Climate Change is Liberal Hoax: Reply to a Local Climate Skeptic
By Thomas Wills
“(Human caused) Climate change is a threat to human societies and natural ecosystems, yet public opinion research finds that public awareness and concern vary greatly. Here, using an unprecedented survey of 119 countries, we determine the relative influence of socio-demographic characteristics, geography, perceived well-being, and beliefs on public climate change awareness and risk perceptions at national scales.”
“Despite the widespread scientific conclusion that global climate change (beyond natural cycles) is happening, mostly human-caused, and a serious risk, public understanding of these facts and support for climate change policies is more equivocal worldwide1_3.
Opening statement s from a study: “Predictors of public climate change awareness andrisk perception around the world” – published on July 27, 2015 in the respected, peer reviewed science journal, Nature. By Tien Ming Lee1,2*†, Ezra M. Markowitz3,4,5, Peter D. Howe2,6, Chia-Ying Ko2,7,8 and Anthony A. Leiserowitz2*
In mid-September I received a letter disagreeing with the reality of human caused climate change, from 87 year old William Mikus of Crawford. This was in response to a two part Herald piece on how anthropogenic climate change may be affecting and will affect in the future, in the immediate region and a quick and dirty overview of the science basics. Mr. Mikus disagreed with the basics.
Since I became a moderately serious student of climate science several years ago I have gradually come to love having someone respond to something I write or say on the subject since it gives me a chance to use some of the knowledge I’ve accumulated or if I don’t know something I now know where to look it up. I’m also interested in the psychology/sociology of climate change politics and why, when the science is so clear. 97 to 99% – depending upon the study – of all published peer reviewed climate science papers over the past 40 years or so, wherein the issue is pertinent, it is stated or assumed by context that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is a serious issue, that any thinking person can deny the reality. The paper I quote above is a recent example but is doubly interesting in that it is a scientific study of why people deny climate science as a discipline when they seem to have no problems with astronomy or chemistry.
This brings us to Mr. Mikus’ first paragraph of his letter. I would stress that this exercise is not to make fun of Mr. Mikus’s lack of knowledge, since many people, including some “liberals,” get their information from similar, less than legitimate, sources.
Dear Mr. Wills
In your article called “Climate Change” in the recent Merchant Herald you state that a majority of scientists agree that climate change is man-made. I am enclosing an article listing the names of 34,000 scientists, worldwide, who say that it is most likely not man made and that carbon dioxide is not a very powerful greenhouse gas. How many names of scientists can you come up with, stating it is man-made? I would like to know who they are. I suspect they are mostly University professors whose continued research depends upon the largesse of the Federal Government. Therefore, they must toe the party line to protect their “cushy” jobs.
There was no list of 34,000 scientists but there was a poster for a 2009 Heartland Institute conference on climate change that was held as sort of a denier version the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which with the help of several thousand of the leading climate scientists in the world produces an updated report every seven to eight years intended to give governmental policymakers the facts as science best knows them. The reports as well as the names of all involved are readily available on-line.
The referred to 34,000 “scientists” comes from a much dismissed mailed out survey sent by a denier group to colleges and alumni lists across the country in the mid-2000’s. The “scientists” listed humorously included made up names and celebrity names as well as a Spice Girl. No one checked the list for authenticity and apparently anyone could (and did) claim to be a “scientist.” Many responders were apparently honest enough to admit that their “degree” was only a bachelors degree or an “equivalent.” The story behind this is easily found on the Web. I recommend www.skepticalscience.com as a go to one- stop-shop for answers to deniers’ claims including this one. Australian scientist John Cook, who headed one of science concensus studies, runs the excellent site.
As I said before there is virtual unanimity among “working” climate scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in the field
Then we have a “straw man argument, where you demand something and then knock down any possible answer by announcing in advance why it is wrong. In this case, any expert who gets paid to be an expert must be in conspiracy with every other expert and so none can be believed. Of course the truth is that research scientists live to try and prove one another wrong. Such things make careers, not agreeing with a party line. So my answer of “almost all of the respected working climate scientists in the world today” doesn’t hold any water here. A couple replies to the article received on Facebook made similar conspiracy arguments. One insisted that I “prove” that human caused warming existed, without quoting any experts. I assume the data collected by the experts was also suspect.
And “no warming since 2000.” For a while during an extended period of La Nina years global warming of the atmosphere slowed although CO2 continues to increase, so according to basic physics there was heating, just not much in the atmosphere. But it has warmed steadily during the 2000 to 2013 period, just not as much as the previous period. Nine of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have happened since 2000 and 2015 appears to be the hottest yet. And with the Pacific now switching to an El Nino circulation, 2016 should be a doozy since El Nino’s bring heat “out” of the ocean.
And finally “carbon dioxide is not a powerful greenhouse gas”??? It most certainly is and is the most important one despite the fact that plain old water vapor is the most present GHG and methane (natural gas) is some 20 time as powerful as CO2 greenhouse-wise. CO2 is most important because it is what we are adding to the system by burning fossil fuels. Including natural gas. Excess CO2 then traps heat causing the warmer air to hold more transient water vapor. So, at the base it is the extra CO2 being added to the system that was once safely sequestered underground, but for more than 150 years has been dug up and burned at an ever increasing rate. Also while water vapor has a lifespan of days to weeks and methane of years to decades. CO2 can remain unchanged in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years. So adding CO2 is like doing compound interest with a lag of a hundred plus years before you see the full effects of what we have already added. Also, up to now, some 90% of the CO2 and resulting heat has ended up in the oceans, but that may change.
Paragraph Two:
When did global warming become “climate change”? It is not ethical to change one’s premise in the middle of a debate. I suspect that the name change took place because the planet is actually cooling since 2000.
Of course, global warming did not become climate change. Global warming (the steady increase in the global average temperature due to an increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels of some 50% plus since the 1800’s) causes, or drives, climate change on top of the natural climate cycles. One leads to the other. First comes increased CO2 that wasn’t there before, and this traps heat, and then the climate begins to change. But, I do understand that the media tends to use the two terms interchangeably.
Paragraph Three.
“It is my opinion that man-made global warming is a hoax invented by the Liberal Left to give us a guilt complex so they can raise taxes even further on us. “
So it is not only a conspiracy among every working climate scientist in the world, most governments and most respected scientific organizations, it is also a political conspiracy from the left. There are quite a few Republican and conservative (politically) scientists out there who support science over politics. In fact one of the most interesting carbon tax proposals comes from free market Republicans outside of government including former Republican Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina and the centrist Citizens Climate Lobby. Inglis and CCL proposes that the government put a price on carbon and then use the money, not to grow government, but to send an annual check to every legal resident of the U.S. to pay for the resulting rise in energy costs.
Paragraph Four:
“I am also enclosing another article in which the author states, if there is global warming, it may allow us to grow more food for the burgeoning population. Therefore it may turn out to be a good thing after all – if it is true! I have heard several similar “scare tactics” in my 87 years on this planet and I expect to hear more if Liberals remain in charge.
It is my hope that you will print this reply to your article in the next issue of your paper so that readers may be informed of both sides of the issue. “
William Mikus – Crawford.
The article enclosed was an opinion column from the March/April 2015 issue of Backwoods Home Magazine by John Silveira. Mr. Silviera begins by giving a history of how the modern world has benefitted for using fossil fuels, as it has. Then, after a well written list of how life as improved since the mid-1800’s, he enters denier land: “….greenhouse gasses, (which contrary to leftist thinking may not be appreciably warming the world and if they are they may benefit humanity with longer growing seasons and more plant food i.e. CO2.”)
There is a little leap of logic here. Increased CO2 may indeed aid in growth/yield of certain crops, but have a negative effect on others, as well such as increasing susceptibility to pests. Also science points out that while some increased CO2 may be a positive to things like wheat, the changing climate may cancel out any benefit. For example climate models show the grain growing regions of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa becoming much drier and hotter over the coming 50 years. With increasing heat, yields drop and even stop. Without adequate moisture, dryland wheat and grain will not happen. Also extreme weather may cause more frequent crop damage. Northern Canada, Nordic countries and parts of Siberia may become more arable but that is far from being a total plus even there. The Eskimo villages that are falling into the ocean due to melting permafrost (which also outgasses methane) are not currently too pleased.
But there is an interesting plus to adding some excess CO2. Geologic age-wise we should be cooling and heading toward the next regular ice age in a few thousand years but we have successfully headed this off by adding fossil CO2. The trouble is, according to scientist Katherine Hayhoe,that we’ve already added more than enough to stave off the next ice age. Way more.
The bottom line I always like to quote is from climate scientist/evangelical Christian, Hayhoe, “You cannot believe in climate change since it is not a religion.” The conclusions of climate science are based on hard data and careful science. Climate science denial does meet the definition of religion since it is based on beliefs and opinions that cannot be proven and conflict with facts.”
(Note: the source of my information comes from the IPCC and their reports and summaries, NASA, EPA, NOAA, the National Climate Assessment, and many, many college lectures given on the subject. For the layman I would suggest John Cook’s www.skepticalscience.com for very clear explanations of why we know what we know about the climate. There are also many great, reliable books on the subject including my latest read – Six Degrees – Life on a Warming Planet – by Mark Leynas – 2008 – National Geographic Society (also a good source of reliable info). Leynas arranges his book into six chapters: One degree through six degrees. Leynas than collates the information from scores of peer reviewed studies and papers into a gripping narrative about what we think will happen if and when we pass each benchmark of temperature, a lot of which we are pretty sure of because of basics physics (i.e. the Law of the Conservation of Energy) and what we know happened in the distant past when CO2 and temperatures rose.
The IPCC in 2007 estimated that the rise in temperature between now and 2100 would be between 2 degrees Celsius (bad) and 5.8 degrees C (really, really bad) depending up on how much mitigation action we take between now and then. Over the last decade, with better data, models, and lack of political will, the predictions have become much more ominous. Many climate models have proven to be wrong on the way-conservative side, the rate of melting sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet being examples. Most working climate scientists (including no Spice Girls), are starting to sound cynical about politics, and generally agree that 2 degrees C is probably unavoidable, but we may still have a window of a couple decades to cut CO2 emissions drastically before multiple positive feedbacks like the melting permafrost, ocean outgassing, and diminishing sea ice take over and it will then be out of our hands.)
Tags: Climate Change, global warming, Thomas Wills, William Mikus