Yes, I'm a flaming, I mean really flaming, liberal! Like the Miriam-Webster definition, I believe in "individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition" and "the self-regulating market"! Oh, wait a minute, that means I'm a conservative! Or am I a libertarian! I don't know! I'm so confused! But what I do know is that I want to crush the existence of capitalism! I want to make sure nobody emits one iota of carbon dioxide EVAR [sic] again! I want to destroy businesses! And pass laws to ban people from driving the vehicle of their choice! In fact, I think the government should forcibly remove all SUVs from people and destroy them! And there shouldn't be any factories! Or, for that matter, cities! That's because I'm green! I'm so green, I'm fluorescent! No, make that neon! And worst of all, I'm an ... oh my goodness, I don't know if I can bring myself to say it! Deep breath! And since this is a family-oriented website, if you're under 18, or offended by dirty words, please close your browser now, because I -- I can't say it, so I'll spell it: I'm an A-L-A-R-M-I-S-T! And to that end I was caught in believing the bogus bunkum balderdash scam crock that Arctic sea ice is on a long-term trend of decline, including in the month of May! Or was that Northern Hemisphere sea ice -- I don't know the difference! I'm so confused! And I didn't realize that my colleague Greg Forbes authored an article on the history of environmental hysteria! And all this when "50,000 physicists" of the American Physical Society have "rejected the AGW [anthropogenic global warming] doctrine!" And this paragraph is a tribute to the late great rock'n'roll critic Lester Bangs who once wrote a review with every sentence ending with an exclamation point!
Well, the Lester Bangs part is true.
As for the rest of it?
It's been an interesting few weeks in blogland. I get back from La Jolla and post a blog entry. It mentions that the presentation I gave there was part of a climate-related program, but otherwise doesn't say a word about that topic and instead immediately moves on to describe the weather conditions I observed en route.
What happens? I get flamed about being a "liberal" who wants to "wreck our economy and people's lives."
In a post on TWC's Forecast Earth website, climate.weather.com, my colleague Buzz Bernard laments the reaction I received and the use of perjorative language toward me.
Then things get really interesting.
He, of course gets quite a reaction himself, which was expected. But it doesn't stop there. The off-topic reaction to my weather entries continues and increases, culminating in this incineration followed by this one and this one and this one and this one and others, all in response to entries about Hurricane Bertha and Hurricane Dolly that didn't include one word about global warming.
Hmmm. Watt's, er, what's up with that?
Did The Weather Channel blog get trolled?
Given the similarity in style and content of many of the comments, was much of this the work of one person or a small number of people?
Regardless, the essence of what was expressed represents the sentiment of more than just those who recently posted comments here, especially given the current economic realities. So it's worth making a few points for those who may be new readers of TWC's blogs and are wondering what my views actually are, and because this represents a broader set of issues which go way beyond The Weather Channel blog.
In addition to the Forecast Earth climate blog, I'm posting this on the weather blog since that's where most of the reaction occurred. Moving forward we ask that people be respectful of weather enthusiasts (labeled "weather dweebs" in some comments) who frequent the weather blog and be aware of TWC's guidelines about comments which are off-topic, etc., that TWC will henceforth enforce.
I do not post my blog entries anonymously or with a pseudonym, and everything I've written remains on the websites. So as to save people the effort of having to search, here are excerpts of what I have written on stuff which is pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Posted on February 2, 2007, the day that the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was first released:
>>>>
This is where the distinction needs to be made clear. I (and TWC as an organization) understand that science and policy/politics are inextricably linked, and in particular with regard to climate change there are very difficult political and economic issues to wrestle with in terms of how far to go with passing laws to curb greenhouse gas emissions ... but when it comes to the science of global warming itself, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND THERMODYNAMICS ARE NEITHER LIBERAL NOR CONSERVATIVE.
Nevertheless, you may be inclined to make some assumptions about my politics and figure I'm just trying to shift attention away from that. Well ...
For whom did I cast ballots during the most recent election in Georgia, where I live? Did I vote for Democrats? Yep.
And I voted for (gasp!) Libertarians.
And (shock!) Republicans.
In every election I evaluate every candidate in every race from the local level on up and vote for whoever would represent the best choice in each case.
Even President Bush, who is not exactly considered left-wing, referred to the "serious challenge of global climate change" in his State of the Union Address last week.
...
Often negative references are made to "alarmists," even by those who think that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. You'll get no argument from me that blaming global warming for every conceivable problem is not productive (we have a lot of things to worry about, but the Earth exploding does not seem to be one of the more urgent ones ...).
The definition of alarmism implies needless warnings, but there is a legitimate threat on many levels, based on current observations (in the atmosphere and oceans and on land) and the effects already being experienced by humans and ecosystems in parts of the world, as well as what's gone on in history with civilizations that have met their demise at least partially due to changes in climate.
"Medical Metaphors" by Richard Somerville, one of the top climate change experts in the world, is one of the best pieces on the subject and I highly recommend reading it.
That essay and its medical analogy have particular meaning to me. I've known too many people in the past few months who have been diagnosed with very serious diseases that started out with symptoms appearing to be relatively innocuous, to not have that weighing heavily on my mind when it comes to the health of the planet.
TENANTS
Living in harmony with the Earth is our moral responsibility, of which dealing with anthropogenic climate change is just one component.
That doesn't mean no cities or industry or machines or pollution, it means striking a reasonable BALANCE (a key word that can apply to a lot of things in life) as society wrestles with the question of how much to limit emissions of carbon dioxide etc. This applies not to just greenhouse gases but to all the junk going into the air and water and onto the land.
Even if I haven't moved anyone an inch with respect to global warming (for some it'll take temperatures in the 140s, as depicted in this satire!), and regardless of one's political proclivities, it's important to not lose track of this: WE ARE TENANTS ON THIS PLANET, NOT ITS OWNERS.
>>>>
And, earlier this year:
>>>>
... the political and economic realities involved with deciding how far to go in forcing the issue of mitigation are difficult ones, while there is no question that the need to adapt is a given. Regardless of what happens in future centuries, we have the next 50 years and 20 years and decade and year and tomorrow to deal with. And it's not a question of which climate, a relatively cold or warm one, is "better," it's the rapidity of change which is problematic for human civilization (and the animal and plant worlds), as well as vulnerability to weather and climate phenomena such as floods, droughts, temperature extremes, and intense cyclones (tropical or otherwise). That's the case regardless of global warming, and a shift to a more volatile weather/climate regime would exacerbate the situation.
Although Roger Pielke Jr.'s points of view and mine may not always be identical, when I go back and read his paper on adaptation from 10 years ago, I'm hard-pressed to find anything in there I disagree with.
>>>>
Yet we've gotten to the point where just because someone (and there are many besides me) is concerned about the state of the climate and the planet, labels such as "alarmist" and "green" and "liberal" are hurled in a derogatory manner, even to the point of them being used as nasty epithets. (An irony being the relationship of the words "conservative" and "conservation," but I digress.)
Another irony is that not only do I not have a history of being "alarmist," I have been so skeptical in the past that a piece I once co-authored was cited in an article by one of the most prominent global warming skeptics.
So in regard to the accuracy of the recent comments, caveat lector.
That applies not only in regard to their invectives about me personally, but with their specific claims on the "global warming is a hoax" front.
50,000 PHYSICISTS
First, let's put to rest once and for all the claim that "50,000 physicists" of the American Physical Society have "rejected the AGW doctrine!"
Not.
From the APS website:
"APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.
"Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,' which was attached to the newsletter article."
The APS organizational position on climate change is here.
(And, as for the article itself which got posted on the APS site and caused all the fuss, see this recent rebuttal.)
MAY 1980 = MAY 2008
[Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC); click on image for larger version.]
Then there were the folks who pointed me to this website, which features the graphic above, showing that Northern Hemisphere sea ice concentrations in May 1980 and May 2008 were the same, at 10.9 million square kilometers.
States the website, "After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Where is the media now that the Arctic ice concentration is at the same concentration as when measurements began 28 years ago?
Not.
The problem was the "pole hole." Hold your laughter, please -- there is such a term in satellite technology, and it's important in this case. In fact, in that graphic you can see the holes in the data, and their different sizes, at the North Pole.
Sea ice concentration area numbers from 1980 and 2008 can't be compared because the region imaged by the satellite is not the same. Satellites such as these can have a data void near the poles; a new satellite began being used in 1987, and although the two satellites have similar characteristics and consistent data, given the different size of the pole holes the comparison of 10.9 million sq km to 10.9 million sq km is not apples-to-apples. Comparing the sea ice extent or the concentration anomalies shows May 2008 being nearly a million sq km lower than May 1980.
I asked the folks at the National Snow and Ice Data Center to provide an in-depth explanation of the pole holes and their ramifications for data comparison and sea ice concentration vs. sea ice extent, which they did, and I've put it here.
Eventually, the website, to its credit, printed a correction as part of an "important update," but not before the original claim had been seized upon by some TWC blog readers.
GREG FORBES
And, finally, there was the person who admonished, "Please take a look at this article on the history of environmental hysteria co-authored by Greg Forbes." The comment provides this URL, which is an article that refers to the paper "Hysteria's History: Environmental Alarmism in Context," which indeed is co-authored by Greg Forbes, the implication of the blog comment being that it's TWC's severe weather expert.
Not.
My TWC colleague, the esteemed scientist who was an understudy of Dr. Ted Fujita, has written some things about climate change, but here on The Weather Channel blog, discussing, as I have in the past, tornado climatology in the context of global warming and the increase in off-season twisters.
Wasn't, however, that article about climate alarmism cited by the reader co-authored by Greg Forbes?
Yes, by Greg *R.* Forbes.
The severe weather expert at The Weather Channel is Greg *S.* Forbes.
Oops.
I wonder what Lester Bangs would have to say about all this if he were in my position. Maybe, "Rock on, weather dweebs and liberal green alarmists!"
No comments:
Post a Comment