Logo

Climate Change: Politicians and Media Avoid Peer Reviewed Studies

Written by Ken Haapala

View Comments
Share

(RSN Editors Note) A major weakness in our great country is the total lack of seeking the truth, as peer reviewed studies help uncover, and the total lack of investigative journalism from the major news outlets to hold all politicians feet to the fire, including President Obama, Attorney General Holder and DHS Janet Nap. Both polished politician and news media anchor or reporter are focused on keeping their power, their image, their hair, suit, skirt, and not on integrating their lives in the fabric of the tennants that keep America alive: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. May I add the pursuit of excellence that would please our creator God. "Pursuit of happiness" to many is the possession of the latest iPhone.

Weekly Report from Ken Haapala, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures

Global_Cooling_or_Global_Warming_Watts_Up_with_ThatSummer Hearings: As mentioned last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an August 1 hearing titled "Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures" and Senator Boxer's questioning of John Christy was worthwhile watching. She was trying to bait Christy into improper or inaccurate statements and Christy was not biting. Senator Boxer brought up the new study by Anthony Watts, et al., which was part of Christy's written testimony.

When Christy explained the bias in the surface thermometers, Boxer immediately asked are people lying, who was guilty? Apparently the concept of instrument bias is unknown to her. She then asked if the Watts et al. study was peer review and Christy confirmed it was not.

Then Senator Boxer showed a report by the California Climate Change Center titled "Our Changing Climate 2012" and asked Christy if he had seen it and Christy stated he may have seen an earlier draft. At this point Boxer commented the study came out the day before [just in time for the hearing]. Boxer emphasized that the study was based on over 30 peer reviewed studies and question why shouldn't state and local officials accept this report rather than the Watt's team study. Here Christy excelled. He pointed out that just released study probably does not contain his peer reviewed papers on climate change in California which show no change in snowfall for over 100 years and which show contamination of the surface temperature data.

She countered by asking isn't Christy in the 1 to 2% of the scientists who do not agree with global warming as stated in a recent poll. Christy pointed out that the poll was based on 77 respondents and that the questions were "milk toast." Do you agree that climate change is happening, and is the world is warming? He would probably have responded affirmatively. The poll is not meaningful. This episode was ignored in many articles reporting on the hearing. It shows how deceitful opinion polls of scientific issues can be. Christy's comments can be found starting about 130 on the Archived Flash Video at:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....

During the hearing, the current drought and the recent heat wave in the US were emphasized by the Democrats and their witnesses. In the 1930s, particularly in 1934 1936, the US had a more extreme drought that lasted several years (the Dust Bowl) and a worse heat wave in terms of setting state-wide record temperatures. (Christy produced a chart similar to Figure 25 in

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NI...)

One can speculate how senators would have reacted then if many government-funded scientists proposed that the drought and heat wave were caused by carbon dioxide emissions and, in response, a government agency (EPA today) was forcing the closure of coal-fired power plants.

Many of the Senators of that time would have remembered what a benefit the electrification of America was and that many Americans without electricity were then demanding the expansion of the grid with coal-fired central plants. The dominant fuel was coal as it was from about 1885 when it exceeded wood to about 1950 when it was eclipsed by petroleum (today a transportation fuel). Most likely, the Senators of that day would have been horrified by the suggestion that burning coal was causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming, and droughts. They would have demanded hard proof rather than speculation. Times have changed. Many politicians do not recognize what life was like before affordable, reliable electricity.

The Watts Team: In discussing the work of the Watts team last week, TWTW did not report that the airport temperature data was excluded because the current instruments in use give unrealistically high readings. The team also reports that it is working on the Time of Observation Bias. If a warming bias is still confirmed, it applies to only a small part of the earth's surface. However, other surface temperature would have to be checked for such a bias. The findings of Steirou and Koutsoyiannis indicate it is a global problem. (TWTW 12-07-21)

The BEST Affair: One of the amusing items coming out of reports on the BEST temperature findings is the emphasis many reporting entities placed on the fact that BEST was partially funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000 out of $623,087 for the first phase). This is amusing because many of these reporting entities often accuse (often wrongly) other entities of receiving funds from coal, oil, and gas interests, when they disagree with the Climate Establishment (John Christy's term). Koch Industries is the second largest private corporation in the US and is heavily involved in fossil fuels. Once again, the BEST affair demonstrates that the source of funding does not necessarily influence the results. For link please see: h

Other Surface Temperature Data: Roy Spencer posted a new analysis of US temperature trends since 1943 using only stations that report four times at daily, at specific times. This data set is from only about 50 stations, but is roughly equally distributed throughout the country. The data set avoids the Time of Observation Bias. When tested for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect using population as the proxy, it appears that UHI gives a warming bias. Please see links under Measurement Issues.

Hyperbole by Hansen: James Hansen of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies made another media splash by announcing his surface data confirms that climate change is worse than he thought when he testified at the famous Senate Hearing in 1988. Yet, Mother Nature failed to fulfill his predictions. Somewhat surprisingly, the New York Times article on Hansen's announcement included comments by Martin Hoerling of NOAA dismissing the Hansen's findings.

Among other issues, the findings ignore the 1930s, the Southern Hemisphere, and temperature trends after 1999. Hansen uses a normal (Gaussian) distribution for climate events. Contrary to his statements, if warming causes a shift in the distribution, that extreme cooling should become more unlikely.

The timing of the NASA press release was curious. It was posted by a Kathryn Hansen (relationship unknown) a few hours after the successful landing of the new Mars exploration rover. Perhaps this is something the "Right Climate Stuff" team will explore. Please see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy.

Environment Defense Fund: Craig Idso wrote a powerful response to an op-ed by Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Craig, of course, is an editor of the reports from the Nongovernment International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Please see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy and the Krupp article as Article #3 .

Madrid 1995: Bernie Lewin completed his history of what he terms the Last Day of Climate Science. It is a three part analysis on how, in Lewin's view, the integrity of the scientific process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was abandoned to expedite a political end. This included the insertion of a distinct human fingerprint in the Summary for Policymakers that was not agreed upon in prior drafts and was inconsistent with the scientific chapter (which was subsequently changed). Please see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

Post Normal Science? Last week Judith Curry carried an essay justifying what is called Post Normal Science, but not necessarily agreeing with it. Roy Spencer has a thoughtful rebuttal of the very concept. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground.

New York Review of Books: Fred Singer and economist William Nordhaus have exchanged views in the highly influential NYRB. Please see Articles #1 & #2.

Merchants of What? Naomia Oreskes is on tour in Australia touting her personal attack on four distinguished scientists (two of whom were founders of SEPP). On her blog, Jo Nova posted devastating comments on Oreskes. It is indicative of the Climate Establishment that it should accept Oreskes as its climate science historian. She and her fellow author did not even get basic history correct. They attacked several scientists as exaggerating the military power of the Soviet Union because everyone knew that its economy could not sustain it. This is simply backwards. When President Reagan proposed an anti-ballistic missile system, many economists, including the venerated Paul Samuelson, declared that the Soviet Union would match the US because its economy was comparable to that of the US. They used the military power of the Soviet Union as proof of its economic power. A simple check of early 1980s economic text books will verify Oreskes' false history.

Amplifications and Corrections: The report from an independent commission investigating the Fukushima nuclear disaster stated that Unit 1 was damaged by the earthquake as well as the tsunami, contradicting the earlier report from the power company stating it was from the tsunami alone. Please see link under Nuclear Energy and Fears.

The many boutique blends of summer gasoline in the US (usually required between May 1 and September 15) are not solely the result of US EPA regulations, but also the result of local and regional regulations. The purpose is not only to reduce exhaust emissions, but also to reduce summertime evaporation, which contributes to air pollution. (The evaporation potential is measured by the by the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) index. These regulations lead to structural rigidity in the distribution of gasoline and regional variation in price. Over the past 50 years, the general improvement in summer air quality in the US is significant. However, with the development of much tighter controls of gasoline tank caps, filling procedures, tailpipe standards, etc., the benefits of the boutique requirements are probably marginal. A search of the web failed to find any current cost-benefit analysis of the various summer blends. http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/13/234043/431 (September 15, 2006)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/artic...)

Number of the Week: £124 Billion v. £13 Billion. Professor Gordon Hughes authored a study on the U.K. Government's target for renewable energy (wind) which he submitted to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). As quoted by Andrew Montford: "Meeting the UK Government's target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 21 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity. Allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines, the investment outlay for this Wind scenario will be about £124 billion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion."

No doubt, some energy analysts would think the good professor is too generous to wind power with only a 58% back-up requirement and believe a 100% back-up is necessary. No doubt, some politicians would think the good professor does not understand the imperative of green jobs. Please see links under Questioning European Green.

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT FROM SEPP or visit the SEPP website for the archive

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week's TWTW at:
http://www.sepp.org... The articles are at the end of the pdf.
1. The Climate Contrarians
By S. Fred Singer, reply by William D. Nordhaus, New York Review of Books, Aug 16, 2012
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc... 2. Informal Comments to Editor of the New York Review of Books
By S. Fred Singer, to Editor of the NYRB, Aug 8, 2012
http://www.sepp.org/key_issues/Info... 3. A New Climate-Change Consensus
It's time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost-effective climate solutions.
By Fred Krupp, WSJ, Aug 6, 2012 [H/t Roger Cohen]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100... 4. When 600 Million People Lost Power
With constant electricity shortages, India won't abandon coal any time soon.
By Robert Bryce, WSJ, Aug 5, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100... 5. Heat waves are not new or unprecedented
By Charles Battig, Letter to Editor, Times-Dispatch, Aug 9, 2012
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/... **-DOWNLOAD FULL VERSION OF SEPPS WEEKLY-**

From Around the Web
You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials