Jeff Masters gets at something in his great piece on the "climategate" e-maelstrom that most press coverage leaves out: this isn't our first time around the track. The Manufactured Doubt industry has been around for decades, working to thwart regulatory constraints on large corporations that make dangerous products. Not only are all the same techniques being used in the same way on climate change, in many cases they're being used by the same people and institutions that fought against tobacco, CFC, asbestos, and auto safety regulations.

In every case they have been discredited, their science exposed as fraudulent, their economic doomsaying given lie by subsequent innovation and growth. In every case, documents later show that the truth about the products' dangers was known but deliberately concealed and the effort to deceive was intentional and well-funded.

It's an industry that uses dishonesty to defend corporations. Plain and simple. Everyone ought to know that by now and it ought to frame media coverage of these dreary "skeptic" controversies. Yet the press seems to think that every new claim or contrived controversy from the industry deserves to be met with the same furrowed brow, the same quote and counter-quote presentation of "sides," the same chin-scratching atmospherics of doubt. It's always the world's scientists and scientific institutions being asked to defend their integrity, not the professional dissemblers and character assassins.

I haven't read the emails. I'll leave it to others to determine whether a few scientists or a few papers deserve a newly critical eye. As Masters says:

Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Whatever may be on trial in this latest dismal theater piece, it isn't the validity of the basic conclusions of climate science. Media coverage of this spectacle is a failure if readers do not come away understanding two facts:

The rest is sound and fury.

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

There's a new Washington Post-ABC News poll out on climate change; Juliet Eilperin's got a good piece up about it (despite the terrible headline, for which she is not responsible).

Having watched this story bounce around today, I'm frustrated yet again by how these polls are discussed. Here's how I would write the lede to the story:

A ramped-up effort by conservatives and industry groups to cast doubt on climate science has largely failed to convince the public that the science is in error. The fact that the earth's atmosphere has warmed over the last 100 years is accepted by 72 percent of the public, down from from 80 percent last year. The decline came principally from the ranks of self-identified Republicans. The partisan split has widened on the issue, but a solid majority of the public accepts the findings of climate science and supports legislative efforts to address climate change.

To our ears this sounds "biased," because it accepts -- without counter claims from the "other side" -- the following three propositions:

All three of these propositions are demonstrably true; it's impossible to understand climate and energy politics over the last two decades without understanding them. Yet they never seem to sink into the firmament. They don't shape coverage; they're not part of the background architecture of climate stories.

So polls about climate science get treated like the results of some contest between two ideological interest groups. It becomes a horserace story -- "Democrats/environmentalists are losing" -- rather than a story about danger to public health. It's about environmentalists' failure to persuade rather than the anti-scientific obscurantism that's completely overtaken the Republican party, with financial support from large corporate interests.

If I can't convince a guy standing in a downpour that it's raining, seems to me the dumbass in the rain is the story, not my poor messaging.

----

One final note: the drop among Independents (86 to 71 percent) is being oversold. In the last four or five years, there's been a broad shift left in party identification. Many Independents became Democrats and many Republicans became Independents. The group "Independents" is therefore much more conservative than it used to be.

----

One final final note. Tell me, does this make sense to you?

Lisa Woolcott, another Republican poll respondent, said she doesn't think that burning fossil fuels is "causing all the global warming," adding: "We can't control what happens in the atmosphere." But Woolcott, a physician's assistant who lives in Kansas City, Kan., said she supports the idea of a bill that would cap the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and doesn't think the United States should predicate its actions on what other nations do. "We need to do what's best for us," she said. "I don't think we should back down."

One doesn't want to mock, but I think it's perfectly fair to say that collecting opinions like this is no way to chart a way forward on policy. We might heed the words of political scientist Larry Bartels:

Whether it would be desirable to have a democracy based on public opinion is beside the point, because public opinion of the sort necessary to make it possible simply does not exist. The very idea of "popular rule" is starkly inconsistent with the understanding of political psychology provided by the past half-century of research by psychologists and political scientists. That research offers no reason to doubt that citizens have meaningful values and beliefs, but ample reason to doubt that those values and beliefs are sufficiently complete and coherent to serve as a satisfactory starting point for democratic theory. In other words, citizens have attitudes but not preferences ...

What these polls gather are attitudes. Climate change science has become "how do you feel about liberals?" Capping carbon elicits something different; competition with China elicits something different; clean air and water elicits something different. It may be helpful to understand these affective responses of the public, but they are no substitute for science and pragmatism in policymaking. Ultimately leaders are going to have to acknowledge the problem and deal with it. Waiting until all the polls line up is a gutless dereliction of duty.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU

Carbon Fixated has now a exposed a far greater scandal than "Carbongate." It is time to expose the fraudulent religion that worships Issac Newton, who was even fatter than Al Gore, and his silly assertions about gravity, not to mention the meaningless babble of incantations called calculus.

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

I'm tempted to quote extensively, but instead simply urge you to read the whole thing.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU

Shucks, we shoulda known!Photo courtesy Andrew Ciscel via Flickr With the Copenhagen climate talks upon us we learn that hackers recently broke into thousands of emails and internal documents from a leading climate research center and dumped them onto an anonymous Russian server. The hacked emails (160 MB worth, unzipped) came from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). They allegedly include 20-year's worth of exchanges between top U.S. and British climate scientists who were debating the latest developments in climate research. Global warming skeptics, the internet over, are using the (illegal) hacking to claim that global warming is a hoax, full of fudged data and dishonest, conspiratorial scientists. It's "the global warming scandal of the century," claim conservative bloggers.

A CRU spokesperson confirmed that their server was hacked; however, the spokesperson told the BBC that "Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine."

The exchanges reportedly include discussions about climate data and how to respond to climate skeptics, a few blunt comments about the most fervent deniers, and one doctored photo of climate skeptics stranded on an ice floe. But the most controversial comments, plucked out of context, come from a private correspondence between CRU researcher Phil Jones and Pennsylvania State University's Michael Mann (author of the infamous "hocky stick graph" of rising global average temperatures):

"I’ve just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline," wrote Jones.

I'll save you from the science wonkery and allusions here (check out RealClimate for a more detailed explanation), but noisy climate skeptics are jumping on two parts of that sentence. Guess which ones? Yup, "trick" and "hide the decline."

Jones was referencing two sets of data on temperature change during the last decade. One used changes in tree rings; the other used thermometers. Both showed a rise in temperature until the 1960s, when the thermometers continud to record a rise and the tree rings did not. When other independent temperature measures confirmed the thermometer readings, scientists abandoned the tree rings data. 

The legitimate climate scientists over at RealClimate have an indepth response to the allegations being made against the CRU folks, some of whom are RealClimate contributors. While conceding that "hide" was a poor choice of words, they translate the science slang at work here: "Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to 'a good way to deal with a problem,' rather than something that is 'secret."

"It sounds incriminating," Michael Mann told Andrew Revkin of The New York Times about his email exchange with Phil Jones. "But when you look at what you're talking about, there's nothing there."

RealClimate's level-headed response to the event is worth reading, along with its active and excellently moderated discussion thread. Another point they make which is worth emphasizing in light of blog posts calling this "a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science":

It appears that the original Russian FTP server, which held the illegally obtained files, has been shut down, although the files have now been uploaded elsewhere on the web.

A few things to keep in mind throughout this entire "scandal":

As implicated researcher Michael Mann notes to the respected international scientific journal Nature: "The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses. Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they've got."

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

FOX News evidently agrees with Global Warming Skeptic Trollcat (see above):

Thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit were hacked recently and dumped on a Russian web server. Fox News and right-wing bloggers believe the illegally obtained emails prove that "global warming is a MYTH."

Oops, that's Global Warming Skeptic TrollCat. Here's the take from FOX News.com (actual screenshot):

Here's an unscientific sampling of the reasoned analysis from prominent right-wing bloggers:

Evidently due to this email conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world's glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it's the hottest decade in history.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CREDFor the climate-change message to finally sink in, for the 64 percent of Americans who don’t believe in the problem (according to a recent Pew poll) to start changing their minds, the place to begin might be the local high-school gym.

Have a respected teacher—maybe from the science department—lead a public presentation. She should mention some compelling data, but also tell about her summer trip to Australia’s drought-stricken Southeast and the dust that coated her morning tea.

She would say something like, “We can’t know every detail of what pumping the atmosphere full of greenhouse pollution will do. It’s like driving your car off a cliff—you can’t predict which parts will break, but you know enough to know the results won’t be good.”

There would be plenty of time for questions and planning a group response. Finally, it would help to flood the gym so attendees could sit up to their ankles in water, to really feel what flooding is like.

Such a plan incorporates leading research on how our minds respond to the threat of climate change, which is neatly synthesized in a new guide, “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.” The 43-page booklet was released Wednesday by the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University, which conducts fascinating laboratory and field research at the intersection of psychology, anthropology, and behavioral economics (The New York Times Magazine profiled it last spring).

Aimed at scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and “the interested public,” the guide begins with the blunt admission that climate communicators are failing. Global warming slipped to the bottom of a list of Americans’ concerns in a January Pew poll. CRED offers reasons why and suggests how to do better.

For example, people work harder to avoid losses than to seek gains, so “save money” might not be the best pitch for convincing people to buy efficient home appliances. A message like “avoid losing money on higher energy bills in the future” does better at appealing to this loss-aversion instinct.

To be clear, CRED’s researchers don’t suggest flooding the gym—that’s my scenario, based on their principles. Those include using:

Happily, the guide has cartoons. CRED graciously allowed us to reprint them. Click through the following pages (see navigation at the bottom of each page) for an overview of the guide's eight chapters, based on the illustrations by Ian Webster.

Point 1: Know your audience ...

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

... and expect them to have different mental models than scientists’. Newcomers to the climate issue might be sick of getting too much ice in their Dr. Pepper, so explain how sea ice is different.

Case study: Ozone is not a football term

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

There’s a useful side study on how people frequently confuse the ozone problem (a big hole) and the greenhouse gas problem (a blanket):

Some Americans thus reason that this “hole” either allows more solar radiation into the biosphere—warming the planet—or, alternatively, allows heat to escape—cooling the planet.

Nope. These misconceptions need plainspoken correcting.

Point 2: All climate activism is local

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Consider the framing carefully, remembering that local appeals are powerful. CRED’s research suggest New Yorkers will care more about sea-level rise that floods their subway tunnels than sea-level rise that floods farmland in Bangladesh. Forget moral purity for a moment—this is about finding appeals that work.

Point 3: Make it real

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Translate scientific data into concrete experience. Children don’t learn to keep their hands away from a hot stove through charts, or even through urgent warnings from parents. They learn best by touching one. One much-lamented problem with climate change is that by the time most of us experience it, it’ll be too late to do anything. Our minds have evolved to respond much more quickly to immediate threats (tiger! mouse!) than to long-range ones.

But we are still swayed by personal anecdotes and stories, which the guide calls an under-used tool in sharing the climate message.

“We’re not entirely doomed, because we respond to each other’s stories,” coauthor and CRED Associate Director Sabine Marx said in an interview last spring.

Case Study: Visually speaking

Use vivid imagery. The guide highlights this New York City recycling ad as a good example translating an abstract number into a visual analogy.

Point 4: No screaming!

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Don’t overuse emotional appeals. They grab attention at first, but too much leads to emotional numbing because of what researchers call our “finite pool of worry.” In one study, farmers in Argentina rated how much they worried about political risks, weather and climate risks, and economic risk. They were then shown a climate forecast predicting a rain shortage the next spring. As their concern about climate increased, their concern about political instability diminished, even though the political situation had not changed.

This principle also helps explain why global warming concerns shrank as economic concerns rose after last fall’s financial crisis.

Case study: Channeling action

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Another key phenomenon: the “single action bias.” Researchers find that “individuals responding to a threat are likely to rely on one action, even when it provides only incremental protection or risk reduction and may not be the most effective option.”

CRED researchers found that Argentinian farmers who built extra storage space for grain where less likely to use irrigation or crop insurance, even though using all of the options would have provided the most protection from drought.

The guide even suggests evidence of a mass single action bias in the election of Barack Obama. Millions of voters did their One Thing to be politically engaged, then checked out, despite the fact that our political structure prevents the president from doing much on his own.

For a simple step on counteracting this effect, the guide suggests simply helping people become aware of it. Then, it says, offer them a checklist of good options.

Point 5: No exaggerating

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Address scientific and climate uncertainties. Don’t overstate things, but anticipate that there are crucial words that scientists use differently than the general public. (There’s a good list on page 27 of the guide.) When scientists say “uncertainty” for example, the public hears “not knowing.” CRED suggests “range” as a better word.

It quotes California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: “If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say ‘No, he doesn’t, he is fine,’ I will go with the 98. It's common sense--the same with climate change. We go with the majority, the large majority.”

Point 6: We're all in this together

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Tap into social identities and affiliations to remind people that they share common resources (the tragedy of the commons and all that). CRED highlights Knoxville, Tennessee’s campaign to “Make Downtown Green, Block by Block” which appealed to city identity to rally downtown businesses and residents to buy 400 blocks’ worth of renewable energy.

Point 7: Join hands, please

Illustration courtesy Ian Webster/CRED

Encourage group participation. OK, so it sounds hokey. But research of farmers in Uganda and lobster fishermen in the Florida Keys found that people process complex information better in groups. They tend to accept both anecdotal and factual information in such settings.

Point 8: Go ahead and do the easy stuff

Courtesy

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Today's hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- the first of three days of hearings on the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill -- didn't contain any big surprises. As Keith Johnson notes, Senators generally played their appointed roles.

There are four stories out of today that seem notable.

1. Republicans are completely out of the game.

This has been true ever since Obama was elected, of course, but today's hearing threw it in sharp relief. They're just not involved in the conversation. On the far end you have Inhofe, still shouting at clouds about the science. But Barrasso, Bond, and the rest simply repeat, robotically, absurd claims about the economics of emission reduction that have been utterly debunked -- by the EPA, by the CBO, by the EIA, and by the witnesses at today's hearing. With a few exceptions, every time it was a Republican's turn to talk, it was as if the whole hearing ground to a halt, taking a break to watch a sideshow before the adults resumed their business.

Lacking anything of substance, Republicans are resorting to procedural ratf*cks, as usual. They want the EPA to take five weeks to do a full analysis of Kerry-Boxer, even though the agency, like everyone else, knows that the economics are roughly the same as for Waxman-Markey. They're threatening to boycott the markup to prevent quorum unless the EPA accepts their absurd demands. They all left today before the four cabinet secretaries were done testifying, just to be, you know, deliberately rude. Expect these adolescent tantrums to ramp up over coming months.

Conservative Democrats (and a few Rs like Voinovich) are at least grappling with the substance of the bill. But Republicans on the committee, for the most part, are engaged in increasingly irrelevant theater.

2. Baucus is a problem.

Here's what Baucus had to say at the hearing today:

I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill before us today, and whether it will lead us closer to or further away from passing climate change legislation. For example, I have serious reservations with the depth of the mid-term reduction target in the bill and the lack of preemption of the Clean Air Act's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 target of 20% reductions from 2005 levels is, as Sen. Merkley (D-Ore) pointed out later, easily achievable. It could be hit with efficiency alone, at a profit. It could be hit with natural gas switching alone. We'll get a quarter of the way there just via the recession! With the suite of tools available, it will be a cakewalk. The only way you could look at that target and find it impossible is if you think carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the only technology capable of producing reductions. That certainly won't be ready by 2020! But that's an absurd perspective, one shared mainly by Republicans like Voinovich and ... Max Baucus.

Baucus phrases his reservations in the language of concern trolling -- he's just worried about getting the votes, you know. But even if bending on those two items will ultimately be necessary, why on earth would you broadcast your willingness to do so before negotiations even begin? Can we look forward to another months-long, futile quest for bipartisan support from Baucus? Is he going to weaken and slow-walk this bill like he did with health care reform?

See Elana Schor and Greenwire for more on this.

As to the EPA thing:

3. EPA authority emerges as central battle.

Many progressive groups like MoveOn are drawing their red line here: EPA authority under the Clean Air Act must be preserved in the bill. (It is in Kerry-Boxer; it wasn't in Waxman-Markey.). But several Senators, including Baucus and Specter, openly discussed it as something that will have to be given up to gain enough votes for passage.

It also has its champions in the Senate, including Gillibrand and Whitehouse. Speaking of which, check out Whitehouse's righteous pro-CAA, anti-coal remarks (taken from this great post by Ben Wessel):

Expect this to become an increasingly heated fight. It was certainly good to see Lisa Jackson point out that even with legislation there are still "common sense" ways to use the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions.

4. The administration steps up

Alongside the hearing today, where four cabinet secretaries testified, the Obama administration is ramping up its general involvement on this issue. Today saw the announcement of $3.4 billion in funding for smart grid initiatives; Biden announced the reopening of a shuttered GM plant to make hybrids; Obama spoke at a new solar plant in Florida, hyping clean energy and federal legislation; and a New York Times headline blared: Administration Steps Up Efforts on Climate Bill.

Everyone has been saying for months that the fight will succeed or fail based on Obama's investment. It looks like the White House is responding.

Altogether, it is a good day for the forces of climate sanity. The jobs and economics messages were front and center, and wavering conservative Dems were grappling with the legislation in a way that showed they're taking the possibility of passage seriously.

The hearings tomorrow and the next day will last allll day and get into some serious weeds. Watch Grist's Kerry-Boxer page for updates.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama speaking on clean energy in MIT's Kresge Auditorium. Photo: Dominick ReuterObama delivered a speech on energy at MIT on Friday, marking the kick-off for what is likely to be a protracted effort by the administration and Democrats in the Senate to pass the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill.

Those hoping for policy substance or firm commitments were disappointed. There were no specific requests of the Senate, no bottom lines, no references to the climate negotiations looming in Copenhagen. Obama stuck with the strategy he's used from the beginning: his words are broad, sweeping, and inspiring, but on the details and mechanics of policy, he plays his cards close to his vest. He is incremental, careful, and solicitous of Congressional prerogative. Just as he did on health care, he is standing back to let the Senate find its equilibrium point. That drives progressive activists crazy -- they want ultimatums and confrontations -- but it's too early to judge whether it will be successful in the end.

Consequently, the speech was mostly boilerplate that's become familiar to those following this issue. Obama hyped the Recovery Act, which put money to doubling renewable generation capacity and represented "the largest boost to scientific research in history." He noted the "growing consensus" behind action, with a specific shout-out to the Operation Free Veterans for American Power Tour. He delivered a paean to the American spirit of progress, action, and innovation, and declared that whoever captured the growing clean energy market would lead the world economy in the 21st century.

Rhetorically, there was an interesting move. He noted two common myths of opponents: that there's no problem, and that addressing the problem will destroy the economy. He said that those who peddle denialist falsehoods about climate change "are being marginalized," and noted that "it's the economic system we currently have that limits our prosperity." Great stuff. But it was another myth, he said, that was most pernicious, because almost everyone indulges in it: that is the myth of defeatism and cynicism, that our "politics are too broken" to address this issue. That, not myths about climate or the economy, is the highest barrier to action.

While I (and other folks deeply engaged in this issue) obviously would have liked to hear more meat on the bones, it is worth noting that this narrative -- the narrative of innovation, American can-do spirit, and global economic competitiveness -- is by far the strongest one Dems have going for them. They haven't always been consistent about sticking to that narrative. (If I hear one more reference to the "cap-and-trade bill"...)

Hopefully, Obama's speech marks the beginning of better communications strategy, one that goes on the offense, that shapes a forward-looking vision, rather than constantly being on the defensive and working inside the frame of opponents.

Watch the speech:

Here's the full text of the speech:

12:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please, have a seat. Thank you. Thank you, MIT. (Applause.) I am -- I am hugely honored to be here. It's always been a dream of mine to visit the most prestigious school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Applause.) Hold on a second -- certainly the most prestigious school in this part of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Laughter.) And I'll probably be here for a while -- I understand a bunch of engineering students put my motorcade on top of Building 10. (Laughter.)

This tells you something about MIT -- everybody hands out periodic tables. (Laughter.) What's up with that? (Laughter.)

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives. And in particular, I want to thank two outstanding MIT professors, Eric Lander, a person you just heard from, Ernie Moniz, for their service on my council of advisors on science and technology. And they have been hugely helpful to us already on looking at, for example, how the federal government can most effectively respond to the threat of the H1N1 virus. So I'm very grateful to them.

We've got some other special guests here I just want to acknowledge very briefly. First of all, my great friend and a champion of science and technology here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my friend Deval Patrick is here. (Applause.) Our Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. (Applause.) Attorney General Martha Coakley is here. (Applause.) Auditor of the Commonwealth, Joe DeNucci is here. (Applause.) The Mayor of the great City of Cambridge, Denise Simmons is in the house. (Applause.) The Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, is not here, but he met me at the airport and he is doing great; he sends best wishes.

Somebody who really has been an all-star in Capitol Hill over the last 20 years, but certainly over the last year, on a whole range of issues -- everything from Afghanistan to clean energy -- a great friend, John Kerry. Please give John Kerry a round of applause. (Applause.)

And a wonderful member of Congress -- I believe this is your district, is that correct, Mike? Mike Capuano. Please give Mike a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren't built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create -- to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it's a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation -- not just here but across America -- that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America -- it's the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it's the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail -- but might also change the world.

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year -- a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That's in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past. A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government. A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China -- an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis. We face threats to our security that seek -- there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that's so essential to our prosperity. The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that's always been central to our success. And that's especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels -- we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it. There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there's no question that we must do all these things.

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that's why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century. From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It's that simple. (Applause.)

That's why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand -- Governor Patrick's leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here -- I told him, you don't have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field -- and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader -- from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth's investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That's worth applause.

Now, even as we're investing in technologies that exist today, we're also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase -- that's an increase in funding that's already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he's doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake -- (applause) -- everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil -- (applause) -- we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country -- that I've met all across America -- they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts' own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy -- when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim -- make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

So we're going to have to work on those folks. But understand there's also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress -- and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important -- that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I've seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

Today's frontiers can't be found on a map. They're being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today's pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us -- the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers -- helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

I am confident that's what's happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Related Links:

On “climategate”

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The big news yesterday was a Pew poll showing a precipitous decline in the number of people who believe there is strong scientific evidence for anthropocentric climate change. Jon covered the details pretty well, including some reasons it should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's peculiar that these polls are often taken as a judgment on the science itself, like Believers and Deniers are two teams duking it out and public acceptance is the score of who's got better facts. That's not how science works at all. As 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations reminded the Senate this week (PDF), we know that "climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." We know this in the best way that we know how to know things, through multiple lines of evidence and multi-layer peer review involving scientists from dozens of countries. We know it with a far greater degree of confidence than we know the vast bulk of the economic, political, and folk psychological theories that guide our collective lives.

These are, as far as developed civilizations have been able to determine, the institutions and practices that produce the most trustworthy knowledge about the natural world. If we reject their conclusions -- or pretend their conclusions can be upended by a blog post or public opinion poll -- we abandon one of the few remaining arbiters of consensus reality. If peer-reviewed science has no special status, then every aspect of human or ecosystem health is partisan. Every policy-relevant matter of fact is decided by shouty blog comments and bad cable tv. Everything is contestable: postmodernism, courtesy of conservatism. (See: Chris Mooney.)

It should be noted, of course, that 57% ain't bad, given the public's generally low level of scientific knowledge. About 79% of people know the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, while 80% believe prayer accelerates healing. Some 75% believe in angels but just 39% believe in evolution. Public opinion on matters of science is of great interest for a great many reasons, but it is a poor guide for public policy. Everyone deserves to have their voice heard on how we might best respond to what's happening, but what's happening is happening and we can't change it by not acknowledging it. As Bill McKibben is fond of saying, nature doesn't negotiate.

The temptation is to respond to a poll like Pew's with lamentations about the state of science education -- to imagine that the public, like scientists, can be swayed by the weight of empirical evidence. But the most important political takeaway is almost the opposite: popular belief in the science of climate change will follow popular support for clean energy, not the other way around. Make clean energy cheap, easily available, and desirable to the mainstream, and people will stop paying attention to industry-funded cranks and charlatans. There won't be the same anxiety and loss aversion to exploit.

The poll also shows that 73% of people -- 22% more than believe there's good evidence for anthropocentric climate change -- believe it's a serious or somewhat serious problem. Some 50% support cap-and-trade, yet only 24% even know that cap-and-trade is an environmental policy.

In these incoherent results there is another important lesson: quiz Americans on their knowledge and you get confusion; solicit their goals and aspirations and they are clear. Poll after poll has shown that the public supports clean energy, supports Obama, and wants legislative action. Those are the polls that matter.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What to make of the new climate poll

There are good reasons not to get too worked up about public-opinion polling on issues like climate change and energy. Polls confirm, over and over, that the public opinion is malleable—so much rides on the wording of questions. And most people don’t analyze policy in their spare time, so why ask them about cap and trade? Only 24 percent of Americans could even identify cap and trade as an energy/environment policy in a May Rasmussen poll. Twenty-nine percent thought it was a Wall Street regulation.

Still, it’s hard not to be troubled by a Pew Research Center poll released today. Conducted three weeks ago among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, the poll finds a significant drop in the number of Americans who believe global warming is happening, is human-caused, and is a serious problem.

The poll found that only 57 percent of respondents believe that “the earth is getting warmer,” compared with 71 percent in April 2008. Pew has asked similar sets of questions six times since June 2006 and has never found such a dramatic rise in skepticism.

Those who believe warming is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuels) wavered between 41 and 50 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure dropped to 36 percent.

Those who consider global warming a “very serious problem” ranged between 41 and 47 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure fell to 35 percent.

The shift was most pronounced among political independents. In that group, those who believe there is solid evidence for climate change fell from 75 percent in the April 2008 poll to 53 percent (that’s 22 points). Democrats who believe there is solid evidence for climate change dropped from 83 percent in the last poll to 75 percent. Republicans slipped from 49 percent to 35 percent.

Other recent polls haven’t found the rise in skepticism that Pew documents. An August Zogby poll found a majority of Americans wanted additional or continued action from Congress on climate change. A July poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org found Americans lagging other countries in demanding a climate plan, yet still asking their government to do more. For a bit of context on what scientists think, yesterday 18 leading scientific organizations sent a letter to U.S. senators reminding them of the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities, and that its effects will be severe.

There were two small (and puzzling) bits of consolation in the poll: many respondents support limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, and many want the U.S. to join an international climate-change plan.

Fifty percent of respondents favor CO2 limits and “making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices.” Thirty-nine percent say they oppose this, and 11 percent are unsure or did not answer.

Fifty-six percent of respondents think the United States “should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.” Some of them appear to support solutions—even ones that raise the cost of energy—to problems they do not believe in.

There are a number of possible explanations for the rise in skepticism. Although, honestly, the findings are still surprising.

None of these are especially satisfying answers. It’s not a very satisfying poll. If nothing else, it underscores the importance of using clean-energy arguments to promote an energy and climate plan.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

This "year with no summer" and some alleged statistics I have seen quoted about earth-wide temperatures for the last ten years have resulted in claims that the earth is not heating -- it may even be cooling. What about it?

Arthur Waskow
Shalom Center, Philadelphia

A. Dearest Arthur,

The oceans are too getting warmer!That would be great. The planet needs some cooling, and humans certainly aren't doing anything to help. But let us remember the difference between weather and climate.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does confirm that summer 2009 in the contiguous U.S. was 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit below the 20th Century average of 72.1 degrees. We notice no concomitant change in policy from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, or any other reputable source, so we must conclude that a cool summer was only weather, and that in general the overall climate remains on track for warming.

After all, the last decades have included the hottest years on record, when you look at ocean and surface temperatures. Last year was the eighth-warmest on record; full stats are not yet in on 2009, of course, but already we know that the world's oceans set a heat record in July. All this does not seem to indicate ten years worth of cooling temperatures.

As our country pushes further toward actually having an organized response to climate change, it's important for us all to be as informed as we can be, and to be ready to respond to those who are dubious about the need for action. Or who write whatever weird stuff you've been reading about cooling temperatures.

I have given out some resources before, and Grist as a whole is a good resource for tracking climate action in senate chambers, chat rooms, and other tangible and intangible locations. But today I'd like to be sure our browser bookmarks contain lists with some helpful easy-to-read FAQ compilations. These are for use when confused by news stories or "deniers," and are mostly organized by the issues deniers raise.

I'll just give a few. There's Grist's own "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" series. There's Real Climate's Start Here page as well as their index, and my beloved Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate FAQ list. Britain's Natural Environment Research Council also has a nice summary of an open session it held a few years ago, organized by debate points.

I hope those will help with the confusing moments.

Cheerfully,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

On “climategate”

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce can't catch a break these days. When the Waxman-Markey bill rolled out, it did what it always does: pretended to agree with the goal while recommending changes in the means so drastic that they would gut the bill. See this comical letter wherein it wants to "balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation" by lowering targets, increasing free allocations, ditching the renewable energy standard, waiting for China and India to act first, completely preempting state programs, and increasing subsidies to fossil-fuel companies. This is standard operating procedure for CoC, a game it knows how to play. It lobbies for the interests of the corporate class.

But in this case, there's a problem: many, many business see enormous opportunities in the shift to clean energy. Many businesses want the stability and predictability ACES would bring. And many of those businesses happen to be members of the CoC. In May, several of them, including Nike and Johnson & Johnson, dealt the CoC a very public smack on the nose, asking it to quit speaking on behalf of "business" when lobbying on behalf of a few dirty-energy industries.

This kind if dissension in the ranks is new and embarrassing for the CoC. Its flailing response rolled out last week: a call for a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial" that would force the EPA to justify its endangerment finding in court.

Now, before you start mocking -- we'll get to that -- step back and think about this from a right-wing hack's perspective. The point is not, repeat not, to get at the truth of climate change. The CoC doesn't give a rat's ass about the truth of climate change. It's very simple: when in doubt, distract. Start a circus. Hype "the controversy."

The idea is to propose something that sounds reasonable on the surface, to the casual news reader, so that the EPA looks defensive if it refuses. It gives the right wing something to make hay over (and oh boy, are they). Most of all, it drags out the faux controversy of the existence of climate change.

Normally this stuff has worked well for conservatives, but a) times are changing, and b) this was a particularly ham-fisted attempt.

In comparing his proposal to the Scopes trial, CoC's Bill Kovacs revealed too much. In that case, conservatives had lost in the realm of science, so they relitigated via a theatrical court case in front of a jury with no scientific training. And Scopes lost. He was found guilty. It was less any kind of American triumph than a sad expression of provincial ignorance.

And that's exactly what Kovacs wants another one of.

Still, he came in for so much mockery that he tried to back off on Thursday, in a National Journal post that is, to put it charitably, rather opaque. He now says the Scopes comparison was "inappropriate" and that the CoC "is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change." They just question whether it's a danger, despite the clear conclusion that it is contained in ... the science behind global climate change. Oh, and the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA.

Kovacs goes on to recycle the myth of the EPA "whistleblower," which shows how desperate he is. The EPA has spent a couple years now making a determination, complete with the requisite 60 days for open comment, but Kovacs wants to second-guess the agency staff's conclusion before a judge. Hell, he'd probably like to treat all regulations this way -- in the name of "transparency," you know. But it would be ridiculous. Government would grind to a halt.

I don't know how much the public is really paying attention to this stuff. But I can't imagine this looks anything but buffoonish to the casual news consumer.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

"I am not the smartest man in the world, but I have been trained to read scientific documents, and [anthropogenic climate change] is malarkey."

-- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who also explained why Jesus would oppose a public option in health care reform

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Chuck Grassley

In a Tuesday conference call with Iowa agricultural reporters, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered some state-of-the-art Republican doubletalk on climate change (maybe he read it in Glenn Beck's book). This is worth reading in full, in part to admire the blithely inconsistent muddle of it all, but also in part to marvel at just how second-nature this line of dissembling has become. These talking points are echoed almost verbatim up and down the conservative food chain, all the way from bottom-feeders like Marc Morano to U.S. Senators. Unlike most Democrats, no conservative has to think on his feet about it, or craft his own careful line on it.

Senator ... are you convinced greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change and are a threat to human health?

GRASSLEY: Well, I'd be foolish if I didn't give -- I'd be foolish if I didn't give it some consideration because there's a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does. But there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it.

And so, not being a scientist, I don't know exactly where to say only those things that are really quantifiable, and temperature has risen. But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it's manmade or natural.

And it's reasonable, considering that there's at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we've had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there's been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you've got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we've got to single out what's natural and what's manmade before you can make policy.

Now, a lot of members of Congress and most environmentalists are -- are absolutely convinced manmade is the -- is the factor -- chief factor here. But I -- I want to, before I vote on it, be more conclusive in my judgment, and I haven't reached that conclusion at this point.

But it's enough to know that I think that even if it is manmade entirely, and so there's justification for the legislation, you still have to deal with the reality factors that domestically there's a very unlevel playing field between California and New York that benefit financially from it, and the Midwest and the Southeast United States that's going to be hurt; and then the unlevel playing field if you don't include India and China, an unlevel playing field with the United States versus those countries.

And so -- so we don't want to lose all of our manufacturing to China. We've already lost a lot.

We -- it's better to have an international agreement and include China and India in it.

It's a greatest hits parade:

Individually the points are flimsy, but if you're not paying close attention, the answer just slides by in a haze of aw-shucks blather and faux-erudition. What the average Iowan hears is "blah blah blah don't let 'em take yer money!!! blah blah."

This is why, as I've written before, I really think conservative legislators and pundits should be nailed down on this question. Do you believe there's a threat or don't you? And if you don't, why don't you trust the National Academy of Sciences or the multi-agency climate science review begun under Bush?

This sort of cornpone skepticism was tired years ago. It's hard to believe they're still getting away with it.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Someone sent me a terrific set of the "deniers rules for debate" from Mercurius.  Let me introduce them by way of a February 2008 email exchange I had with a denier over the headline question (see here).  The denier wrote:

I have been doing enormous amounts of research in this global warming (caused by man) theories and have concluded that there is not ONE shred of evidence to back it up.  Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?

Hmm. Not one shred of evidence? "PROVE" in all caps, too!  I know this is mostly pointless, but still, it was the day after my daughter's first birthday, and I was feeling in good spirits about humanity, so I replied:

This one is easy. Either you believe in science - i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on - or you don't. If you don't, I can't "prove" anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports - which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin' govt in the world - are as much proof as a human being could possibly want.

Yes, I was younger and naive back then.  Now I wouldn't strike thru friggin'.  So he replied:

Sorry Joe but your email back to me is not proof of evidence. As for the IPCC report, I don't buy into what they say. That is not proof. And yes, I very much believe in science which is why I don't believe in humans have caused global warming. But my question is simple, what scientific proof can you show me, and I am not talking about some report from the UN, that humans are causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Also, what is the right temperature for the Earth to be at?

Yes, well, the deniers, they believe in "science," they just don't believe in scientists, or hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles, or scientific "evidence," which brings me to Mercurius's list of things the deniers will accept as evidence:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along...

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can't trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.

Funny stuff.

Well, it would be funny, if it weren't true.   Or is its very truth what makes it funny?  [Note:  I am buying a book for my forthcoming Maine vacation that I hope will answer that last question -- And Here's the Kicker: Conversations with 21 Top Humor Writers on their Craft.]

The only scientific evidence that deniers will accept is data that has been massaged by fellow deniers -- especially ones who have a long track record of flawed or biased analysis (see "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?"

As Mercurius notes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm sure you'd agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.

h/t Deltoid.

Related Post:

Related Links:

On “climategate”

Climate deniers, hold your fire!

What to make of the new climate poll

So a guy writes in to our local paper saying climate change is a big scam, nobody ever shows the actual data, blah blah blah.

I usually ignore these things like I ignore the moon landing deniers and the flat earthers, but this time I had a second in the morning and so I sent him a few things I keep on my desk like a soldier keeps weapons nearby: Naomi Oreskes Science article from 2004 (2004!) that shows that there are NO peer reviewed scientific papers that say anything other than that the climate is warming and it's human caused; the latest NASA global temperature data going back to the 1800s; and a publication on the disproportionate warming in the United States by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. And I mail it to the dude. Took me five minutes. Advancing the cause of information vs. myth.

Then guy calls me back, leaves a message. First, he's alarmed that I found his address, as if I were going to come over and lecture him on climate science (If you're paranoid, maybe not a great idea to write to the local paper ... too much exposure). Then, in his message, he says, very nicely: "Thanks for the information. You're not going to change my mind though. There are tons of studies that show this isn't happening."

But brother: I sent you information from the most respected scientific journal saying that there isn't such information out there!

What is wrong with people? I know this discussion is pointless--it's like trying to convince someone to change their religion. But I like to engage in the fight every once in a while as a sort of bloodsport, a fight club. It gets the blood flowing, like a good workout at the gym or a big cup of coffee.

--

Arm yourself with Grist's "How to talk to a climate skeptic."

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail

While I was away on vacation (it was wonderful, thanks for asking), the Washington Post editorial page featured opinion pieces from Sarah Palin and George Will, two of conservatism's leading, um, thinkers, revealing a great deal about the WaPo editorial page and the quality of conservative thinking.

Rebuttal has been ably carried out by many others, including Joe Romm (whose bald pate is belied by his youthful energy!). He demolishes Palin here and Will here.

Rather, a somewhat meta point. The debate over climate/energy legislation, at least as carried out between conservatives and everyone else, has taken on a surreal tinge. One might expect the media to respond, or notice, or react in some way, but outlets like the WaPo just keep carrying on as if the debate is perfectly normal.

The surreality comes from a simple fact: institutionally, as a movement and as a party, conservatives do not believe anthropogenic climate change exists. They don't think the problem the legislation is designed to solve is actually a problem.

You might think this would make for short debates. Conservatives could collectively sign on to a one-line op-ed:

"We do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, thus we do not support legislation to address it."

Period. Done. Right? But that doesn't happen. Instead you get peculiarities like Palin, droning on for 700 words about how the legislation is flawed because it doesn't promote domestic fossil fuel without once mentioning carbon emissions or climate change. You get Will analyzing the challenges of international climate negotiations and then mentioning, almost casually, at the end of his piece, "by the way, climate change isn't real."

But if climate change isn't real, of course we shouldn't be going through the wrenching process of trying to get off fossil fuels in a few short decades. Of course we shouldn't be beating our heads against a wall trying to get China and India to agree to constrain their growth. It's pointless even discussing those things.

If I simply refused to acknowledge the federal deficit, would Fred Hiatt have me on the WaPo editorial page analyzing the merits of deficit reduction proposals? Of course not. I don't believe the $%*# thing exists! Of course I don't support policies to reduce it.

By greenlighting Potemkin arguments about this or that climate policy from the likes of Palin and Will, the WaPo is giving conservatives a pass. Rejection of settled science is treated as a footnote. But without a shared set of facts, there are no rules, no constraints. Republicans can cavalierly demagogue anything Democrats offer, because hell, it's all just funny talk, a game of make believe.

There will never be a policy proposal sensible enough to gain support from people who do not acknowledge the problem the proposal is meant to address. You'd think that fact would merit notice!

So here's my modest proposal for Fred Hiatt and his ilk: Any conservative who writes about climate/energy legislation should be required to begin by stating clearly whether he or she believes the scientific consensus on warming. That fundamental fact colors everything else, so put it up front.

If they do not accept the science, then fine, let them tell us their preferred carbon-insensitive energy policy. Their fellow non-believers can debate the merits.

If they do accept the science, they can't simply reject the moderate (and inadequate) Democratic proposals for addressing the problem contained in ACES. They have to tell us how they would solve the problem. That's the benchmark.

That simple proposal won't make the climate debate sensible -- let's be realistic about our ambitions -- but it would move beyond the pretense that people like Palin and Will are involved in a good-faith debate.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Photo: Chalky LivesGeez, I gotta shout!
Every time I read about
Op-ed columns in the Po
Rife with Willful mis-info.
George is at it once again:
Every time he dips his pen
We are treated to a rant
Intellectually scant.
Luckily there do abound
Lots of people who have found
Interesting ways to take
Swipes at comments that are fake.
As they pointed out last time,
Data truly show our clime
Opposite from being well
Utterly is shot to hell.
Climate change is not a faction.
Here at last we’re taking action.
Even if we have to choose
Bellbottoms and platform shoes!
As you know, disco is back—
George should check his facts, that hack.

Read previous climate poems.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

A curious thing happened at Tuesday's morning meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the panel's infamous climate-change skeptic, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), cited NASA climatologist Jim Hansen in his screed against the House climate bill.

Yes, this is the same James Inhofe who once called climate change the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." And this is the same James Hansen who has been called the "the father of global warming," the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has repeatedly called for dramatic action to fight global warming.

Hansen, like Inhofe, is no fan of the Waxman-Markey bill. But for Inhofe -- a global warming denier -- to cite Hansen is irony bordering on satire. Hansen, after all, doesn't think the climate bill that passed in the House last month is strong enough to adequately address the problem of climate change.

Inhofe said at Tuesday's hearing that he agreed with Hansen that the Waxman-Markey bill is "not going to make any change" in the climate. "And he's Mr. Greenhouse Gas," added Inhofe.

In reality, Hansen acknowledges that climate change is caused by man-made, heat-trapping emissions, whereas Inhofe does not. And Hansen has said that he believes steps can be taken by the international community to combat global warming. Inhofe, meanwhile, thinks nothing humans do affect the Earth's climate.

It appears that Inhofe isn't alone. Skeptic Steve Milloy posted a piece on the Green Hell blog on Tuesday titled "Why we should love James Hansen." He argues:

Former Inhofe staffer Marc Morano, who now runs the skeptic site ClimateDepot.com, tweeted the story shortly thereafter: "Go Jim, go! Why we should love James Hansen."

Yes, it appears in denier land, the enemy of your enemy – in this case, the Waxman-Markey bill – is your friend. At least for now.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

What to make of the new climate poll