Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Gregg Easterbrook is a Liar and a Fraud

Gregg Easterbrook wants us to know that it is now officially "reasonable" to be concerned about climate change.

Does this mean that people who previously denied climate change were not reasonable? Of course not! It doesn't work that way. The center-right position is synonymous with reason; as such, it can grant validity to other positions, but can't be invalidated itself.

Thus, Easterbrook patiently explains that skepticism and even denialism were "reasonable" until quite recently:

Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991.
Now, when someone quotes only a few words from an untitled scientific report, it always piques my curiosity. It seems very likely that Easterbrook is referring to Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, which was produced by an NAS synthesis panel in 1991. If so, it looks as though Easterbrook skimmed the introduction, and found this:
There is no evidence yet of imminent rapid change [my emphasis]. But if the higher GCM projections prove to be accurate, substantial responses would be needed, and the stresses on this planet and its inhabitants would be serious.
The phrase "there is no evidence yet" appears nowhere else in the report, judging from a search of its contents.

Just to underscore the dishonesty of Easterbrook's quote-mining, here's an excerpt from the findings and conclusions:
The panel finds that, even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses....Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.
The report goes on to make recommendations for "reducing or offsetting" greenhouse gas emissions, including regulatory caps, incentives, and taxes ("policy decisions," in other words). It also notes:
The fact that people can adapt, or even that they are likely to do so, does not mean that the best policy is to wait for greenhouse warming to occur and let them adapt. Waiting and adapting may sacrifice overall economic improvement in the long run.
Next, Easterbrook dusts off this classic bit of disinformation:
A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress.
At the risk of shocking you, this is not true:
Gallup actually reported that 66 percent of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with only 10 percent disagreeing and the rest undecided. Gallup took the unusual step of issuing a written correction to Will's column (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92): "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now." Will never noted the error in his column.
Easterbrook has another piece of evidence:
In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming.
Note that this quote follows the earlier pattern: Easterbrook transplants five words from an unknown context, and makes them refer to a conclusion of his own choosing. I couldn't find the quote in question, so I'll have to let this one go unchallenged for now.

I think I've made my point. But inasmuch as Easterbrook likes to present himself as a scientific wunderkind, I'll address one final issue:
Many greenhouse uncertainties remain, including whether rising temperatures would necessarily be bad. A warming world might moderate global energy demand: the rise in temperature so far has mostly expressed itself as milder winters, not hotter summers. Warming might open vast areas of Alaska, Canada and Russia to development.
First, a warmer world means colder oceans, which very likely means colder and more severe winters. The reasonable folks at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute explain:
Warming is causing more water to evaporate from the tropics, more rainfall in subpolar and polar regions, and more ice to melt at high latitudes. As a result, fresh water is being lost from the tropics and added to the ocean at higher latitudes. In the North Atlantic Ocean, the additional fresh water can change ocean circulation patterns, disrupting or redirecting currents that now carry warm water to the north. Redirecting or slowing this "Atlantic heat pump" would mean colder winters in the northeast U.S. and Western Europe. But the heat gained from higher greenhouse gas concentrations is still in the climate system, just elsewhere. The result: a warmer earth, a colder North Atlantic.
Second, a warmer world means more energy demand for - hold on to your hats - air conditioning. Third, melting tundra in the North is likely to release untold amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating the warming process:
The 3 to 7 degree rise in temperature predicted by global climate models could cause the breakdown of the arctic tundra’s vast store of soil carbon, releasing more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the air than plants are capable of taking in, said Michelle Mack, a University of Florida ecologist (formerly of the University of Alaska Fairbanks) and one of the lead researchers on a study published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.
I seldom urge letter-writing campaigns, but you might consider politely asking the New York Times to explain why it allows Easterbrook to impose on its readers with this noxious blend of deceptive quote-mining and hard-right pseudoscience.

11 comments:

AJ said...

Done! And thanks for digging out those distortions and misconceptions.

I'm writing a blog post about the use of the passive voice to obscure erroneous data, by the way, which neatly ties in how many climate-deniers try to sound more objective and reasonable than humanly possible...

¡El Gato Negro! said...

But, but...

a letter campaign could seriously deestract la Señora Vieja Gris from her solemn duty of sniffing the Clinton's underwear drawers.

so.

Phila said...

AJ,

Thanks!

As I've said before, I think, it's not even the dishonesty that bothers me, it's the contempt. I picture these people thinking, "I won't get caught, 'cause no one's going to check this stuff. And even if someone does, no one will pay any attention. And even if someone does pay attention, it's not going to affect my career in any way."

Your post sounds great...I'll keep an eye out for it.

roger said...

that sea level rising thing, a result of icecap melting, could be good too. lots of new shoreline. and won't the moving business pick up.

Thersites said...

I'm not even sure Easterbrook even knows that he's spouting nonsense. He seems the type to believe that what he says is wise and true becasue otherwise he wouldn't be saying it.

Sir Oolius said...

Well, as an official member of the "non-skeptic heretics", he is now entitled to overstate minute details and disregard the majority of any report. Plus, any previous overstatement/disregard is immediately null and void.

Phila said...

Thers,

I'm not even sure Easterbrook even knows that he's spouting nonsense. He seems the type to believe that what he says is wise and true becasue otherwise he wouldn't be saying it.

That's what I've always thought about him, too. But no longer. When you try to back up your position with a scientific report, and you don't identify it by name, and you take only five words out of it, and you don't accurately paraphrase what those words refer to...you're a liar, in my book.

Maybe there's another NAS report from 1991, and it says something totally different, and Easterbrook never read the one I'm quoting. I could accept that, sort of. Or at least, I'd accept that he was being merely sloppy. But I don't see any evidence that the NAS released any other CC report in that year, let alone one that contradicted the findings in this one. So I really think he knows what he's doing here....the page on which "there is no evidence yet" appears is pretty goddamn alarmist.

monkeygrinder said...

I think it is perfectly fair to judge people based on how they write. Easterbrook is a slippery devil.

I note also that Michael Shermer (arch-skeptico) cheerfully backed off of his own climate change "skepticism" in the latest SciAm. My, my. Why DO people believe weird things?

Everyone must have recieved the same memo.

Interrobang said...

Did I miss something or was 1991 fifteen years ago? Nobody's mentioned this before (too obvious, maybe), but it seems to me that if you're going to talk about the scientific consensus on an issue, you should use, oh, say, recent studies and articles?

Otherwise, all you've got is one of those fabled "historical documents."


I'm getting tired of this crap. I'm writing a long article on General Motors and transit history, and I feel like I've been swimming in mendacity. I wish I could get paid large sums of money to blatantly lie to people, too, well, except for that "conscience" thingy I seem to have been cursed with.

Phila said...

Interrobang:

Did I miss something or was 1991 fifteen years ago? Nobody's mentioned this before (too obvious, maybe), but it seems to me that if you're going to talk about the scientific consensus on an issue, you should use, oh, say, recent studies and articles?

Well, if you read the full article, the basic argument is that it was OK to be a skeptic until very recently (2003, IIRC). The (fabricated) 1991 viewpoint that there wasn't enough info to make policy decisions held true until roughly then, according to him.

It's all lies and trumpery, needless to say.

I wish I could get paid large sums of money to blatantly lie to people, too, well, except for that "conscience" thingy I seem to have been cursed with.

It's a burden, alright. For some reason, I've been brooding a lot the last couple of days about the disadvantages of having a conscience when debating people whose ethics are entirely situational and self-serving. But yeah, having a conscience can definitely cut into your earning power, too.

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購,A片,視訊聊天室,視訊,視訊聊天,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,聊天室,UT聊天室,免費視訊,視訊交友,免費視訊聊天室,A片,A片

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX,成人圖片區

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網


情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室