what proof I had of my statements and he wanted to know if I had all of this clandestine information on skeptics. Really weird. What I find very interesting is that the Heartland Institute has someone on their staff (payroll?) with (according to their webpage) a job description that includes this statement:

He specializes in research of the origins of accusations leveled at skeptics and the associations of people surrounding it, most notably anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan.

Really? They have a guy for the purpose of hunting down people that criticize deniers? And, he specializes in one author in particular? This really says an awful (emphasis on awful) lot about the Heartland Institute and Russell Cook.

Now, this blog is not about exposing deniers and criticizing them, no matter how much fun it is. This blog is to discuss the issues of global warming and highlight science on the subject. But, when something is put forward by groups of individuals it is reasonable to investigate the background of those individuals. It really is unfortunate that all the climate change deniers have what I would generously call questionable backgrounds. That is not the point of my postings, but it is relevant.

So, I have now been challenged by two individuals from the Heartland Institute within a matter of a couple of weeks. Why in the world do they feel so threatened by a little blogger like me? If this blog and my comments upset them so much, wait until they read my book. Boy, are they gonna be pissed!

New Book Has Been Published

My new book has been published as an ebook for Kindle on Amazon.com. Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming is in a debate format involving three friends along the same style that Galileo used when writing his books. One friend is an advocate of global warming, one is a denier and one goes back and forth. This format gave me the opportunity to present both sides of the argument and examine them critically. The premise of the book is that there is so much science supporting climate change that you don't need to be a scientist to prove it anymore, anyone can do it. I tried to make the conversation interesting and an easy read, but it is full of science.

Someone that believes in global warming doesn't really need to read this book. They already know it is real and don't need proof. Someone that doesn't believe in it won't read it. They are not interested in the facts and have rejected science. This book is principally written for those people that don't know what to believe and want to learn more.

I hope you read it. I hope you enjoy it. But, mostly, I hope you learn that global warming is real and a very serious problem that we need to address.

Christopher Keating

Update on NIPCC

So, I've been reading the reports posted by NIPCC and it has been very interesting. Not because I have seen anything worth reading, but because of the massive amount of writing they put out there. Unfortunately, from what I can tell so far, none of it is scientifically valid and you don't have to go far to find out why. Check this list of Lead Authors/Editors from their latest report on Biological Impacts:

Idso, Craig D.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA

Idso, Sherwood B.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA

Carter, Robert M.
Emeritus Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs
Australia

Singer, S. Fred
Science and Environmental Policy Project
USA

If you are at all familiar with the climate wars you will recognize at least two of those names. Craig Idso and Fred Singer are two of the most notorious climate change deniers and are funded by The Heartland Institute. To be thorough, let me say that The Heartland Institute is the same group of people that promoted that cigarette smoking was harmless and CFCs are harmless to the environment. Today, they are promoting the idea that second-hand smoke is harmless.

Sherwood Idso is Craig Idso's father and the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a well-known climate change denier organization. Robert Carter rounds it out. He is also a well-known climate change misinformer.

When you look at the credentials and track-history of the people in charge of the report you really know everything needed about the report itself. This is a group of people who are professional climate change deniers and it is well documented that each of them has engaged in disinformation on the topic.

I will comment on some of the specifics of their report, but they have cranked out thousands of pages and it is not possible for me to spend the time needed to debunk it all. Which, of course, is their objective. But, I will do what I can.

Texas GOP and Climate Mythology Claims

I dearly love my home state of Texas and feel privileged to live here. Unfortunately, when you have a population of over 26 million there are going to be those individuals you wish lived somewhere else. One such example is Tom Donelson, who writes for the blog Texas GOP Vote. The saving grace is that he may not actually live in Texas. He is a real estate agent in Iowa (at least his link says he is) who apparently thinks he is smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined.

The issue I have with Mr. Donelson is the work he does as a climate change denier. Why this issue has become a rallying cry for the GOP is beyond me. I am certainly not a liberal, but I have no problem with following the scientific evidence to where it leads me. So, why do Republicans like Mr. Donelson deny climate change science and then make every effort to convince other people that climate change isn't real?

Mr. Donelson wrote a blog entry, The Mythology of Climate Change, where he makes many of the same tried and false claims that climate change deniers keep making. I have engaged in a couple of responses with him on his claims. It is clear that neither will ever convince the other to change their minds. Mr. Donelson cannot change my mind because he is not presenting any credible, valid scientific evidence. In fact, several of his claims are just plain false. If he could provide credible scientific evidence to support his claims I would have to follow the scientific evidence and change my opinion. But, like I said, there is no such evidence. I have been reading and working in this field for over 30 years and have read thousands of papers and articles on the subject. I have met with leaders in the field and leading dissenters and been able to discuss the issues first hand with them. The conclusion is always the same: The amount of scientific evidence on climate change is so large that it is incontrovertible that climate change is real and is being caused by human activities.

So, Mr. Donelson will not be able change my mind until such a time that he can show me scientific evidence to the contrary. At the same time, I will never be able to change Mr. Donelson's mind. He has bought into the myth of climate change denial. He ignores any scientific evidence to the contrary and has abandoned logic. All I can provide is scientific evidence and logic, so anything I say or do will be fruitless.

However, I might not be able to change Mr. Donelson, but I hope I can prevent someone else from becoming like him.

So, the fight continues.

Where are we going with the environment?

Climate change is not the only thing affecting the environment. Some of the other issues we have been forced to address in the past are acid rain, ozone depletion, pesticides and even over-fishing. We humans have managed to make a mess of the environment and its is going to take some real effort to make things better.

Earth Day is one of those things we do to help bring attention to the situation. Earth Day this year falls on April 22 and events are planned worldwide.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has 25 sites in the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network for the purpose of in-depth studying of various ecologies around the world. The ecologies include diverse regions to provide a picture of the planet. Places located within the U.S. include such places as acid rain lakes in the Adirondacks, the Arctic in northern Alaska, the Pacific Ocean off the U.S. West Coast, the desert region around Phoenix, Arizona and river basins in Wisconsin. NSF held an annual mini-symposium on February 21 of this year to discuss where these ecologies are going.

Off course, there is bad news. Things are changing and not many of the changes are for the better. Some of these environments will take hundreds of years to recover from the damage done to them. The good news is that some of them are recovering. We are making a difference in some areas. Acid rain is a good example. We have managed to make some significant improvement here since the 1990s.

This is something we need to focus on when we discuss climate change. The climate is changing due to our actions. But, we can change the way we do business and maybe reverse some of the damage. At least, we can work to slow down the rate of change.

Is CO2 a Greenhouse Driver?

I have recently exchanged several comments with a reader who claims to show that CO2 is not a driver of the greenhouse effect and that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. I assured this person that CO2 really is a greenhouse driver and there was an amazing correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and I directed him to some websites that supported this. As expected, he denied it and continued in his beliefs.

This is an example of why I don’t really care to get into a ‘debate’ with global warming deniers. No amount of scientific evidence can ever change their minds. It really is a waste of time to try. And, when you finally give up with the one there will be an endless line of deniers waiting in line. It is unfortunate that they have chosen to reject science and logic, but they have the right to do so.

But, at the same time, it reminds me of why I do things such as this blog, do public speaking, conduct research and why I am devoting so much time to writing my book. The fact is, this person is putting this claim out there and there are people that have not yet made up their minds. They can still be swayed. The deniers are lost minds, but I can help prevent additional lost minds.

So, in that spirit, I am going to address some of the claims of this reader. By the way, I also encouraged him to make a submission to my $1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. If he has proof that global warming is not real, then he should publicize it.

I was, admittedly, pretty dismissive of him. Check out his blog at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ and you can see why very quickly. The first paragraph of his posting Calculated Mean Global Temperatures 1610-2012 states, "It does, however, consider the issue of Global Warming and the mistaken perception that human activity has a significant influence on it." This claim is so preposterous that the only conclusion is that anyone that believes it has rejected science. Simple, the amount of evidence of anthropogenic climate change is so overwhelming that anyone can prove it is true, even non-scientists. More evidence is reported every literally every day. It is not possible to keep up with the flood of scientific evidence of the truth of manmade global warming. It is simply not possible to examine the science in a logical manner and reach any other conclusion. In fact, that is the premise of my latest book, Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming.

So, when I read that paragraph and his claim that CO2 is not a driver, I knew enough. However, as a scientist reaching out to the public, I feel a sense of obligation to show why this person is wrong.

First, look at these plots:



Source: GRID-Arendal

These two plots show the carbon dioxide level (top) and global temperature (bottom) for the last 400,000 years, based on gases trapped in ice cores taken at Vostok Station, Antarctica. This is just one example. Many other cores and different methods have obtained nearly identical results. Now, the data goes back 800,000 years.

 
 Source: National Academy of Sciences


All of the data shows an amazing correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature. You do not need to take my word for it, just look at the two plots above. If you want more, there is plenty more available on the Internet. You can find it by doing a simple search on the key words 'carbon dioxide' and 'temperature'. Of note, obviously the majority of this is naturally caused. Only the far right in both plots corresponds to the time period following the start of the industrial revolution.

Take a look at the level of CO2 in the atmosphere today (marked in the second set of figures) and compare it to the historical record. The level is so much higher than anything in the last 800,000 years that any rational person would be alarmed. Hopefully, you can understand why I was immediately dismissive of his claim that CO2 is not a driver global warming.

Are there other drivers? Certainly! Two of the most potent are water vapor and methane. However, the level of both are greatly influenced by the level of CO2. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that humans emitted 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, which accounts for approximately 77% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In comparison, methane makes up about 14% of GHG emissions.







Source: Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Pangburn illustrates the problem with his claims with this statement:

A co-plot of CO2 and average global temperature (AGT) actually corroborates that CO2 does not drive AGT. I have done it. If you just look at the period 1974-2005 the correlation is excellent, but if you look at a longer period, say 1850-2013, you see the temperature trend going up, down, up, down, up, too-soon-to-tell while the CO2 level steadily, progressively increases. After 2001 the separation increases steadily as shown at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through December, 2013) increased since 2001 by 27.18 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.37% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; December, 2013, 398.31 ppmv).

How do you rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001?

What he does here  is known as cherry-picking and refers to hand-picking the data in order to reach the conclusion you want. Has global warming slowed down? Yes! Has it stopped? No. In fact, nine of the ten hottest years ever recorded have occurred since 2000, including the hottest of them all in 2010, during the period when people such as Mr. Pangburn will tell you that global warming has stopped.

Does the slow down mean there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? After all, as Mr. Pangburn points out, the CO2 level has continued to rise in the 21st century, even though the rate of increase in global temperature has slowed down. Mr. Pangburn is correct in his observation, but wrong in his conclusion. What this data really shows is that weather, climate and climate change are complicated subjects and there is no one, single factor driving everything. CO2 is just one of them, but is the one important one that we are responsible for.

The reason for the slowdown in temperature rise has been getting a lot of attention in all circles, especially by both deniers and researchers. The difference is that the deniers have been very strident in their claims while the researchers have been diligent in their work. We now know the primary cause of the slowdown and it really isn't good news.

Basically, currents in the Pacific Ocean have brought cold water to the surface and this cold water is helping to reduce global warming by absorbing the heat. It takes a gigantic amount of heat to raise the temperature of water. In fact, about 97% of all energy trapped in the environment goes into the oceans. This cold water is absorbing the heat and then, due to currents, takes it down into the ocean depths. We can measure the rise of the ocean temperatures and it is going up. This is actually bad news for two reasons. First, a warm ocean expands and this will contribute to rising sea levels worldwide. But also, this current will stop eventually and then the ocean will stop cooling global temperatures and we will likely see a big jump in global temperatures.

Any way you look at, Mr. Pangburn is wrong. I wish he was right because he is predicting a dramatic drop in temperature between now and 2020. I live in Texas and summers that were a little cooler would be welcome.

But, the science does not support Mr. Pangburn and his claim that CO2 is not a driver of global warming is simply in error.