J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

This  guest article is a letter by a small businessman sent to the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal has published many articles on climate change. Most all claimed the science was unreliable and discredited the scientist, whose emails were stolen. However three investigations have cleared the scientist. I have both a major in Journalism & Business and I am ashamed of the yellow journalism the Wall Street journal has discredited itself with in this area. Is it that  Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation* backs the skeptics; is it his desire for sensationalistic headlines;  or, is it the paper has incompetent or biased writers and editors in the area of climate science?

I fear the one paper I buy almost daily at the newsstand and depend on for business information has lost its credibility. How can I make reasonable business decisions without undistorted facts.  I have been a businessman for 30 years in the oilfield through boom and bust.  How can I depend on the world’s top business paper if it does not investigate and check its facts. Now, the question is “Can I depend on your paper to give me the facts I need for my small oilfield drilling service to survive?”

At this juncture, I wonder if I can count on the Wall Street Journal to make your grievous errors right?  At age 57, I hope so for my children’s and my grandchildren’s  sake. I want them to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink at a cost of 4/10 of 1 percent of their income  in the future, as I do now.

Guest author: David Moore

*Editors note:  Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News and the NY Post.

The interview: It’s a powerful story. In an interview with Tom Minchin titled ” Doomed Planet” (1), Anthony Watts tells how he went from a simple student questioning the reliability of Purdue’s  weather station to a science skeptic saving the world  from “Noble Cause Corruption”.  Watts, editor of the anti-science website Wattsupwiththat, is now on a tour of Australia where he is spreading his message to the faithful for $25 a ticket. As one of Anthony Watts’ followers commented on the interview:

“Anyone who is an engineer or scientist can understand what turned Anthony from a believer in anthropogenic global warming to a skeptic.”

That’s apparently money, influence, fun, and perhaps a little revenge.

Watt’s Career: Watts began his career at Purdue University where he studied Meteorology and Engineering. He has not been forthcoming about how long he attended, whether he graduated, or whether he is “AMS Certified”, as sometimes claimed. After he left college, he worked as a radio and TV weather presenter until he founded Whatsupwiththat (2), a website that posts anti-science literature and commentary. Whatsupwiththat is rife with misquotes, cherry-picking, unsubstantiated claims, title inflation, attacks on scientists, and distorted research. (3) Still, Watts has a number of faithful followers who apparently are made up of disgruntled ex-scientists, those excluded from science by the required rigor, those who profit from the status quo, and members of institutes and think tanks funded by fossil fuel companies.

The Surfacestations Project: Watts has limited credentials in the field of climatology and, though amateurs sometimes make great discoveries, that is not true in his case. While at Purdue, Watts worked part time at their weather  temperature collection site. Building on that experience, Watts has established the Surfacestations Project, a study of weather stations aimed at discrediting NOAA’s temperature data. To counter his repeated attacks on the scientific data, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) did a thorough study of the temperature stations and found that their results were reliable (4). Watts lost any credibility he might have gained as a scientist when the AGU asked him to participate in the research – and he declined. And, though the Surfacestations Project is now completely discredited, Watts is still collecting donations to fund it.

The AGW Conspiracy: To justify his attacks on science, Watts claims there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists which distorts his True Science,  the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) conspiracy. There are advantages to inventing a worldwide conspiracy to explain why  Skeptics can’t get their ideas published? It’s not the lack of credible research, it’s “censorship” by the AGW who controls the peer review process. Skeptics can’t get funding? It’s not lack of reasonable and competitive research proposals, it’s because the AGW controls the government and its funding processes. Skeptics can’t make unfounded Climategate charges stick? It’s because of the AGW whitewash. Skeptics can’t get their claims to agree with scientific evidence and reason? It’s because the AGW controls Reason. ??? Wattsupwiththat?

Watt’s goes on in the interview:

“I think that if you want skeptics to have an even keel in the debate, skeptics need to push their position more often and that means writing more letters to the editor, to newspapers, to magazines and trade journals and to scientific journals.”

The skeptics would, of course  have a more even keel in the debate if they did the research necessary to back up their claims. Instead, they repeat disproven hypotheses, dispute peer-reviewed research without evidence, personally attack scientists, and refuse to follow the methodology or the ethics of science.

Noble Cause Corruption: Watts has even found a psychological disorder to explain the AGW’s motives… Noble Cause Corruption, a malady once reserved for law enforcement vigilantes. According to Watts:

“A less obvious but perhaps even more threatening type of misconduct in law enforcement is Noble Cause Corruption… Noble Cause Corruption is a mindset or sub-culture which fosters a belief that the ends justify the means…. The officers who adopt this philosophy lose their moral compass. Noble Cause Corruption is a belief that what you’re doing is so much more important than what anyone else is doing because your cause is noble, you’re saving the planet, and because you’re saving the planet, you are doing it for the good of mankind…. And so all of those things combine to put a blinder on you as to what you’re really doing.”

That’s a nice bit of sophistry. Scientists who wish to be good stewards of the Earth are actually, according to Watts, guilty of Noble Cause Corruption. If that is true then his followers, who would let the Earth be destroyed through ignorance and greed, are guilty of a much worse malady called Ignoble Cause Corruption. If we believe Watts and his followers, then we may indeed end up the “Doomed Planet”.

(1) http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/anthony-watts-interviewed

(2) wattsupwiththat.com

(3) Some examples, but not nearly an exhaustive list, are

• Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts
• Hits charade: WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with dubious webstats, while lowballing other blogs
• Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one
• FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC
• WattsUpWithThat says it has “nothing to do with the dreaded Climate Change” and “has an unappreciated benefit”!
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/27/climate-sceptics-global-warming
• http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week
• Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
• Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)

• Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!
• Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
• http://nyghtshayde.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/19/4040277-message-to-anthony-watts?last=1269186136&threadId=819176&sp=0&pc=25#last_1
• .
• .
• .

(4) Menne, Matthew J.; Claude N. Williams, Jr., and Michael A. Palecki. Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres (American Geophysical Union) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf.

Petroleum geologist John Brock asks, “Can we really stop climate change?” (1) and concludes we can’t. I agree with him that using geo- engineering to reduce global warming is a bad idea but I strongly disagree with the idea that we can’t do anything about it. The Tulsa World article, “Turn up the Savings.”(2) lists a number of things you can do to cut global warming and also reduce your energy bill.

 Geo-engineering would  have unintended consequences, and it would not address the underlying problem.  Burning fossil fuels puts 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air annually along with mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and radioactive isotopes. Much of those end up in the environment and in the food chain. Like carbonated water, the oceans are now 20% more acidic than a century ago (3) and the mercury level in tuna has gone up 30% since 1990 (4).

 NASA’s data shows that the past decade has been the hottest on record and that the Earth is now 1.2° warmer than it was a century ago. Global warming, like a fever of 99.8, is only a sign that something is wrong. The warming has not been caused by volcanoes, sunspots, changes in solar output, or cosmic rays from the stars, and it is not part of the natural cycle of nature. It’s caused by us and it is up to us to do something about it. 

(1)   http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=65&articleid=20091107_65_A17_Tebgni286922

(2)   http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091109_15_A1_TlaWrd833051&archive=yes

(3)   http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-whats-worse-than-heat.html

(4)   http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/08/

Those who do not believe the Earth is warming have promoted the “Global Cooling” and the “Coming Ice Age” stories to discredit the scientific evidence. George Will in “Can Bears Survive Ice Age and Global Warming?” ¹ champions these stories but his article has a number of flaws- besides the awkward title. How can you trust science, he asks, when in the 1970s the scientists were predicting the coming of a new Ice Age  but now scientists claim that the Earth is warming. To prove his point, George will quoted an article in the February 1973 Science Digest that said “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age”. Case closed. 

 Well, perhaps not.  The Science Digest published excerpts of articles from other sources. Like in the game of “Gossip”, George Will quotes Science Digest who quotes the Christian Science Monitor who quotes ….   Clearly, the world’s climatologists had not agreed  as there is an article in the same issue that quotes  Dr. Cesare Emiliani, a noted American geologist who warned, “If the present climate balance is not maintained, we may soon be confronted by runaway glaciation or runaway deglaciation.”  Why would Mr. Will quote one article and ignore the other?

Mr. Will’s story is “Not true.” also says climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C..  To prove it, he and his colleagues surveyed all major journal papers on climatology published between 1965 and 1979.   They report that in that time period “only seven articles predicted that the global average temperature would continue to cool, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.” ² Mr. Will’s quote is clearly wrong but he has persisted in using it. Ignorance is no excuse as John Fleck, one of the authors of the survey, reported he sent Mr. Will an advance copy of the article in May of 2008.

The bears entered into this story because the Department of Interior had just put the polar bear on the threatened species list. That was simply a decision made by scientists who study bears and climate. The polar bear is uniquely adapted to live and hunt on sea ice and there is ample evidence that the polar sea ice is disappearing.³  But to George Will, this was a conspiracy between scientists, litigious environmentalists, federal judges and government officials to control everything in his life.  Using polar bears as a lever, he claims, the Endangered Species Act could be used to prohibit the building of a power plant in Arizona, driving a SUV, or leaving your cell phone charger plugged in overnight. Well, the bears are a threatened species, not an endangered species, and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne pointed out that the Endangered Species Act could not be used to limit greenhouse gases. However, George Will apparently believes in the power of exaggeration and the “slippery slope” theory.

 (1)  http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2008/Final/W_052308_A_18.

 (2)  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008

 (3)  See, for instance, the before (1979) and after (2003) satellite pictures in National Geographic (September 2004, page 21). The pictures show about a third of the polar sea ice disappeared between 1979 and 2003.

During the last Presidential Election,  John McCain proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. George Will attacked the proposal in his “Questions for McCain”  in Newsweek (5/19/08).  As a preface to the question, George Will states  that “(the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade)”. However, that quote cannot be found anywhere in the World Meteorological Organization’s reports. The Organization’s 2007 Summary Report for Policy Makers (http://www.wmo.ch ) says that the Earth’s mean temperature is rising, that it is causing changes in the environment, and that it is the result of man’s activities. That is just the opposite of George Will’s premise.

When I contacted  George Will for an explanation, he said that the hottest year on record was 1998 and no year since has been hotter; therefore, global temperatures have not risen in a decade. However, the World Meteorological Organization says that eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).  The graph on page six of the report shows a very clear upward trend in the global average temperature from 1997 to 2007. George Will’s clever statement was an attempt to mislead readers. NASA’s data shows that 2005 was the hottest year on record so George Will is clearly wrong. (See graph below.)

           http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/        Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS

 Next, George Will asked McCain about the potential high cost of measures proposed to reduce global warming – which George Will claimed were too great. However, he does not consider that the measures would also alleviate some of our pressing energy problems or that economic growth would certainly occur in sectors of the economy producing energy efficient products. He also does not mention the principles of good stewardship or personal responsibility involved.  Is it responsible to let other countries address the issue while we pretend it does not exist? Should we expect future generations to pay to clean up the pollution we are creating?

 Finally, George Will’s asks McCain  “… what is the Earth’s proper temperature, and how do you know? “ It was a trick  question – a reasonable answer to that question has been known for decades. The graph in the World Meteorological Organization report shows the Earth’s mean temperature was reasonably stable from 1850 to 1925 which is a  proper baseline to measure global temperature increases. More importantly, the proper temperature of the Earth is one at which we can live comfortably. We know that is true now, but will that be true for our children and grandchildren?

The global mean temperature has  now increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit and it is increasing each year. Is that a crisis? That depends on how long you plan to live. Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed a statement that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man’s activities.  John McCain was right. Our nation is in critical need of a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and cooperation with other countries. We all share the same atmosphere.

You may nominate someone who has affected the environment through word or deed for either the Environmental Hall of Shame or the Environmental Hall of Fame. Please send an e-mail through the “Contact” link with a short reason that they should be included. A link or reference to their accomplishments or misaccomplishment  will increase their chance of being included. It will be assumed that your reasons are accurate and may be quoted with proper credit to you, unless you request otherwise.

Nominees will be listed and a  vote will be taken at the end of each year. The  year’s winner in the Environmental Hall Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  George Will might receive a case of CFL bulbs or the Robinson’s might each get embossed copies of  “ The Chemist’s Code of Conduct”.

The  winner in the Environmental Hall of Fame category  will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  John McCain might receive a framed picture of a trout swimming upstream.

You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee

The article that claimed ” Global Warming Is a Myth” was a hoax.

In 1997 the Wall Street Journal proclaimed in a headline,” Science Has Spoken, Global Warming Is a Myth”. Ironically, the next year,1998, turned out to be the hottest year on record. The authors of the article were Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist, and his son Zachary W. Robinson, a BS chemist. The main point of their article was that while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air had been going up, the temperature of the Earth was actually going down. They claim their data proved manmade global warming was a myth. However, inaccuracies in their data and their methods made their proof meaningless. But, was it a hoax?  

 The Robinsons took their data from a paper credited to the Marshall Institute. Their graph¹ is copyrighted so the trend lines they use to prove their point have been drawn in on NASA’s graph below.  The blue line on the graph is Robinson’s projection of  what the greenhouse warming of the Earth would be if  it were caused by the increasing concentration of CO₂ in the air. That agrees rather well with NASA’s data. However, they claim the green line represents the actual trend in the temperature of the Earth from 1980 to 1996. You can see that the green line bears no relationship to what actually happened and their conclusion is clearly wrong.

Couldn’t NASA”s data be wrong? Not likely. NASA’s data agrees well with that published by the World Meteorological Organization and both take their data from works published by scientists and climatologists in refereed journals. It is curious that the Robinsons used data from the Marshall Institute, a lobbying group funded by Exxon Mobil. The Marshall Institute’s paper was an analysis of satellite temperature data of the upper atmosphere. The analysis had mathematical errors, assumed an incorrect relationship between upper atmosphere temperatures and those at the surface, and had never been subjected to review by climatologists.

 The article was clearly a hoax.  The authors claimed to speak for all scientists when, in fact, very few scientists then or now agree with them.² They took their data from the Marshall Institute, a lobbying group, while ignoring much better data from the World Meteorological Organization and NASA. They made sweeping conclusions about climatology when neither author had experience or credentials in the discipline. They did not submit their conclusions for review by other scientists as is customary. They violated, in several ways, the ethical standards set forth in the American Chemical Society’s Code of Conduct. ³ Sadly, the hoax has been continued by newspaper columnists, think tanks, “dissident scientists”, and many senators and congressional representatives who use ideas from Robinson’s article to this day. Its time to put this hoax to rest.

 References:

(1) See page 2 of the article at:   http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/RobinsonAndRobinson.pdf

 (2) Science organizations are now very clear about this. Every major scientific organization in the world has adopted a statement that global warming is occurring and that human activity is the main cause. For a list of  the organizations and their statements see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science

 (3) See:  http://temp.onlineethics.org/codes/ACScode.html   The Robinson’s held themselves  out to be chemists and were therefore subject to the ACS code of ethics adopted in 1994. It, in part, addressed the ethics of publishing science articles in the popular press – as in the case of Cold Fusion.

George Will, in his article “Perils of a Bright Idea” (4/2/09),  criticized the use of compact florescent light( CFL)  bulbs because they contain mercury. He has apparently not thought this through.  Would he rather have mercury in his light bulbs or in his fish?

 At a public forum, Stuart Jolly, a lobbyist for Americans for Prosperity said, “ if you break a CFL, mercury will spill out”.  Being curious, I went right home and broke one to see.  I could not find the mercury so I looked up the amount. It is about 4 milligrams per light bulb – an amount less than the size of the period at the end of this sentence.  

 Much of our electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal contains a trace amount of mercury- but considering that we burn 7 billion tons of coal each year -  50 tons of mercury is emitted into the air each year. The mercury is carried to the ground by rain and much of it ends up in our lakes and streams where it enters the food chain.  Some of it eventually ends up in game fish – even in areas that have no natural mercury sources. If you eat fish every Friday, by the year’s end, you’ll have eaten about four times as much mercury as there is in one CFL bulb.

 CFL’s are about four times as efficient as regular bulbs and last about 10 times as long. I cannot think of a company, school, or public building that does not use fluorescent light bulbs to save energy and avoid maintenance costs. CFL’s for home use are the same technology. Using CFL’s will actually cut the amount of mercury entering the environment by reducing the amount of coal burned.

 The mercury in fish should remind us that there are other concerns besides global warming in the debate on energy policy. We have large coal reserves but burning coal  releases sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and radioactive isotopes of uranium and thorium that all end up in the air or the food chain. Whether you believe the Earth is getting warmer or not, you must agree that eating and breathing these are a bad idea.