Global Warming: Playing Fast and Loose in Policy, Proof and Politics

February 24th, 2017 by 3 Comments

By Harold Brown

Harold Brown, Senior Fellow, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Harold Brown 

Global warming (climate change) is not just a scientific subject but also a technical-social-political scramble. Several recent episodes illustrate this; just one has been widely reported.

First, most recent and receiving the greatest media attention: Just days after the appointment of Scott Pruitt as the new administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency came the reports on the court-ordered release this week of thousands of emails between Pruitt and “fossil fuel companies like Koch Industries and Devon Energy” when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general.

The Associated Press, noting Pruitt’s office contacted the lobbyist for his utility (AEP) after his power went out, reported the emails reveal “cozy ties” between Pruitt “and those that profit from burning fossil fuels. AEP generates about 60 percent of its electricity from coal, creating planet-warming carbon emissions that Pruitt is now charged with regulating.” Numerous environmental activist groups are quoted denouncing Pruitt, despite no evidence of wrongdoing.

Second, and highly downplayed, is an accusation of data fudging in a study published in the journal Science. The accusation was made by climatologist John Bates, principal scientist for the past 14 years at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).  Bates criticized Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s climate data archive, for rushing to publish a study in Science (June 2015) to disprove the levelling of global temperature since the 1990s.

Bates said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer,” Britain’s Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

Bates suggested in The Mail on Sunday and the Washington Times that the study’s release was meant to influence deliberations at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris later that year.

The third incident is related to the second. Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry retired in January, in apparent frustration over the global warming controversy. On her website, Climate Etc, she wrote, “A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.”

Bates is a longtime friend and collaborator of Curry’s, having served on committees supervising her graduate students. The two began discussing the problems with Karl’s article soon after it was published. Curry connected Bates with a Mail on Sunday reporter visiting Atlanta for another article. Bates, Karl and Curry all retired within the past year.

Finally, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has reset its “Doomsday Clock,” which dramatizes the danger of atomic weapons for civilization. In 1947, it was set at 7 minutes to midnight to indicate how close the earth was to destruction. In 1953, when the United States announced its hydrogen bomb project, the hand was moved to 2 minutes to midnight. (Highlighting the guesswork involved, during the 1960s and 1970s nuclear warheads increased from 20,000 to 50,000 globally yet the clock’s setback, ranged from 7 to 12 minutes before midnight.) Doomsday was “delayed” because of the greater contact and treaties among the nuclear powers.

In 1991, the clock was set at its safest (17 minutes to midnight), because the Cold War was officially over – even though 50,000 warheads remained. Almost inexplicably, the minute hand has moved ever closer to midnight since then, despite decreasing nuclear warheads (10,000 in 2013).  

Doomsday apparently doesn’t depend solely on atomic bombs. Doomsday prophets have always fixated on the goal more than the cause. If atomic bombs don’t destroy civilization, they feel that something else will. So in 2007, global warming went “nuclear,” so to speak, and the Doomsday Clock was moved forward from 7 to 5 minutes before midnight.

For the first time, the atomic scientists concluded, “Climate change… presents a dire challenge to humanity. … flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.”

Since January, the clock is at 2.5 minutes before midnight, the closest to Doomsday since 1953. The reason: the 2016 elections and what they mean for nuclear security and global warming.

The Science and Security Board of the BAS claimed, “the statements of a single person – particularly one not yet in office – have not historically influenced the board’s decision …”

Then it goes on to mention the incoming Trump administration more than a dozen times in reporting the reasons for moving the clock so close to Doomsday.

Who says politics is not tainting climate science?

University of Georgia Professor Emeritus Harold Brown is a Senior Fellow with the Georgia Public Policy Foundation and author of, “The Greening of Georgia: The Improvement of the Environment in the Twentieth Century.” The Georgia Public Policy Foundation is an independent, nonprofit, state-focused think tank that proposes market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.

© Georgia Public Policy Foundation (February 24, 2017). Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and his affiliations are cited.

3 thoughts on “Global Warming: Playing Fast and Loose in Policy, Proof and Politics

  1. Great article. The mainstream media has kept the people in the U. S. unaware of the vast conspiracy to fudge global temperature data to make it appear the climate is warming at a faster rate than the normal warming of the planet.

    The earth goes through approximately 500-year cycles of global heating and cooling. The last cooling cycle was from 1350 to 1850 called The Little Ice Age. Remember Washington’s army froze at Valley Forge; Napoleon lost his army due to cold in Russia in 1812. We are in the Current Warming Period that started in 1850. So expect very slow warming the next hundred years.

    Political forces, I can not comprehend, have been claiming disaster for about 30 years as Prof. Brown has shown. My estimate policies of President Obama cost our economy at least $300 billion per year. The global cost is at least $1 trillion annually. The election of Donald Trump as president offers the U. S. the chance to reverse these insane policies to abandon our abundant, inexpensive, and geographically distributed coal, oil, and natural gas and replace them with expensive, unreliable, and vast land area requiring solar, wind, biofuels, etc. The public should demand truth in reporting and responsible actions from our politicians.

    James H. Rust, professor and policy advisor The Heartland Institute

  2. Excellent article. My response is the following- an article I recently published on my blog. The included statistics are consistent with numerous statements in Harold Brown’s article. Of particular interest is the fact that in the 11 years following adoption of the Kyoto Protocols, CO2 levels have increased at TWICE the rate the did in the 11 years preceding the agreement.

  3. With all due respect Professor, I believe your article is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading. Yes, there was a dust up over the numbers used in the 2015 paper. Dr. Bates did have some issues with some of the data cited within the paper. Specifically, that he would have preferred that it had been more thoroughly vetted. However, he never contradicted the specific findings of the paper. The controversy, as you point out, revolves mainly around esoteric discussion about statistical data.

    “At its heart, Bates’s concerns amount to a desire for Karl and his team to have more clearly stated that one data set used for their study was not defined by NOAA to have been in a final, “operational” form.”

    The conclusion however, has never been in debate.

    As in any issue, bad actors can be found on every side. But that is not to say that neither side has the moral high-ground. Exxon-Mobil is the most profitable company in the world. There is evidence that there was internal knowledge within the company as far back as 1982 about the danger’s of CO2 levels associated with fossil fuel energy production. They, as well as other oil companies and magnates, have spent millions in Washington on politicians of all political stripes in a concerted effort to bolster their positions.

    In the other corner, we have institutions like the EPA, NASA and the Department of Defense to say nothing of the vast majority of scientists (97% is the number that is usually cast about, I am satisfied to state that there is enough scientific work in existence to negate any argument that there is some conspiracy by a few disreputable loners) that are stating that this is a problem that should have been dealt with years ago but must dealt with now. If anyone’s politicized it it has been conservative politicians who have referred to this scientific issue as a hoax and then offered nothing resembling a cogent scientific rebuttal in return.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Foundation’s Criminal Justice Initiative pushed the problems to the forefront, proposed practical solutions, brought in leaders from other states to share examples, and created this nonpartisan opportunity. (At the signing of the 2012 Criminal Justice Reform bill.)

Governor Nathan Deal more quotes