I just came across this nonsense from something called the Patriot Post, which dubs itself "the conservative journal of record." In the midst of a typical anti-Gore debunking of global warming, we get this:
Nonetheless, some of the most ardent global alarmists are starting to change their tune. In 2005, Chris Mooney wrote "The Republican War on Science," a thorough indictment of the GOP's attempt to discredit scientific work on climate change. When he started research for his latest book, "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming," he assumed it would be more of the same. Then, after meeting with leading climatologists, he concluded, "There's a wide range of respectable positions here. In the end, I had to write a completely different book."
The quote here is from Wired magazine. I'm obviously referring to the hurricane-climate issue, not the basic issue of whether humans are causing global warming. I haven't changed my position on that in any way, shape, or form.
Nothing like quoting out of context, eh?
BY THE WAY: If you want to hear me affirm the scientific consensus on global warming--and to hear scientists on both sides of the hurricane-climate debate, Peter Webster and Chris Landsea, also confirm it--you can now listen online to the full hour segment of On Point from yesterday. Click here. In some ways my favorite part was when they had the Jamaican climate scientist on--we rarely hear that perspective, coming from a small island nation that's extremely vulnerable to hurricanes.
- Log in to post comments
Ha!
Of course, if you're a reasonable and careful writer who writes about what he finds rather than what he was expecting, perhaps you were equally reasonable and careful in RWOS.
That's the way I see it in my review of Storm World (click my name).
Skepticism about anthropogenic climate change is common but not universal among conservatives. As a conservative myself, I've discussed the issue a hundred times with other conservatives, and my conclusion is their 'skepticism', (which really isn't skepticism but antipathy to the idea) it's driven mostly by a dislike of the solutions proferred, which almost always involve some level of regulation of CO2 emissions. Of course, arguments from consequences are invalid. Human CO2 emissions are warming the earth regardless of how easy or hard they are going to be to deal with.
What will help acceptance of the reality on the right is for the people who report the scientific evidence to be scrupulously correct and appropriately skeptical themselves about new findings (which in fairness, I think you personally have been) ; to depoliticize it as much as possible; and to find solutions that impinge as little as possible on human freedom and make continued human progress possible. They rightly suspect there is a subclass of the left that loves the idea of global warming exactly because one solution would be to deindustrialize, huddle in cities, and adopt a high level of control over people's lives.
the out-of-context quoting, in this case, is pretty blatant for what they are trying to achieve ... it should be pointed out strictly from a journalistic point of view, regardless of the topic
There is no doubt that such a sub-section exists on the left. But, I think it's been magnified and overblown (and numbers inflated) because treatment by the media (who tends to select the more extreme viewpoints to compare and contrast)(and said behavior is a result of a competitive economy fostered by said conservatives).
Chris,
I caught he discussion on 'On point' last night (it airs in the evening here in Wisconsin). It was an interesting discussion. It was great to hear Landsea articulate clearly the consensus position on climate change. I wish Ashbrook would've followed up on your point about Webster and Landsea agreeing about coastal vulnerabilites regardless of the debate about hurrican frequency and intensity.
I am pleased to read Gerald Harbison's comments. While the type of stridently partisan "progressives" like the average dailykos kossack will rail at everything "Repuglican" there are many who remember that the conservative and conservation have the same semantic roots. For example, Martha Marks and Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection. BTW, they consider Global Climate Change to be our Greatest Environmental Challenge.
Unfortunately, this is a familiar trick. Plan A is to find a liberal who triangulates. Then you can say, "See? Even Mr. Liberal agrees with us." Plan B (a bit more desperate) is to just plain dissemble and quote Mr. Liberal out of context, misleading people about Mr. Liberal's position. You can see both strategies at work here.
By the way, Chris, I would make your position crystal clear in your media appearances. You should repeat over and over, "the IPCC has determined that there's a greater that 90% certainty that the bulk of the warming we've seen so far is caused by man." Only then add that the case for an anthropogenic increase in hurricane strength is still an ongoing debate.
Remember, as James Carville said, politics is played on a tuba, not a clarinet...
They have nothing but making sh*t up.
Best,
D
Patriot Post gave the title of the book, "Storm World: ...." That IS the context to the quote. Read it like this: "There's a wide range of respectable positions here [regarding hurricanes and global warming]."
As for the scientific consensus on AGW, what I see is a consensus that there's a consensus, and for the alarmists that settles the issue. For me it does not. Skeptics will at least discuss the facts with you, alarmists never will.
Here's your reading assignment: http://motls.blogspot.com/ Look around a little. He writes on other (more interesting) subjects as well.
Dear Chris, I hope you will be pleased but I also find it inappropriate for rightwingers to quote you as an ally. At least in my case, you may be assured that it is rather unlikely that I would commit this particular sin any time soon. ;-) Have a nice day, Lubos
Re Gerard Harbison's point about right-wingish "skeptics" conflating some parts of possible solutions with the problem, I've encountered the same phenomena with left-wingish "skeptics". One example which comes to mind is an individual deeply involved in various projects in central Africa, who rather firmly denied AGW because (paraphrasing) "if true, then African countries cannot build electrical grids or use local supplies of coal". Whilst coal projects, new or existing, can be highly dubious, that doubiousness doesn't invalidate AGW, nor is it restricted to central Africa.
Read it like this: "There's a wide range of respectable positions here [regarding hurricanes and global warming]."
If you click the link and actually read what the writer wrote, it's more than clear what was said.
Funny you should criticize people for not discussing facts. I think we spent far too much of our time the other day discussing the facts in this 72-comment thread.
It doesn't make for a fun discussion when there's bad-faith arguments and shoddy research being done at every turn.
obarurnq:
As for the scientific consensus on AGW, what I see is a consensus that there's a consensus,...
The IPCC process is explicitly designed as a consensus-building effort.
We may disagree on how strong the consensus is and how much credence to put in it, but denying that a consensus exists misplaces the argument.
As for me, I note that the IPCC consensus is getting stronger with each report as the result of a growing body of evidence. Their conclusions about the existence of global warming and its causes are stated with an increasing level of confidence.
As a scientist, I accept the consensus but remain open to contrary evidence.
As a citizen, I note that the consensus has serious implications for the future, and I want policymakers to respond to those consequences judiciously but with the urgency they seem to require.
actually read what the writer wrote, it's more than clear what was said.
I grant that, at a glance, it's implications are not a complete representation of Chris' opinions. (Obviously, given this article.) But, when read carefully and in context, it's ridiculous to say Patriot Post misrepresented anything. Chris found the hurricane-GW connection was complicated; they pointed it out. No scandal.
Alarmists just don't like to hear the uncertainties discussed by the unworthy skeptics.
Funny you should criticize people for not discussing facts.
OK, for you I went and browsed the NewScientist's "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed". I give them credit for discussing the issues and addressing the other side. But, in so doing, they reveal the giant uncertainty about AGW. Their conclusions do not follow their own text.
Now you read. The Reference Frame casually posts crushing arguments like this on the way out to dinner on a Friday night!
The IPCC process is explicitly designed as a consensus-building effort.
Exactly. It's a sort of PR campaign, not science in the true sense of the word.
From the IPCC web site:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC is not intended to be "science in the true sense of the word" but it certainly is "assessment" by professionals to understand "potential impacts" (I consider that scientific consensus-building) and to evaluate "options for adaptation and mitigation."
obarurnq dismisses that program, formed by an international society of climate scientists and a United Nations environmental policy program, as a "PR campaign." That shows either a woeful lack of knowledge of the IPCC or a political bias that makes him/her unable to take the IPCC reports seriously.
As long as obarurnq makes claims like that, I'm not going to bother engaging with him/her on the science.
obarurnq dismisses that program, formed by an international society of climate scientists and a United Nations environmental policy program, as a "PR campaign."
Hmmm. I don't mean to dismiss it because one of its missions is PR/consensus building. I think we agree, though, it's not engaged in original research into the scientific questions. I believe those are the only questions that matter at this point. The IPCC is putting the cart before the horse by trying to build consensus (etc.) while there's still so much serious disagreement. That's why I dismiss it.
As long as obarurnq makes claims like that, I'm not going to bother engaging with him/her on the science.
Fine. Why should you? I'm just an anonymous blogger. Why don't you engage some of the many well known and well qualified skeptics out there already?