Last evening I watched a Frontline program on PBS: How the War on EPA was Waged.  Below is the trailer, the full hour program is War on the EPA.

At the PBS website are numerous articles lamenting the change in the EPA under the Trump administration. The Frontline themes were already being aired by Democrat senators in the confirmation hearings.

Supposition: EPA exists as a branch of the Environmental Movement.

As is well documented, the EPA since its formation has many achievements in projects addressing pollution of the air and water in the US. Over decades, the agency staffed up with people dedicated to cleaning up and protecting the environment.

But with most of the successes behind them, environmentalists bought into the global warming notion and anti-fossil fuel activism. EPA personnel were predisposed to join in and help lead the charge.

The Frontline documentary described how the skeptical Trump administration confronted the EPA swamp, densely populated by warmists. Of course, the producers show no awareness that the opinions are relative and not absolute, or that fears concerning CO2 emissions are uncertain and debatable.

The video does show Pruitt exposing the false environmentalist dichotomy: “It is not true that if you are for development, you are against the environment, or that if you are for the environment, you are against development.” Then Frontline extensively quotes journalists and former employees, including Pruitt’s predecessor, all of whom take exactly that antagonistic position.

Supposition: Deniers are paid shills for energy capitalists.

Early on, Gina McCarthy talks about all the pushback from industry when she began work on the Clean Power Plan. To illustrate this, the video includes some totally insipid commercials (parodies really) claimed to be industry-sponsored promotion against the EPA agenda.

The presentation seeks continually to link denial of a climate crisis to funding from businessmen promoting their enterprises. In one telling interview, an industrialist says that Sierra Club is lobbying for their agenda, so we have to do the same. Other than that slip, Frontline ignores how Big Green slush funds and NGOs drove EPA actions in the past, even while showing comments from them, for example NRDC (National Resources Defense Council).

Supposition: EPA now pursues only industrial interests.

Overriding all is the notion that Scott Pruitt has engineered an hostile takeover of the agency, and that only industrial interests matter to him. This provides the explanation why employees and scientific advisors (all committed to “fight climate change”) are not consulted, not appreciated, and uninformed of agency plans. Of course they are unhappy and disgusted, and speak out about the betrayal of their cause.

Tonight’s new FRONTLINE documentary, War on the EPA, tells the inside story of how this and other environmental policy rollbacks happened; how Scott Pruitt went from suing the Environmental Protection Agency 14 times, to now running it; and how the anti-regulatory and anti-climate change science movements in America reached this moment of triumph.

“It was eight years of pure hell under the democrat party and Obama,” Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., tells FRONTLINE in the above excerpt from War on the EPA. “But we won! It’s a wonderful victory.”

So it goes with draining the swamp.

Entitled bureaucrats rise up to defend their nest.

Footnote 1:

In Ottawa, the problem is somewhat different. There we have an infestation of bureaucrabs. The term refers to a creature that appears to be making progress, but on closer inspection is moving sideways.

There is also a rumor that increasingly in Ottawa lawyers are being used for scientific experiments instead of rats.  There appear to be three reasons for this:

1.  There are more lawyers than rats in Ottawa.
2. People sometimes get emotionally attached to a rat.
3. There are some things the rats won’t do.

Footnote 2:

For a scientific analysis of how government works, we have a paper reprinted below:

New chemical Element Discovered

The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312, the heaviest of all. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3-6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities. Usually it can be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

Scientists point out that administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.

Credit: William DeBuvitz, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/administ.htm

Footnote 3:

Many know the Yes Minister classic British tv series, but readers may not be aware that the last season of the show, Yes Prime Minister ended with an hilarious send up of the global warming scare. BBC blocked the video outside of UK, but the link below works internationally. Transcripts can be read at Climate Alarms LOL and Laughing at Climate Change

University of Chicago News headline says Most Americans want government to combat climate change, poll finds

The report is summarized in this graphic:

It should be obvious that for decades, opinion polls have been deployed as a marketing tool. Information is gathered, but more importantly public awareness and concern is raised according to the interests of the survey sponsors. The industry calls these “push polls” and conduct them annually, or even more frequently, intending to mold public opinion in the direction of climate alarmism, and to claim support for policies favored by sponsors.

Interpreting Poll Results

In order to take meaning from a poll, you have to know the context and specifically what questions were asked, what responses were allowed and in what sequence (i.e. the methodology).

Some contextual facts were suppressed in the above report. To discuss them, let us consider the first question put to participants:

Q31. How important are the following issues to you personally?

The grid shows results from two surveys, the last one 8/17-21/2017, and the previous one 6/8-11/2017. First column includes six issues and the number of participants in the August survey. The June survey only had five issues.  Numbers in the grid are % of responses.

	8//2017	8//2017	8//2017	6//2017	6//2017	6//2017
AP-NORC/EPIC 8/17-21/2017	Not at all /slightly important	Moderately important	Very/ extremely important	Not at all /slightly important	Moderately important	Very/ extremely important
The economy (n=992)	5	18	77	4	14	81
Immigration (n=1,038)	17	32	50	21	32	47
Health care (n=992)	5	11	84	3	14	82
Climate change (n=1,038)	25	26	48	25	21	53
Terrorism (n=992)	10	22	68	8	14	77
Energy policy (n=1,038)	16	29	54	NA	NA	NA

Regarding Participation: We have responses from 1038 Americans, which was a completion rate of 27%. Thus these results come from a subset of people who chose to respond, and unsurprisingly they express concerns. Of course, we don’t know about what the others care.

In that context, all the issues rate as important, with climate change coming in last place in August, and next to last in June.

Regarding Survey Frame:

The Survey is entitled Public Opinion on Energy Policy under the Trump Administration, and sure enough, the second question is:
Q32. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? (with follow ups to get whether strongly or only somewhat).

Since the pollsters know more people disapprove of Trump than approve, putting this question early creates a central tendency to respond in negation to perceived Trump positions. Further, it signals that this is about politics not science.

Regarding the Survey Subject:

Now to the meat (or rather the lack of it). Next Question:
Q33. Do you think climate change is happening, do you think climate change is not happening, or aren’t you sure?

Here people are asked about an undefined buzzword “climate change” and whether it is happening or not, in their opinion. Could any question be more vacuous?
(Synonyms for “Vacuous”: silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, empty-headed.)

The responses tell us only about badges that people like or dislike. And since “climate change” has been a political football, used by the left as a wedge issue, this will be a positive buzzword for Democrats and a negative one for Republicans. And since the population has more Dems, and since the survey sample is 36% Democrats and 23% Republicans, the desired response is assured.

Survey Says:  Happening 72%, Not Happening 9%, Not sure 19%.

BTW in 2017 Happening is down 5% from 2016, while Not Sure is up 6%, so you can read the tea leaves any way you like.

Then, for those who think climate change is happening (Lord only knows what that actually means for any of the individuals), they then get to tell us about causation:

If climate change is happening in Q33
Q34. Do you think climate change is caused entirely by human activities, caused mostly by human activities, caused about equally by human activities and natural changes in the environment, caused mostly by natural changes in the environment, or caused entirely by natural changes in the environment?

Since this question is only put to the 72%, who said yes in Q33, the responses to Q34 are:
55% out of 774 say Caused entirely/mostly by human activities
32% out ot 774 say Caused equally by human activities and natural changes in the environment
12% out of 774 say Caused mostly/entirely by natural changes in the environment

Pollsters will be tempted to add the 32% to 55%, but that is misleading. The equally caused response is a mixed bag. Some knowledgeable people (like Dr. Curry) know that human and natural factors of global warming (if that is what we are talking about) have not yet been separated, and 50-50 can be an educated guess.

But from experience I can say that the equal causation includes many people who didn’t want to say “Don’t know.” Often these climate push polls ask people: “How much do you feel you know about global warming?” Typically about 25% say they know a lot, 60% say they know a little, and the rest less than a little. As we know from other researchers, more climate knowledge increases skepticism for many, so it is likely the soft number includes many who feel they really don’t know.

The only firm number out of this is that 41% of respondents feel that climate change is happening and that humans are mostly the cause. (426 out of 1038). Not surprisingly that finding does not appear anywhere.

Regarding Polling Bias

The poll was funded by EPIC ( Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago). In presenting their climate research, EPIC says this:

Climate change is considered by many to be the most urgent, global challenge. The impacts of climate change are already emerging in more damaging and frequent storms, extreme temperature changes, agricultural changes, and depleting water supplies. Efforts to address climate change, however, have proceeded slowly.

I think we can guess how EPIC personnel would answer the questionnaire.

There are many additional questions in the poll results (here)

For example, consider several questions raised regarding fracking. Included were these:

Q44B. One recent study found babies in the womb experience negative health effects from close exposure to a hydraulic fracturing site. The effects were strongest within a half mile of the site, with babies 25% more likely to have a low birth weight. Birth weights were not different for pregnant mothers living more than 2 miles from the site. Would you say you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the use of hydraulic fracturing in the United States?

Q44D. One recent study found that hydraulic fracturing triggered earthquakes in Oklahoma. The study found that the injection of wastewater, part of the hydraulic fracturing process, triggered the earthquakes. Would you say you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the use of hydraulic fracturing in the United States?

And this one tests how you feel about being an outsider.

Q40. As you may know, nearly 200 countries recently signed an international agreement in Paris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Do you support, oppose, or neither support nor oppose the United States withdrawing from this international agreement?

Summary

Climate change is now totally a socio-political movement in support of a $1.5 trillion industry, and the only thing that matters is winning hearts and minds (well minds maybe not). A similar survey was done in Canada, specifically to claim public support for what Trudeau wanted to do all along: Impose a carbon tax. This was done despite what that survey showed behind the smoke and mirrors.

Note that Canadians may be more picky than Americans, and so they got a question with more substance:
1. “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?”
2. [If yes, solid evidence] “Is the earth getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels or mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?”
For more see Uncensored: Canadians View Global Warming

This blog has as a slogan: Reading between the lines and underneath the hype. It doesn’t look like the job is getting any lighter.  When you see or hear anything climate-related in the media, start by assuming the report is myopic, lop-sided, or both, until proven otherwise.  How to go about proving otherwise is demonstrated with several examples in the post Impaired Climate Vision.

Being “framed” is slang when someone is blamed for something they did not do, i.e. being set up by means of false evidence and witnesses.  For example, this is current news:

Majority of Americans now say climate change makes hurricanes more intense, poll finds
A majority of Americans say that global climate change contributed to the severity of recent hurricanes in Florida and Texas, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. That marks a significant shift of opinion from a dozen years ago, when a majority of the public dismissed the role of global warming and said such severe weather events just happen from time to time.

In a 2005 Post-ABC poll, taken a month after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast and devastated New Orleans, 39 percent of Americans said they believed climate change helped to fuel the intensity of hurricanes. Today, 55 percent believe that.

Gee, do you think that all the mass media reports connecting the storms with climate change had anything to do with that polling result?  Here is just today’s sample from Google News of mainstream press articles pushing the linkage.

Hurricanes spur Schneider action on climate change Chicago Tribune

Hurricanes: A perfect storm of chance and climate change? BBC News

Like hurricanes, climate change is dangerous, but smart storm fixes won’t help climate USA TODAY

Next-generation models revealing climate change effect on hurricanes Phys.Org

After hurricanes, climate change resurfaces in Washington Houston Chronicle

Scientific models saved lives from Harvey and Irma. They can from climate change too The Guardian

National Guard chief cites ‘bigger, larger, more violent’ hurricanes as possible evidence of climate change Washington Post

Paradise lost? Caribbean leaders want action on climate change and help rebuilding Miami Herald

Yes, climate change made Harvey and Irma worse CNN

In addition, there are dozens of articles from climate advocacy sites like Greenpeace, Huffpost, Insideclimatenews, etc.

An exception to the onslaught appeared to be this one from The Stranger Why Connecting Climate Change with Powerful Hurricanes Is Doing More Damage Than Good

But it turns out to be another extreme hit piece by Sarah Myhre, who is no stranger to alarmism. (Background at Again Falsely Linking Smoking and Climate Science)

This time she attacks the media reporting on hurricanes and climate change, because they seem to allow for doubt (tsk, tsk). (Below her text with my bolds)

We need to poke a hole in this toxic narrative and news cycle around climate attribution. When I say attribution, what I am referring to are the ongoing arguments of attributing specific weather events to climate change: Was Hurricane Harvey caused by climate change? Was the low snow year of 2015, up and down the Cascadian mountains, caused by climate change? These questions—individually—are interesting and important to answer. But the science of Earth system change is not altered by the relative statistical significance of our attribution certainty. Far from it.

What’s more, this framing of attribution uncertainty is continually used to support climate action obstruction and denialist voices in our culture. When you hear pandering equivocation about climate and weather events, alarm bells should start ringing in your head. This news cycle is absolutely toxic and we together need to get our broad cultural conversation off this hamster wheel.

One closing point: When we use uncertainty around attributing individual weather events to climate change to call for “more data” or “better climate science” (think of Cliff Mass) we are driving a wedge between public health and public safety. We mislead the public because the message we send is: We don’t know what’s happening. This simply isn’t true; we do know what is happening. However, in some cases, we lack high-quality time series data to statistically detect the signal of climate from the noise of weather.

Summary

The last line in Myhre’s article says it all: We know what’s going on, we just don’t have the facts yet.

Despite all of the levelheaded statements by hurricane experts cautioning against jumping to these conclusions, and despite the IPCC SREX reports saying the linkage is not proven, the media and activists went on a rant proclaiming climate change makes hurricanes worse. They trumpeted these claims, and now take pride in a survey showing they succeeded in duping the public. That is a duping scandal and the mass media is at fault.  Shame on them.

Background from Previous Post:

Climate Thought Control explains the deliberate media strategy to mold public opinion in support of climate change activism.

Jennifer Good is a communications professor explaining how the media is expected to mold public opinion in favor of climate activism. Her article in the Toronto Star Putting hurricanes and climate change into the same frame is revealing, especially the subtitle A study shows network Hurricane coverage this month did not link an increase in extreme weather to global warming. 

The prof is disappointed that climate change was not even more frequently mentioned in stories about the recent hurricanes. She considers it an opportunity missed.  (Update: Since her article was published, the media took up the cause big time.) Some excerpts below with my bolds.

I have analyzed two weeks of broadcast news stories that appeared on America’s seven largest TV networks as well as Canada’s CTV network. In just over 1,500 stories about hurricanes, “Trump” was discussed in 907 of those stories (or about 60 per cent), while “business” was discussed in 572 of those stories (or about 38 per cent).

“Climate change” was discussed in just 79 of the hurricane stories — or about five per cent.

What’s Wrong with Professional, Objective Reporting?

The fundamental answer is that climate change and extreme weather (i.e., hurricanes) need to be framed together more often. As scientists have pointed out, while climate change is not causing the weather, it is definitely exacerbating the weather. But increasingly adding climate change to the extreme weather frame is only the tip of the (yes, melting) iceberg. Alternatives to “business as usual” need to be part of the media’s, and our, extreme weather frames.

Of those 1,500 broadcast news stories involving hurricanes, only four also mentioned “fossil fuels,” and not a single news broadcast discussed “alternative energy.”

Similarly, while “economy” is discussed in 187 of the hurricane news stories, only 18 stories discussed hurricanes, the economy and climate change together; and not one story explored the links between an economic model based on endless growth, and the implications of this endless growth for the planet and climate change.

The Purpose of Media is to Manipulate Public Opinion

In his seminal 2010 paper “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment,” published in the journal Environmental Communication, the American linguist and philosopher George Lakoff offered that the world is made up of frames. “Framing” is how our neural system defines a concept by grouping together what goes with — or gets framed with — that concept. Our brains are wired this way.

For example, when you read “climate change,” your brain immediately frames the concept of climate change with certain words and concepts. Everyone cognitively frames “climate change” somewhat differently, but there might also be large overlaps. Terms like “fossil fuels” and “human activity” might be in many people’s climate change frames, although frames can differ widely. (Think, for example, of climate change skeptics.)

Not surprisingly, the news media plays a significant role in how our brains frame concepts. The more the media frames a story by associating it with certain words and concepts, the more likely we are to use those same words and concepts in our own framing.

And conversely, if the news media never framed a story using certain concepts, there is “hypocognition,” or as Lakoff proposed, a “lack of ideas we need.”

In times of crisis, there are many immediate and urgent stories that need to be told about lives and loss, bravery and struggle. But crisis also provides an opportunity for change — an opportunity to shift our frames and include the ideas we desperately need.

So far, that opportunity seems to have been missed. Meanwhile, the oceans get warmer.

The Other Side of the Story

While the prof is totally convinced she knows what the public needs to know about weather and climate, actual weather scientists disagree with her.  In fact, the efforts to link storms and fossil fuels were present way too often and hindered the public from understanding these events.

For instance, Hurricane scientist Dr. Ryan Maue ripped climate ‘hype’ on Irma & Harvey in his WSJ article Climate Change Hype Doesn’t Help.

As soon as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall in the U.S., scientists, politicians and journalists began to discuss the role of climate change in natural disasters. Although a clear scientific consensus has emerged over the past decade that climate change influences hurricanes in the long run, its effect upon any individual storm is unclear. Anyone trying to score political points after a natural disaster should take a deep breath and review the science first.

As a meteorologist with access to the best weather-forecast model data available, I watched each hurricane’s landfall with particular interest. Harvey and Irma broke the record 12-year major hurricane landfall drought on the U.S. coastline. Since Wilma in October 2005, 31 major hurricanes had swirled in the North Atlantic but all failed to reach the U.S. with a Category 3 or higher intensity.

Even as we worked to divine exactly where the hurricanes would land, a media narrative began to form linking the devastating storms to climate change. Some found it ironic that states represented by “climate deniers” were being pummeled by hurricanes. Alarmists reveled in the irony that Houston, home to petrochemical plants, was flooded by Harvey, while others gleefully reported that President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago might be inundated by Irma.

By focusing on whether climate change caused a hurricane, journalists fail to appreciate the complexity of extreme weather events. While most details are still hazy with the best climate modeling tools, the bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas, where hurricanes certainly will be most destructive.

Summary

Actual scientists are calling for less, not more manipulative journalism.

And as for the oceans getting warmer, Prof. Good, that is due to the oceans storing and releasing solar energy, nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.  The oceans heat the atmosphere, and not the other way around.  See Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate

Footnote:  If Framing doesn’t work, what’s next?

Being “framed” is slang when someone is blamed for something they did not do, i.e. being set up by means of false evidence and witnesses.

Jennifer Good is a communications professor explaining how the media is expected to mold public opinion in favor of climate activism. Her article in the Toronto Star Putting hurricanes and climate change into the same frame is revealing, especially the subtitle A study shows network Hurricane coverage this month did not link an increase in extreme weather to global warming.

The prof is disappointed that climate change was not more frequently mentioned in stories about the recent hurricanes. She considers it an opportunity missed.  Some excerpts below with my bolds.

I have analyzed two weeks of broadcast news stories that appeared on America’s seven largest TV networks as well as Canada’s CTV network. In just over 1,500 stories about hurricanes, “Trump” was discussed in 907 of those stories (or about 60 per cent), while “business” was discussed in 572 of those stories (or about 38 per cent).

“Climate change” was discussed in just 79 of the hurricane stories — or about five per cent.

What’s Wrong with Professional, Objective Reporting?

The fundamental answer is that climate change and extreme weather (i.e., hurricanes) need to be framed together more often. As scientists have pointed out, while climate change is not causing the weather, it is definitely exacerbating the weather. But increasingly adding climate change to the extreme weather frame is only the tip of the (yes, melting) iceberg. Alternatives to “business as usual” need to be part of the media’s, and our, extreme weather frames.

Of those 1,500 broadcast news stories involving hurricanes, only four also mentioned “fossil fuels,” and not a single news broadcast discussed “alternative energy.”

Similarly, while “economy” is discussed in 187 of the hurricane news stories, only 18 stories discussed hurricanes, the economy and climate change together; and not one story explored the links between an economic model based on endless growth, and the implications of this endless growth for the planet and climate change.

The Purpose of Media is to Manipulate Public Opinion

In his seminal 2010 paper “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment,” published in the journal Environmental Communication, the American linguist and philosopher George Lakoff offered that the world is made up of frames. “Framing” is how our neural system defines a concept by grouping together what goes with — or gets framed with — that concept. Our brains are wired this way.

For example, when you read “climate change,” your brain immediately frames the concept of climate change with certain words and concepts. Everyone cognitively frames “climate change” somewhat differently, but there might also be large overlaps. Terms like “fossil fuels” and “human activity” might be in many people’s climate change frames, although frames can differ widely. (Think, for example, of climate change skeptics.)

Not surprisingly, the news media plays a significant role in how our brains frame concepts. The more the media frames a story by associating it with certain words and concepts, the more likely we are to use those same words and concepts in our own framing.

And conversely, if the news media never framed a story using certain concepts, there is “hypocognition,” or as Lakoff proposed, a “lack of ideas we need.”

In times of crisis, there are many immediate and urgent stories that need to be told about lives and loss, bravery and struggle. But crisis also provides an opportunity for change — an opportunity to shift our frames and include the ideas we desperately need.

So far, that opportunity seems to have been missed. Meanwhile, the oceans get warmer.

The Other Side of the Story

While the prof is totally convinced she knows what the public needs to know about weather and climate, actual weather scientists disagree with her.  In fact, the efforts to link storms and fossil fuels were present way too often and hindered the public from understanding these events.

For instance, Hurricane scientist Dr. Ryan Maue ripped climate ‘hype’ on Irma & Harvey in his WSJ article Climate Change Hype Doesn’t Help.

As soon as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall in the U.S., scientists, politicians and journalists began to discuss the role of climate change in natural disasters. Although a clear scientific consensus has emerged over the past decade that climate change influences hurricanes in the long run, its effect upon any individual storm is unclear. Anyone trying to score political points after a natural disaster should take a deep breath and review the science first.

As a meteorologist with access to the best weather-forecast model data available, I watched each hurricane’s landfall with particular interest. Harvey and Irma broke the record 12-year major hurricane landfall drought on the U.S. coastline. Since Wilma in October 2005, 31 major hurricanes had swirled in the North Atlantic but all failed to reach the U.S. with a Category 3 or higher intensity.

Even as we worked to divine exactly where the hurricanes would land, a media narrative began to form linking the devastating storms to climate change. Some found it ironic that states represented by “climate deniers” were being pummeled by hurricanes. Alarmists reveled in the irony that Houston, home to petrochemical plants, was flooded by Harvey, while others gleefully reported that President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago might be inundated by Irma.

By focusing on whether climate change caused a hurricane, journalists fail to appreciate the complexity of extreme weather events. While most details are still hazy with the best climate modeling tools, the bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas, where hurricanes certainly will be most destructive.

Summary

Actual scientists are calling for less, not more manipulative journalism.

And as for the oceans getting warmer, Prof. Good, that is due to the oceans storing and releasing solar energy, nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.  The oceans heat the atmosphere, and not the other way around.  See Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate

Footnote:  If Framing doesn’t work, what’s next?

 

In a previous post NYT Readers Face Diversity I provided a background for New York Times newest columnist Bret Stephens, with emphasis on his climate change commentary.

Now his first column published in NYT appears Climate of Complete Certainty, an invitation to examine the facts about climate change. Excerpts below.

We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound.

We ought to know this by now, but we don’t. Instead, we respond to the inherent uncertainties of data by adding more data without revisiting our assumptions, creating an impression of certainty that can be lulling, misleading and often dangerous. Ask Clinton.

With me so far? Good. Let’s turn to climate change.

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

Conclusion

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

New York Post (here) covers the nastiness of responses to Stephens’ first column. Stephens compares the blowback to what he got from Trump fans: “After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” Stephens tweeted Friday afternoon, as the hateful messages kept rolling in.  New York Times used to be a “safe space”, maybe now not so much.

Update April 30

A response to Stephens article at Slate  Inside a True Believer’s Mind

Footnote:

Whenever I see those graphs of climate models projections, it reminds me of worms escaping.