Gadfly Blog 2014

I recently read your post on counter currents entitled 'How To Talk To A Climate Change Denier'

You should read this short Kindle book: How to Cure a Climate Change Denier.

It explains the Climate Change Deniers point of view and what information they are asking for to 'cure' them.

This is a bit of the 'blerb' [sic] from the book advertisement:

The author once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food and was an active member of Greenpeace. Over the past few years he has lost his faith in anthropogenic global warming and become a Climate Change Denier!

This factual book explores what it took to turn an eco-warrior into a ‘denier’ and, crucially, what evidence he needs climate scientists to publish to help him believe in anthropogenic global warming again.

Ernest Partridge replies:

I might read the book, and I might not. But I confess that I have little patience remaining for climate change deniers.

I am not a climate scientist, so I rely on the opinions of those who are. And as I noted in my essay, of the thousands of active climate scientists around the world, 97% to 98.5% affirm anthropogenic climate change. Presumably, most of the remaining two to three percent are skeptics, not deniers. These remarkably consistent figures are from three independent surveys. The conclusion of these scientists follows from millions of hours of research reported in peer reviewed scientific publications. This research is not repetitive: like evolution and relativity theory, the conclusion of AGW converges from a variety of independent research strategies, including ice core and sediment core analysis, tree rings (dendrochronology), computer modeling, laboratory simulations, historical records (temperature, rainfall, etc.), and much more.

On the other hand, all the climate change denial articles that I have encountered are unscientific, utilizing a myriad of common fallacies and outright falsehoods. And if you look to the funding source of these articles or their publications, you will likely find the Koch Brothers or the oil and coal industries.

Perhaps the author of this book, Paul Caruso, is different. But judging from my past experience, I cannot be hopeful, and I am reluctant to take on the claims of yet another AGW denier. I have done my homework and published my responses. Perhaps the time has come to move on.

The challenge of my essay remains: Provide me with solid, scientifically verifiable information that AGW is false. And provide me with a reasonable explanation as to how an entire global community of scientists have unanimously come to this allegedly false conclusion. And spare me the ad hominem attacks, the fanciful and baseless hunches, the conspiracy theories, the out-of-context citations, and the phony "surveys."

After looking at numerous denier arguments, I am close to equating AGW denial with claims that the Bible is “inerrant," that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that all the terrestrial species were once crammed into an ark, or that the earth is flat. Curious, but not worth the attention of serious scholars and scientists.

Ernest Partridge
The Crisis Papers

Still More from Aaron Press:

Apologies for the delay in replying – I have been working away for a few days with little spare time.

I just wanted to pass on a couple of excerpts from the book.

“In 2009 a survey by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll that 97% of scientists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate. They polled 10,257 earth scientists and 3,146 responded. Out of those 3,146 they selected a group of just 79 individuals, 97% of who had, presumably, given the correct answer. The results were very widely reported and are often used as supporting ‘evidence’ that CO2 can warm the climate. So the widely reported claim that 97% of scientists agree about global warming was obtained by carefully selecting just 79 individuals.”

And, the consensus amongst scientists may not be as unanimous as you have been led to believe by the media.
This website http://petitionproject.org/ lists over 31,000 American scientists including over 9,000 PhDs who have signed a petition saying that…

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases can or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere or disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

So that is 31,000 scientists who think that CO2 is beneficial compared to 97% of a group of 79 individuals that don’t. Those are facts using actual empirical data – not projections made by computer models.

Another fact is that if you download the temperature data for the last few hundred thousand years (freely available on the internet and not questioned by anyone) you discover that we are currently experiencing the coldest ‘warm period’ for at least the last 420,000 years. But with the highest levels of CO2.

If you look at the latest IPCC report they have reduced the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 dramatically.

If you don’t know what a ‘null hypothesis’ is, why all science uses it, and why it casts doubt on the global warming theory, you need to read that book.

Regards,

Aaron.

Ernest Partridge Responds:

I am familiar with these rebuttals, and unimpressed.

Somewhere among my papers is a response to this rebuttal of Doran and Zimmerman. However, I am disinclined to go scrounging for it right now. So let’s put that one aside. It is redundant in any case, for there are several additional surveys with the same conclusion.

For example, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.” From the abstract:

we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the ﬁeld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientiﬁc prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. ( )

In Environmental Research letters (May, 2013), “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” John Cook and associates report (in the abstract):

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

As for the infamous Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine “petition of 30,000,” it has been widely denounced as shameless concoction. Among the signatories are Mickey Mouse and Elvis Pressley, and numerous individuals who were not asked to sign, a few of whom requested in vain that their names be withdrawn. Media Matters observes:

Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," Robinson, 56, said in a telephone interview from Oregon. A May 1, 1998, AP article reported that the petition also bore the signatures of "Drs. '[Maj.] Frank Burns' '[Capt. B.J.] Honeycutt*' and '[Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye"] Pierce'" -- three characters from the hit sitcom M*A*S*H.

Furthermore:

only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%. The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable... This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

About this petition, The National Academy of Sciences wrote: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” OISM did not disclose how many petitions were sent out, and thus what percentage responded.

For much more (with numerous links) see: Greenfyre’s “The Oregon Petition.” Also: "scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project," Skeptical Science.

If this is the quality of Caruso’s argument, then I need read no further.

Pardon my bluntness, but quite frankly I don’t have time for this. Or young earth creationism. Or Biblical inerrancy. Or Scientology.

I’ve shot a full morning on this reply. No Mas!

Sincerely,

Ernest Partridge

Aaron Press Persists:

Thank you for your reply and I’m sorry that it took you so long.

I would like to remind you that you asked me to ‘spare me the ad hominem attacks’ and point out that I am an atheist who doesn’t believe anything without supporting empirical evidence.

I won’t get bogged down in how many scientists support which argument because ultimately it is a red herring as the consensus of scientific opinion has often been wrong before. I personally know a number of skeptical scientists (including two climatologists) and who turned me into a skeptic.

The argument that many of those scientists are not climatologists is also a red herring as climatology is applied physics, combined with stats and computing. I have read many an article by professors of physics who complain that the climate models have got some of the basic physics wrong, and by statisticians who are derisory of the statistical methods that some climate scientists use.

Computer experts (my area) point out that climatologists have a fundamental misunderstand of what computer model are capable of. They don’t tell you anything about the future – they only tell you about the consequences of your assumptions. You have to compare the results to empirical evidence and adjust you assumptions repeatedly before they have any worth.

If you look at the scenarios that the IPCC produced in AR4, CO2 has increased by much more than expected but temperatures over the last 17 years have not. That means that the models were inaccurate and the IPCC have revised the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 downwards as a result.

The position of the ‘sceptical’ community is:

1). Climate change is real and happening. It has been happening for 4.5 billion years now and if you download the data and graph it you can see that it is changing more slowly now than many times in the past.

2). Anthropogenic CO2 contributes to global warming but the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is lower than ‘alarmists’ claim. The IPCC has taken a major step towards that point of view recently.

3). The currently proposed solutions to ‘global warming’ are more damaging to the environment than the warming itself. (E.g. forests are being cut down in Indonesia to grow palm oil for bio fuel)

Regarding the alleged funding of skeptics by big oil. Take a look at the stats for global energy production for 1990 and today. The global warming theory means a shift away from coal towards oil and gas (renewables are still irrelevant on a global scale). The oil and gas industry (globally) are probably the single biggest beneficiary of this theory. But if you know where this alleged funding is available I will start a skeptical website and give you half the funding that they provide.

Science could reasonably be described as the ‘art of skepticism’. All progress in science has been the result of someone taking a skeptical look at an established fact. Anthropologists, archaeologist, geologists, biologists etc can prove that the climate was warmer during the mediaeval warm period. I know that there are lots of websites that will cast doubt on this but go and look at the source data for yourself. We don’t know what caused previous warmer periods except that it was natural variation so we don’t know what effect that variation is having today.

Finally, I will just give you one link to a comment by an infra-red astronomer who has been unable to detect the back welling infrared radiation that CO2 should be causing and now feels able to speak out because he has just retired.

It’s people like you with your McCarthyist anger that are scaring these people into silence.

There is no need to reply – you are a believer and I am an empiricist. Without supporting empirical evidence which disproves the null hypothesis of natural variation and am unlikely to become a believer.

Regards,

Aaron

And Ernest Partridge responds -- Again:

I'll say it again: I am not a climate scientist. So I rely on the conclusions of those who are. I know my limits. But I am also an empiricist, and those thousands of scientists base their conclusions on empirical evidence. If they did not, their papers would not be published in legitimate scientific journals.

If 98% of climate scientists affirm AGW, it follows that 2% do not. You managed to find a few of the two-percenters. So?

As I said in my essay, I am unimpressed by the "scientists have been known to be wrong" argument. True, science is imperfect. But scientific error, when corrected, has always been corrected by better science. Show me the "better science" that overwhelms the conclusions of the authors of the 9,137 peer-reviewed scientific papers (vs. exactly one dissenter) published in 2013. I submit that you have not.

Otherwise, you seem to be hinting at Explanation-1 of my essay: "a world-wide conspiracy of thousands of scientists" (including, apparently, the editors and referees of numerous scientific journals). If so, show me the evidence of this "conspiracy." If there is no conspiracy, pray tell how those scientists can all be wrong -- among them, scientists who are fully aware of the limitations of computer modeling, statistical analysis, and the other objections that you have cited.

And yes, I am familiar with the Null Hypothesis. I own a Ph.D in Philosophy. I fail to see the relevance of the Null Hypothesis to this issue.

With that, I will quit. As I said, I don't have time for this -- particularly for a point-by-point rebuttal of your latest.

Besides, the tone of our exchange ("McCarthyist anger") is beginning to get ugly, and I have no taste for that.

Ernest Partridge

And with 98% of climate scientists agreeing that climate is changing and human activity is primarily responsible, can’t we include anthropogenic climate change among these settled issues? There comes a time when further discussion is moot and action is urgently required. E.g., England in 1940. If the Brits at the time had insisted, “maybe Hitler has a point, lets hear his side” today we’d all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika.

Russia is a great country that is unfortunate enough to have dictators with imperial ambitions for most of its history.

Well Said, and Valuable. By valuable, I meant "highly educational." Having lived through the "cold war" and read books designed to scare the hell out of me when I was a kid, in re "Communism," this article ties many dots together for me, and gives me a remarkable glimpse into my own brainwashing. Thanks for posting!

If we could get most people to ignore the power mongering politicians and their media echo chamber and just communicate with each other across international boundaries, we could create the kind of world we want.

This essay is but one example of how this can be done.

Very interesting. but I suspect that there are several different kinds of RUSSIAN life, some less cultured than this. still in all, this is a remarkable story.

And he covered pretty much everything, except that they alone in the world were willing to give SNOWDEN refuge.

I don't remember what year it was when some Soviet pilot stole one of their brand-new, top-of-the-line fighter planes and flew it to Japan, where he then sought sanctuary.

As I recall, all the top military brass couldn't wait to dissect the plane and learn something about the then-current state of Soviet arms technology. I also heard that after examining it, they were stunned by how well the Soviets had managed to match the performance of our fighters, but using what we considered outdated, antique technologies. They specifically mentioned the plane's much greater weight than the US counterpart, but noted that the extra horsepower it's' engine provided more than made up for the weight difference. There was a bunch of other stuff, about the Soviets using cast iron for all sorts of things that would be titanium or aluminum in our version. The bottom line being that although it was obvious several of their technologies were years behind ours, they had compensated for them quite amply, and the plane was considered by them to be a damn fine piece of engineering, given what the designers had had to work with, and very much a match for any plane we were fielding at the time.

I guess they were stunned because it had always been assumed that if the Soviets fielded a plane that performed as well as one of ours, they were convinced it could only have been because they stole the technology from us and reverse-engineered it. What they found apparently told them otherwise, that they just had really good, competent designers and engineers who found solutions to some problems that we just hadn't thought of, because we didn't have to deal with the lack of some items and materials we just took for granted. Strength through adversity, indeed.

Anybody who attempts to label Russia as backward doesn't know much about Russia, or Russians. They also usually don't take kindly to being labeled backward, but then again, who would?

Their list of eminent scientists alone is pretty imposing. The fact that most of them were able to match scientific achievements of the West, using at the time what was considered here as substandard equipment, computers, and facilities, might make them BETTER than their western counterparts, all things considered. Certainly it shows their determination and ability to focus, if nothing else. I have nothing but respect for the state of Russian science and technology. They also make extremely good weapons. But since most of those were ostensibly designed to be used for the destruction of our military, it becomes hard for the average American to think of the tech involved in creating them as innovative or clever, due to an inherent bias people seem to have against things designed to kill them.

Who'd have thought

Perhaps it was this guy, very interesting
From wiki;

Belenko was born in Nalchik, Russian SFSR in a Ukrainian family. Lieutenant Belenko was a pilot with the 513th Fighter Regiment, 11th Air Army, Soviet Air Defence Forces based in Chuguyevka, Primorsky Krai. His name became known worldwide on September 6, 1976, when he successfully defected to the West, flying his MiG-25 "Foxbat" jet fighter to Hakodate, Japan. This was the first time that Western experts were able to get a close look at the aircraft, and it revealed many secrets and surprises....

Putin's tactical genius has allowed Obama to stiff-arm the NeoCons and Russo-phobes twice already, once on Syria and again on Iran. (Too bad the Norwegians on the Nobel Committee hate Russians.) I wish the inveterate Putin-bashing could stop for at least five friggin' minutes.

The USSR fought and largely defeated Hitler along a 2,000-mile front while the US and Brits were gallivanting around in North Africa. Can we at least credit the Soviets with the friggin' win in World War II? If not for that victory, Churchill and his later compatriots might well be speaking German.

Yeah! But what do they know about the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo, March Madness and the Super Bowl?

Stalin and waiting in line for bread helped sully the Russian mystique you and I are fascinated by, Ernest, and, I have never read a better writer than Fyodor Dostoevsky. See: It was we Russians who invented the world's biggest microchip! This is sour grapes, acknowledging that a country exists whom we could never best in a war.

The T-34 tank together with Adolph's underestimation of it did as much to defeat Germany as Eisenhower or Patton, together with their armies. Its sloping frontal armor was the prototype for all the tanks around the world that followed it, including the incomparably inferior, ramshackle Sherman, our mainstay during the war, the one the German 88mm cannon could shoot right through at point blank range. The T-34 was more dependable than the panzers and its parts were mass produced and easily to replace, it started reliably in sub-zero weather.

It was so successful and such a factor in the Big War that the Russians, dependent on tank warfare, once owned a million of them, to defend the motherland in the Cold War. The Pentagon has been fixated on fighting Russian successors to the T-34 in the Fulda Gap, invading the rest of Europe, discounting the counterinsurgencies we have been fighting and losing since 1945.

Dear Mr Partridge,

I am writing to you from the city of Nizhny Novgorod, Volga Federal District, Russia.

I've read your letter, entitled "Bungling towards Oblivion". It left me speechless and flabbergasted.

I work in mass-media and frequently listen to foreign radio stations, skim through what's written in "The Washington Post", "Time', "The Wall Street Journal" and so on. And never, never do I [run] into solid arguments in favor of expelling my country from the international arena. They say, Putin's Russia has annexed Crimea. They say Putin's Russia are to blame for the horrendous Malaysian aircraft disaster in Ukraine. It appears that nobody attempts to put oneself in another one's shoes, to adopt the "mirror image perspective" you wrote about. Firstly, there was a referendum in Crimea. Secondly, NATO's expanding eastward, coming closer to the Russian borders created causes for concern. It would be strange to assume that this area of friction would be left unaddressed by the Russian leader. They themselves provoked Russia and what followed? Did NATO really think Russia won't respond to its "eastern campaign"?

And then the flight. Are there proofs to Russia's participation in this? No, there are none. Then what for are they - politicians, experts, mass-media - scapegoating my country? Is it propaganda machine or deliberate action of Western militarists or both? Could it be so that people in our modern world are too lazy to get behind the curtain of countless lies? I don't know the answer. Neither I know who is to blame for the flight and I sincerely hope that it wasn't Russian military forces. My heart goes out to the families of those who perished or suffered through this.

Of course, I'm not the likeliest person to ponder over geopolitical issues, I'm too young and naive...

Anyway. There's one thing that troubles me more than anything else, the question the answer to which I failed to find. Why should these torrents of abuse, skepticism, aggression and hatred be transferred over to the citizens from both sides? Why should we, Russians and Americans, be mislead into thinking that we are enemies? It pains me to watch the same hostility brew in the mind's of some of my acquaintances here in Nizhny Novgorod. I want to stop this, I don't want war or any other political and economical confrontation.

I don't want the relations of Russian and American citizens fall hostage to deadlock political disputes, I don't want them to be martyred on the altar of the prosperity for the few.

You were the only person " from out there", whose thoughts corresponded with my own feelings on the subject. Indeed, it was like a revelation for me to discover, that there are people who think differently in the United States of America. And I thank you for this. Reading your open letter gave me a hope, that together, applying joint efforts we could challenge the ongoing catastrophe.

Thank you so very much.

Ernest Partridge Replies:

Thank your for your excellent letter.

Your command of English is awesome. How I envy you as I struggle each day to learn Russian. So no apologies on your part are at all necessary.

To begin, I have some encouraging news for you: I am not the only American with the attitude toward Russia that I expressed in my "letter to my friends." There are many more, as noted at the close of this message: Stephen Cohen, Ray McGovern, Lawrence Wilkerson, Walter Uhler, Robert Parry, Noam Chomsky, etc. But their words and opinions are excluded from the corporate mass media here in the US. So it is understandable that one might conclude that such contrarian ideas as mine are virtually absent in the US. But look further and search the independent and progressive media, and you will find much agreement with the sentiments that you and I share.

Unfortunately, in that corporate media you will find a full-scale assault on Vladimir Putin and his government, reminiscent of the previous attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, preceding the breakout of the war. Now most Americans will acknowledge that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld justification for that war was a pack of lies. That fact should seriously damage the credibility of the media as it now turns its attention to the next "villain," Russia. But somehow it hasn't.

On the positive side, the American public for the most part has no taste for another war, as indicated by the abandoned attack on Syria.

Turning next to the points in your letter:

Crimea remains a puzzle to me. Annexing territory of another sovereign country is a very serious matter, even if a large majority of the territory in question approves. Perhaps Crimea should be a part of Russia. But if so, the annexation could have been accomplished more "diplomatically" -- with treaty negotiations, time for resettlement, reparations, etc. The worst part of the annexation, was the excuse it gave to US and western propagandists to demonize Putin and Russia, leading, of course, to sanctions and, God forbid, still worse to come.

There is an interesting parallel in US history. Texas was once a part of Mexico. But then the Texans, largely settlers from the US, declared independence and subsequently joined the US. Then a war ensued and the US grabbed half the territory of Mexico, including the land (California) on which I reside.

Official US and NATO sources scoff at Russian claims that they are trying to protect the lives and property of Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Yet Reagan ordered the invasion of Granada, and Bush (the elder) ordered the invasion of Panama, allegedly to "protect American lives." And yet Putin has not ordered the invasion of Ukraine by organized Russian troops, which shows wise restraint on his part. One rule for the US, another for Russia.

About the Malaysian airliner, I am also bewildered. Given the condition of our media, what am I to believe? My best guess is that the plane went down due to a tragic error, just like the Korean airliner in 1983 (Soviet attack) and the Iranian Airbus in 1986 (US Navy). The contrasting US press reactions were telling. KAL 1983? "Proves how evil the Soviets are." Iran 1988? "Tragic error. Those things happen in war. Get over it." The hypocrisy is stunning.

Of this I am certain: Putin did not order the destruction of a civilian aircraft. Why would he? What possible advantage? And consider the enormous prestige cost to Russia and the propaganda advantage in the west. Say what you will about Putin, he is not stupid.

About your President, I am once again utterly confused. The many emails that I have received from Russia -- from close friends and total strangers -- depict Putin as everything from a villain ("gangster") on the one hand, to a hero on the other. What am I to believe? Not our mass media, to be sure. But who and what? Perhaps you can lead me to some sources that might enlighten me.

Of this much I am confident: the future of our countries, and of the world, lie in the hands of young people such as yourself, in Russia, in the United States and elsewhere. So I urge you to find other Russians like yourself and help form a movement of "peace and friendship," and then reach across the globe to like-minded young people in the United States and Europe. Below you will find names and links that might move you in a useful direction. More contacts will no doubt come to my mind, and when they do I will send them to you.

Don't despair about the United States. You have many potential friends and allies here. Seek them out. With your outstanding language skill, you are well-qualified to do so.

Thank you once again, for your inspiring letter, at a time when inspiration seems all too rare.

С уважением в мире и дружбе,

Ernest Partridge

Environmental Ethics
and Public Policy

Ernest Partridge, Ph.D
www.igc.org/gadfly

Environmental Ethics and Public Policy

Ernest Partridge, Ph.D www.igc.org/gadfly

Environmental Ethics
and Public Policy

Ernest Partridge, Ph.D
www.igc.org/gadfly