We are the 99%

June 27, 2011

Anti-Science News (Climate Change Edition)

This week, our favorite Ex-Senator, Rick Santorum, came out and said it:
There is no such thing as global warming.
Watch it:

Rick must've missed the NOAA report that it was undeniable.

They got the charts, they got the graphs, they got the science.

Rick's got nothing.

Then there's this at the Trib:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled correctly that the Environmental Protection Agency -- not judges -- should lead "greenhouse gas" regulation under the Clean Air Act. But EPA's fallacious classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant was left unaddressed.

The 8-0 decision rejected a lawsuit that sought to use public-nuisance laws to force utilities to cut CO2 emissions.
And then:
Not at issue was EPA regulating CO2 as a pollutant -- an absurd label for a substance intrinsic to nature and living creatures that stretches the Clean Air Act too far.

The anti-CO2 efforts of the Obama administration's ideologically driven, anti-growth EPA are an end run around congressional rejection of "global warming" legislation premised on junk science.

A case involving that issue can't reach the Supreme Court soon enough.
See that last sentence? Scaife's braintrust has to know that that issue already has reached the Supreme Court. In 2007 and they found that CO2 can be regulated by the EPA.

From Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court held that:
Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent..., including any physical, chemical,...substance...emitted into...the ambient air...,”—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical...substance[s].”
Justice Stevens even began his decision with this:
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”
Yet another example of Scaife's braintrust misleading his audience.

Then there's the scientist. Again from today's Trib:
A professor emeritus at Colorado State University who's a credentialed longtime member of the American Meteorological Society blasts the AMS for allowing a small band of administrators to "hijack" the group's mission in support of "climate change."

Bill Gray, on the website Climate Realists (climaterealists.com), writes of his "disappointment" with the AMS' "downward path" over the last decade in advocating anthropogenic global warming. This, he says, when many AMS members do not support that conclusion.

"We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCM) results and the four (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports do not realistically give accurate future projections," Mr. Gray says.
The link leads ultimately to this piece at Icecap.us. Go read it. Then go back to NOAA's assertion that climate change is undeniable.

Then ask yourself the question "Does Gray's complaint about the AMS uproot all of that science?" If it does, then he's made his case. If it doesn't, then the science stands.

Simple and undeniable as that.


EdHeath said...

I wouldn't say that Rick got nothing, exactly. His views on Climate Change, as I understand it, are simply free of any input from the mainstream American and World geophysical scientific communities, in the form of the world's scientific academies. Plus the knowledge that his views are supported by various corporate interests, said interests having deep pockets (along with deep wells).

As for Dr Gray, I haven't spent the time with this subject I would need (including *not* having received a doctorate in anything, much less geophysics) to simply reject his ideas out of hand. I can make a couple of causal observations.

First of all, Dr Gray seems to think that the people on the other side of the argument from his are profiting in some way from saying humans are either augmenting or even causing Climate Change. I would argue that the energy companies who would be effected by limits on carbon emissions are current much wealthier than companies who make solar panels or electric cars. If profit is the motivation, then James Hansen and Al Gore have backed the wrong horse. Dr Gray's cries of a political conspiracy to prevent him from expressing his views next to the Climate Change crowds views ignores the hugely political nature of the opposition to Climate Change.

Second, Dr Gray complains that the leadership of the American Meteorological Society is ignoring the opinions of the rank and file members is problematic in a couple of respects. Partly it gets at the difference between weather and climate. Now Dr Gray says that the members of the AMS of very educated and experienced in weather//climate issues. I don't know about the education part (what the requirements are to enter and/or complete the AMS certification program), but I would certainly agree that AMS certified TV forecasters are experienced in and even skilled at making predictions about temperature and precipitation in a given area in the next few days, using radar, current weather data from surrounding areas and even satellite data. However, to me this does not imply knowledge of or experience in studying world wide climate data over hundreds or thousands of years. TV weather forecasters have no reason to study ice core samples, global historic or even current temperature data or global satellite information. This somewhat more sharply than usual delineates the distinction between be able to predict short term weather in a locality versus forming models of future global climate trends based on golobal historic data.

Finally, I think Dr Gray understates the actuality and the importance of how much temperature has risen globally in the last decade. Sure, there are fluctuations from year to year, but the net increase in global temperatures in the last hundred years and the rising rate of increase over those hundred years is something that should obviously worry any climate scientist.

Further, that AMS rank and file (which I strongly suspect now means large numbers of local TV weather forecasters) think climate change scientists are wrong does not carry much weight with me. Nor do I think the opinion of the AMS rank and file should necessarily control the scientific opinion of the society. Science is not a democracy, it is supposed to be a series of transparent studies and experiments that can be examined and replicated by anyone, and in which theories only gain force as they are examined and tested by others. It is almost as though Dr Gray is trying to claim that democracy should trump the scientific method. What should wee think about that?

The Independent Rage said...

Rick's got nothing is right. As in no chance at the republic partisan nomination. I think he has 7 followers to John Hunt Man's 5.

scott huminski said...

Obama's Sotomayor - Supremely Ignorant and a Supreme Criminal

Online book details the ignorance and outright criminal behavior of Barak Obama's First appointment to the Supreme Court. An appointee that will impact Americans for decades.

Details at:


Especially chapters 9, 11 and 12 although the entire book details evidence presented to Sotomayor of massive corruption and crime in Howard Dean's Vermont that she chose to endorse. Her behavior is criminal and violates the ethical rules governing the conduct of both judges and attorneys.

Sotomayor should be impeached.