Conservative think tanks remain oblivious and impervious to the facts. They cling to global warming denial and delay even in the face of the remarkable advances both in scientific understanding about global warming and in clean technology solutions.
We have seen that the Cato Institute remains intellectually bankrupt on both the urgency of the climate problem and the availability of cost-effective solutions. The Competitive Enterprise Institute actually runs ad campaigns aimed at destroying the climate for centuries.
Now Kenneth Green, resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, has weighed in with a speech Monday to the International Oxygen Manufacturers Association (!) betraying a willful ignorance of science and technology.
On the technology front, he simply asserts with no evidence whatsoever:
No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly.
Gristmill readers know that statement is utterly false. As do all those who believe in science. The latest multi-year synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature by the world's top scientists and technologists -- signed off by every major government including the Bush Administration -- says that we have the needed technology today or are in the process of commercializing it and that the economic cost of strong action will be at most 0.1 percent of GDP per year, far less than the cost of inaction.
But Green asserts, "My science is value-neutral -- I just try to figure out what the science really says, and look past the hype." Actually, it is very easy to figure out what the science really says -- just read the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But that, of course, would shatter his carefully crafted ideologically-driven worldview.
Instead, Green -- how's that for an ironic name? -- distorts climate science with these amazing anti-scientific assertions about "the state of the science":
- For the last decade, warming peaked, and has recently declined: we're back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978.
That will come as a big shock to the real climate scientists. You can see the NASA dataset at the right (click to enlarge). You can get Hadley's here. See also my post here. We aren't even close to 1978 average temperatures. But this is what deniers like AEI do -- they just make stuff up.
When they aren't making stuff up, deniers like Green simply omit the relevant science:
- Theory suggests that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, without feedbacks, would raise temperature by about 1 °C. Humanity has raised CO2 levels thus far by about 35 percent percent from pre-industrial levels ...
- Simple forward extrapolation suggests we'll cause an additional seven-tenths of a °C of heat retention if we reach twice the pre-industrial concentration of GHGs.
You gotta give the boy props for that whopper. Yes, if there were no feedbacks then the climate's sensitivity to CO2 emissions would be much lower. And if eating too much didn't cause me to gain weight I could eat all I want. And if my grandmother had wheels ...
In fact, the latest observation confirms the actual state of the science that Green can't stomach -- the water-vapor feedback is "strong and positive," so we face "warming of several degrees Celsius."
It is a complete waste of time to go through a point by point debunking of Green's disinformation. But from time to time it is useful to check in on the latest "thinking" by the leading conservative think tanks.
And you can always count on them for some (unintentional) laughs. In this case, it comes from Green's bio, wherein he lists under "Professional Experience":
- Executive director, Environmental Literacy Council, 2005-2006
- Expert reviewer, United Nations IPCC, Climate Change 2001, Working Group 1
Wow. If he ran the Environmental Literacy Council, I wonder who they got to run the Environmental Illiteracy Council. Sarah Palin?
And yes as you can see, there is no entrance examination for becoming an expert reviewer for the IPCC, and so as credentials go, it's right up there with being a member of AARP. Heck even TVMOB (aka The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley") has a "Nobel prize pin," because he commented on the IPCC Fourth assessment report, which "earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York."
Take that Kenneth "it isn't easy being" Green!
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
salemguy Posted 9:55 am
30 Oct 2008
Good, lively article. A question I have, though, is the context for the statement, "No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly."
That of course is not generally true, but if he was talking about "clean coal" it's correct, hmm?
Drives me nuts our pols talk about it as if it existed anywhere, and make it seem like it must be both easy and imminent.
Permalink
KenGreen Posted 2:19 am
31 Oct 2008
While it is an honor to be hated by someone who expresses himself in such an uncivil way, and while I am always glad to have people judge my character by the character of those who attack me, your writing about my recent speech is a disgrace to the publishers of Grist, as well as your colleagues whose work must stand alongside your sneering, vicious tirade.
I've had civil conversations with Dave Roberts, engaged in some pleasant post-exchanges on Umbra's column, and generally support the goals of Grist even if I do often disagree with their means to our shared end, which is a healthy and protected environment. It's a shame that Grist is tainted by writings like yours, which exhibit a scorched-earth zealotry that can brook no disagreement at all, either about the nature of a given environmental problem, or the pros and cons of proposed solutions.
Your recent column was a particularly good example of such uncivil discourse, which I'd normally ignore, but in this case, I must take exception with a few points:
As it happens, my birth name actually IS Green. I know who my father is, and I have a birth certificate to prove it. I'll be glad to send a copy to Grist. You are out of line in ridiculing my family name. I am 47 years old, and had this name before your movement did. If you have the vaguest hint of civility, you'll retract your comment.
I am not your, or anyone else's "boy." I have no doubt that if I'd called Umbra "girl," in anything I've posted to Grist I'd have gotten an earful from the publisher and readership, and deservedly so. Again, if you retain any vestige of civility, you'll disavow your derogatory comments.
You suggest that the IPCC reports are the only thing people need to read to understand the climate, and you suggest that I do not read the IPCC reports lest it "shatter his carefully crafted ideologically-driven worldview." Later, you attempt to ridicule my accomplishments as an expert reviewer of two IPCC reports by asserting that the IPCC lets pretty much anyone ("it's right up there with being a member of AARP") serve as an expert reviewer. How can you cite the IPCC, which derives its authority because of its extensive peer reviewed, then ridicule the peer review process? I was solicited as a reviewer by the US government in one case, and by a lead author in another. If you think that's invalid, then you should explain why you think so, rather than impugning the entire process. The IPCC technical reports (not the bureaucrat-written summaries) are a good, strong touchstone to the basic science of climate change, but they're only a summary of climate science at one point in time, seen through the lens of one group of people. Suggesting that people need ONLY read the IPCC reports to understand all of climate science is like saying that people need ONLY read the Encyclopedia Brittanica to understand all that can ever be known. Oh, and by the way, people in AARP are over 55, which does not, as you imply, suggest they are brain-dead. We can add ageism to your list of slurs.
You are in violation of Grist's own posting rules, which calls for posters to avoid being jerks, avoid personal attacks, and stick to substance.
I call on the editors of Grist to publicly reject the kind of personal attacks that Joseph Romm has engaged in with his recent post. He has gone far beyond the bounds of civil discourse into vulgar abuse, to the shame of both himself and the publishers of Grist.
Kenneth P. Green
Kenneth Green
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 103';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 105';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 97';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 114';l[32]=' 103';l[33]=' 107';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
salemguy Posted 2:22 pm
31 Oct 2008
I'd like to take the opportunity to ask the same question I asked Joseph. What was the context/what did you mean with the statement:
"No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly."
?
Permalink
In the belly Posted 5:57 am
02 Nov 2008
Permalink
salemguy Posted 7:58 am
08 Nov 2008
Given Mr Green didn't respond to a simple question, I'd say Joseph's assessment was correct.
Green hogwash occurs to me as doubly applicable here.
Permalink