Dancing In Carbon Shoes

by John Weckerle

As most of our readers know, New Mexico Central has not typically focused extensively on national/global issues. Global climate change has been the subject of a single article thus far. However, given some of what we’ve been reading, we think perhaps it is time for article number two.

We have watched with some interest the exchanges in the letters-to-the-editor at the Mountain View Telegraph between Scott Brooks, Ken Johnson, and Bob Clancy, a debate into which your editor even waded once. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Johnson believe that evidence and analysis supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate change are the bogus result of some sort of vast conspiracy among the grand majority of climate and environmental scientists. Mr. Clancy disagrees, as does your editor. Mr. Clancy, to a lesser extent, myself, and others have at times looked into the issues raised by the climate conspiracy theorists and tried to correct the misconceptions presented. For the most part, the reaction seems to have been a combination of dodge, hustle, regrouping, and diversion. A tactic? Perhaps. A strategy? Well…

The issue has begun spilling over into the local blogs, with Gadabout-Blogalot.com blogger Chuck Ring weighing in on the subject, referring to “man’s so-called climate change” and stating “Carbon footprints are of little interest to me at this time because it seems that the whole “global warming/climate change” effort has tumbled rear-end over teakettle … at least for now and maybe far into the future. Something about scads of emails and weather cold enough to freeze the horns off of a brass billy goat.”  Mr. Ring has made a number of other comments suggesting that he is embracing a certain skepticism on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, apparently on the basis of the notorious “Climategate” e-mails.  If Mr. Brooks and Mr. Johnson’s constant barrage of letters to the Telegraph didn’t make this a local issue, Mr. Ring’s entry into the discourse certainly does, as he is running for local office. With all that in mind, we’d like to address a few of the relevant claims recently made.

First, let us dispense with the “Climategate” e-mails, which received a great deal of initial press and then more-or-less vanished from the news.  By most accounts, an anonymous hacker penetrated the e-mail server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and downloaded thousands of e-mails between climate researchers.  A substantial number of bloggers and letter-writers have gotten substantial mileage out of suggesting that these e-mails are concrete evidence of a massive, global conspiracy to deceive the world population on the issue of climate change.  Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case.  The proposition that the e-mails in question served to demonstrate a conspiracy or invalidate conclusions on the part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been thoroughly debunked.  We will not go into exhaustive detail, but refer our readers to this Factcheck.org article and this Wikipedia article.  We’re sure that there will be people who will summarily dismiss this debunking; ignore it and move on to the next “proof” of a global conspiracy; or even come to the conclusion that the debunking is evidence of an even wider, more insidious conspiracy.  Of course, if they want to seek out conspiracies wherever they may be hiding, they might look at the fact that the e-mails were obtained illegally, that the content of those e-mails was misrepresented, and that the misrepresentation was widely dispersed by people of a common political philosophy.  We hope they enjoy themselves either way.

In his latest letter to the Telegraph, Mr. Brooks attacks the credentials of IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri (Mr. Brooks incorrectly identifies him as vice-chairman): “Although Dr. Pachauri is often presented as a scientist, as a former railway engineer with a Ph.D. in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science at all.” This is misleading in the extreme – Dr. Pachauri in fact holds a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering and Ph.Ds in both economics and industrial engineering.  More information may be found in his official biography (while it is common for such biographies to be self-congratulatory, this at least provides some historical information on his academic and business background).  Mr. Brooks also raises conflict-of-interest issues, apparently initially brought up in The Telegraph (not ours, but the UK’s; articles here and here).  The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) replied with a press release that discusses Dr. Pachauri’s business interests and the relationship between TERI and Tata Chemicals.  We think there may be more to this, and hope that the U.N. will address the issue directly, quickly, and publicly.  In the meantime, there is a difference between being unqualified and having a conflict of interest, and we will note that Mr. Brooks’s reasons for believing a conflict exists provide substantial additional information on Dr. Pachauri’s credentials.  We will also note that the latter Telegraph article clearly “buys in” to the Climategate non-scandal.

Mr. Brooks, in that same letter, repeats the nonsensical “CO2 is green” message, essentially an astroturf screed, which was initiated and promoted by people associated directly with the American Petroleum Institute and similar fossil fuel industry organizations, perhaps most notably H. Leighton Steward – founder of plantsneedco2.org and former vice-Chairman of Burlington Resources, former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.  This “message” is one brand of foolishness of which we have become very tired.  It shows an absolute ignorance of (or, perhaps more pointedly, “ignore-ance” of) the carbon cycle. “More is better” simply does not apply; carbon dioxide is not the principal factor controlling plant growth – this is far more an issue of water availability and soil composition, and these insinuations that the planet will simply burst into bloom if we raise the level of CO2 are unfounded and patently ridiculous.  Further, the fact that CO2 is a part of plant metabolism does not mean that it also, at elevated concentrations, does not affect atmospheric temperatures.  We are beginning to wonder what, if any, involvement Mr. Brooks (and, for that matter, Mr. Johnson) has had with the fossil fuel and related industries – given his concern with Dr. Pachauri’s potential conflicts, this seems a fair question to ask.

In another recent letter to the Telegraph (ours, not the UK’s), Mr. Brooks states: “But the Argo buoy system shows the ocean has been cooling since 2003.” No, it doesn’t.  On their Global Change Analysis page, the people at Argo have this to say about their data as it relates to climate change:

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo’s greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

This is followed by information and a graph showing an increase in the heat content in the upper 700 meters of the world’s oceans since 1955.

For all that Mr. Brooks seems willing to attack the data and analysis of others, his own seems both slanted and rife with errors, omissions, and misinterpretation – not to mention a good bit of conspiracy theory.

We are also going to level a gentle chiding at our friends at the Mountain View Telegraph.  Rather than simply continuing this “he said, he said” approach to what is an important issue, perhaps the Telegraph should do its job as a press organization, research the issue, and give us its honest assessment of the issues.

6 Responses “Dancing In Carbon Shoes”

  1. Chuck Ring says:

    Let’s see, you wrote and quote:

    “The issue has begun spilling over into the local blogs, with Gadabout-Blogalot.com blogger Chuck Ring weighing in on the subject, referring to “man’s so-called climate change” and stating “Carbon footprints are of little interest to me at this time because it seems that the whole “global warming/climate change” effort has tumbled rear-end over teakettle … at least for now and maybe far into the future. Something about scads of emails and weather cold enough to freeze the horns off of a brass billy goat.” Mr. Ring has made a number of other comments suggesting that he is embracing a certain skepticism on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, apparently on the basis of the notorious “Climategate” e-mails. If Mr. Brooks and Mr. Johnson’s constant barrage of letters to the Telegraph didn’t make this a local issue, Mr. Ring’s entry into the discourse certainly does, as he is running for local office. With all that in mind, we’d like to address a few of the relevant claims recently made.”

    from an article that had nothing to do with global warming as the main thrust, but had to do with support of solar energy in particular and renewable energy in general.

    From your remarks, I gather that I am not to have an opinion on a subject that is still unsettled in the minds of folks that are more intelligent than I and quite possibly more knowledgeable than anyone you mention in your article … perhaps even yourself.

    Whether I am skeptical of climate change/global warming or not, the fact remains I have been supportive of renewable energy and energy conservation. You are aware of my feelings and indeed my testimony in favor of biomass energy, my personal discussions with you and others pertaining to renewable energy, my other articles in support of wind, solar and geothermal energy and my my limited participation on Edgewood’s committee on energy.

    I do not march in lockstep with skeptics, nor am I convinced that you and the folks you’ve stepped forward with have all the answers. I heard or read somewhere that a healthy part of science is a dose of skepticism.
    I believe I have that sort of skepticism and it certainly won’t get in my way of promoting renewable energy and conservation and it won’t prevent my delivery of excellent service to the citizens of Edgewood.

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

    • Chuck, you are misreading the article, at least where you are concerned, and taking offense where none is given. The purpose of this article was to discuss specific remarks and/or claims associated with the climate debate, as expressed by the people quoted in the article, including yourself. It simply makes note that you made a comment regarding the “climategate” e-mails, primarily as part of the introductory material. It does not question your commitment to renewable energy, which is a matter of record, or suggest that you are marching in lockstep with anybody, and it certainly does not suggest that you are not entitled to an opinion on the subject. You certainly are so entitled, and entitled to state your opinion publicly. However, when you state your opinion publicly, others are also entitled to disagree, and to subject the basis of that opinion to critical examination – most especially (but not exclusively) given your status as a public figure. I’d suggest not seeing it as a personal issue.

      As for skepticism, I am known for having a healthy dose of it myself. However, there is skepticism, and there is skepticism – and sometimes it is just as important to be skeptical of skepticism as it is to be skeptical of the object of the skepticism. A skeptical position must be able to support itself just as rigorously as that it intends to refute. If a contrary position relies on incorrect information or, as in some cases with the “evidence” discussed in the article, misinformation, then it is not skeptical – it is simply contrarian.

      As for the remark: “…nor am I convinced that you and the folks you’ve stepped forward with have all the answers” – with whom am have I supposedly “stepped forward,” and what answers am I supposed to think I have? Your implication here is that I am marching in lockstep with somebody else. While I accept the proposition that temperature increases (and associated effects) have been observed, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely contributing to global temperature increases and have the potential to result in climate change, I express no certainty regarding the degree of the anthropogenic contribution or the extent to, or the time frame within, which the overall change would occur. I have been relatively vocal in opposing the indiscriminate application of renewable energy technologies in settings where they might be ecologically damaging – a subject upon which you and I perhaps have differing opinions, to which regular readers of both our blogs can attest. And I am in disagreement with a number of the “answers” suggested by “the folks I haven’t entirely stepped forward with.” All that being said, this article does not propose a position on climate change, but simply examines positions set forth by others.

      In your response, you’ve discussed your record on renewable energy, as well as your right to skepticism and your dedication to public service. I question none of these. Perhaps most importantly, though, you’ve asserted right to express your opinion – certainly no question there – so what is your opinion? Do the “Climategate” e-mails, in your opinion (and in light of the examination the issue has received since the story broke), represent evidence of a conspiracy to distort scientific analysis with the purpose of making anthropogenic climate change seem more real than it is? Does Dr. Pachauri, in your opinion, lack the credentials to be IPCC Chairman? Do you accept the “CO2 is green” argument? Do you believe that the Argo data demonstrate a cooling of the world’s oceans?

  2. Chuck Ring says:

    You’ve “skepticised” the skepticism right out of the air with your use of the word skepticism: ;>)

    “As for skepticism, I am known for having a healthy dose of it myself. However, there is skepticism, and there is skepticism – and sometimes it is just as important to be skeptical of skepticism as it is to be skeptical of the object of the skepticism. A skeptical position must be able to support itself just as rigorously as that it intends to refute. If a contrary position relies on incorrect information or, as in some cases with the “evidence” discussed in the article, misinformation, then it is not skeptical – it is simply contrarian.”

    Whether the Climategate emails distort evidence, I do not know, but certainly some of the text calls into question the motivation of one or more scientist. I speak of the exchange where one or more of the writers indicated they might be pleased regarding the death of one of the skeptics and the discussion had by several regarding the potential non-publication of skeptic “evidence” through their influence with a scientific journal or journals.

    While I am a fan of computers, I don’t profess to know whether the skeptics or the “warmers” have input data and unfairly or erroneously manipulated the data for their desired outcome. I believe that (purposely erroneous manipulation)is a possibiity

    Both sides of the argument have folks whose opinions could be subject to the direction they come from. There’s always the possibility that either or both sides come to the table with prejudice as their partner because they derive their income from grants as in the case of many “warmers” or possibly in the case of some skeptics, an industry that stands to profit if the climate change or global warming issue is found to be false or sufficient doubt is cast on the presentations so as to prevent or curtail the “warmers” objectives. So, I believe there is a possibility of a conspiracy or conspiracies.

    In answer to your last questions … I don’t accept any argument. What I do believe is that climate or climates change, there is global warming and global cooling. I tend to question whether any one or all of the three are solely or largely anthropological in nature. I do not believe that we know for a certainty that natural OR man-caused changes have reached a point where there is no going back. I believe that it makes sense, for a variety of reasons, to seek long term solutions for feeding and fueling our earth and its inhabitants, but there is always the possibility that smoke and mirrors will stand in the way of the truth (from both sides) and I believe that some on both sides of the issue are capable of being impure in their research and therefore in their motives.

    As to the Argo data and the CO2, I have to say I have zero knowledge of Argo and I do not have enough knowledge to answer your question on the latter.

    Thanks.

  3. Well, I couldn’t think of a way to get half a dozen “Ws” in a row, so I went with the attempt to be skepticalifragilistic.

    I didn’t think much of the e-mails you referenced, thinking more that perhaps the people involved were simply venting, joking, or – as one of the reviewers suggested – behaving like jerks. The single one that really bothered me was the one from Jones suggesting the deletion of e-mails. While the deletion never happened, that sort of request doesn’t seem appropriate. Again, an individual issue rather than a systemic one, but somebody at UEA should see that it’s taken seriously.

    On the issue of researcher bias, this is something that is not unheard of. There is a good book on the subject, Betrayers of the Truth, by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, which unfortunately has become essentially unavailable; neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble have it. It discusses some of the factors that may lead to the sort of thing the “skeptics” are talking about. However, scientific fraud rarely (perhaps never) seems to involve broad conspiracy. To suggest, as Mr. Brooks and others have done, that the vast majority of climate researchers are nothing more than prostitutes simply doesn’t wash. While some uncertainties may be understated in the general press, the overall science (to the extent it is capable at any given point in time) shows no real evidence I’ve seen of collaborative falsification. And as somebody who has been dealing with the research world for years (not as a researcher, though), I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say that scientists in general and researchers in particular probably do not conspire well, especially on a large scale. I’ve come to realize over the years that the world of scientists holds pretty much the same percentage of honest and dishonest individuals as the general population. And again, those alleging manipulation of data or other misconduct have every bit as much an obligation as the scientists to prove their point, and without dissembling. The contrarian positions espoused by Mr. Brooks, Mr. Johnson and other have not, in my opinion, stood up to close examination – and some of the arguments they have made have turned out to be demonstrably false.

    While the degree of man’s contribution to warming will likely be a matter of dispute for some time, there is little doubt that warming is currently occurring. For that reason, and for others, as you noted, long-term solutions are needed – as will short term solutions be. It remains to be seen whether we the solutions we pursue will, in the end, be the most effective, and whether they will, on balance, result in (or not result in) as many problems as they solve.

  4. Chuck Ring says:

    Thanks. I appreciate your reply and will certainly take what you’ve said into account when I delve into or skim across the subjects of climate change and global warming.

Let us talk about
Name and Mail are required
Join the discuss

I'm not a robot (enter numbers) *