Last week EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that:
- “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
I can only applaud Pruitt’s thoughtful comments. But in fact there is not just uncertainty as Pruitt said, but actual evidence that there are no significant effects of rising human-caused emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has responded to Pruitt’s comments with all its usual propaganda concerning 97% of scientists, sea level rise, scientific “consensus,” etc., all of which are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant to the CIC’s assertion that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming.
The Particularly Troublesome Aspect
The CIC response suggests what a serious problem the CIC has created by its climate alarmist propaganda. They have told the public, politicians, and the press that “global warming” (alias “climate change”) is primarily due to human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide, and that if this continues at current levels that this will result in catastrophic global warming. Since carbon dioxide from human sources comes primarily from human use of energy, they claim that such use must be restricted if not ended.
There are many problems with this argument. First, most CO2 originates primarily from sources other than humans. Second, the CIC has never proven that this hypothesis is valid science even though they are the ones arguing for huge public expenditures to implement their desired policies. Third, climate skeptics have shown that every alarmist argument is contradicted by science. Fourth, a recent study concludes that the basic alarmist hypothesis is scientifically incorrect by showing that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no statistically significant effect on global temperatures. Fifth, the governmental actions the CIC proposes would have no measurable effect on global warming, and probably none at all, at a very high cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, particularly less well-to-do ones.
The Underlying Cause
The major problem arises from the fact that the CIC has been making scientifically invalid statements about climate for decades and is unwilling to admit that they have been wrong. Unfortunately, this misleading propaganda has persuaded many people, particularly Democrats in blue states. These attempts to mislead the public may well have huge adverse effects on the climate issue, the future of blue/red politics, public trust in the press and public officials, serious damage to the economy and the environment, and even whether science will continue to be judged by using the scientific method. But how can there be a rational discussion of what is basically a scientific issue given the overwhelming level of misinformation promulgated by the CIC? This has to be one of the very unfortunate effects of the CIC’s long campaign to promote climate alarmism. There is a great need to find a solution, but it will be very difficult.
Pruitt has made an important beginning, but much more unequivocal statements from public officials together with references to the abundant evidence available for it will be needed if decades of misleading CIC propaganda are to be overcome.
Dr. Carlin,
I am on page 98 of your book. Your discussion of “smoothing” reminded me of a discussion I had with an associate about a “fixed factor” in a formula I developed years ago to make sure system performance worked in the field as specified on the label(s). Long story, but it would have been beneficial if I had been called in on the subject give or take 5 years earlier. How five components of variation ended up being converted into a fixed factor in the formula took a long time to figure out………..
I am normally terrible at catching typo’s, but I found one on page 40- the word Johnson should follow “Kennedy and” and before the word “Administrations”.
Ed Dolan’s recent blog-
Is 100 Percent Decarbonization a Good Idea for the California Grid?
takes your concern of “scientifically invalid statements” to engineering (and economic) nightmares.
Theo,
I have been laughing over the insights in the comic strip Gilbert for decades. More recently I started reading Scott Adams blog posts on persuasion.
The legal profession has rules of game that members of the club find very important. How to get past our fight vs flight impulses (FEAR) built into our type I thinking (and actions) takes a willingness to engage type II reflection. Your legal associates will likely be rather angry after reading how the CIC’s activities targeted Dr. Pielke Jr. Will this anger (vs FEAR) trigger type II thinking- one can only hope it does.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/03/21/a-example-of-climate-activists-at-work-that-shows-why-they-lost/
I agree with the “excesses” and “laying down a barrage of propaganda” noted in this statement:
…..” But activists’ excesses were lethal to their cause. Academia, the news media, NGOs, and government agencies provided full spectrum support, laying down a barrage of propaganda.’’’’’
Unfortunately, I don’t see the actions as being “lethal” yet. It will take a lot of time for the layers of lies to be exposed in ways that it will allow individuals and organizations to engage type II thinking.
I have talked to lawyers who have genius level IQ’s who have bought into the “97% of scientists” argument even though these same people can’t replicate each other’s work. They have fear on their side and it will take a lot of pushback by the new admin to recycle the public’s thinking. A bankrupt hypothesis is sucking trillions out of Western economies and the acolytes of this travesty are regarded as heroes.
Dr. Carlin
It seems that for the last few decades western culture has moved from a focus on what is true (see any of Jonathan Haidt recent talks) to a focus on social justice. The digital revolution has provided us with the internet and spell checker. I am a tad surprised that it seems to have taken away the ability of our youth to tell what time it is-
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/17/report-4-out-of-5-oklahoma-city-kids-cannot-tell-time/
Dr. Haidt’s had a suggestion recently on how to improve political discourse (to ferret out propaganda) for future generations: ensure high schools teach one class on statistics and another on economic principles. I envision a few education majors developing course curriculum that leverage the insights in your book for real life examples on how the tools can be used to ferret out propaganda.
Mr. Pruitt cannot shoulder this message burden alone. perhaps the congress could hold hearings on climate group think and the first amendment?