From the Department of What Were They Thinking?!?

Miss a Little, Miss a Lot...of Misinformation

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you" - Friedrich Nietzcshe

There are so few certainties in life: death, taxes, and of course, Fox News propagandist Robert Rees spreading misinformation about global warming. Death and taxes are both covered extensively elsewhere, so I'll write about how a transplant from Texas spreads misinformation locally in central Illinois.

On June 13th, I was making my usual trek to work, and like most days, my radio was tuned to the news and misinformation of Bloomington-Normal, a.k.a the Morning Rush with Robert Rees on Cities 92.9.

Robert Rees

The reason I tune into Cities 92.9 is because of the amusement I experience when I hear the unbelievably inane comments made by Robert and some of his regular callers (I'm looking at you Ed!). A common slogan used by the station is "miss a little, miss a lot" as though missing what Robert talks about may actually mean you missed something important, or perhaps even insightful. The problem there is that while Robert has opinions, they aren't very well researched opinions. He simply regurgitates a heaping helping of Fox News propaganda, without much thought into whether or not those positions have any basis in reality. On this particular day, Robert breached a topic I'm well versed in, and take very seriously; global warming.

ROBERT REES: There's some report coming from, I don't know, some place, that's basically saying that the Earth is heating up faster than previously believed, and I'm like, really? Because pretty much everything else I've seen coming out in the past couple months has been showing how we have not been having uh, things warm up faster, in fact, its been cooling.

Naturally, I was curious to hear where Robert was going to take this line of inquiry, since a recently published study in the science journal Geophysical Research Letters demonstrates that global warming as a whole is accelerating, despite a slowdown in atmospheric warming.

Accelerated global warming at a time when atmospheric warming is slowing down may sound counter-intuitive, but only for those who think that atmospheric temperature trends are representative of global warming as a whole. In reality, the lion's share - upwards of 90% - of global warming takes place in the earth's oceans.  The warming of the atmosphere - which science deniers focus all of their attention on as it fluctuates up and down, yet trends upward - only represents around 2% of the total increase in global warming.

Here's a graphical representation of the heat distribution associated with global warming:

As you can see, atmospheric warming represents a percentage of the area represented by the color red, which is itself only a small portion of the bigger picture.

In the study, titled "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content" the authors point out that the deep ocean is accumulating significant heat. Prior studies had focused on ocean heat accumulation to depths of 700 m, but with this new research, scientists realized that a significant amount of heat is accumulating in waters that go much deeper.

From the abstract:

"In the last decade, about 30% of the [ocean] warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend"

I'm not at all surprised that Robert didn't mention the source for the claim that global warming is accelerating. That claim comes from a paper published in an actual peer reviewed scientific journal, and as you'll soon see, Robert only mentions papers published in science journals when he thinks, or wants his audience to think, that they mirror his own anti-scientific views on global warming.

Robert continues:

ROBERT REES: In fact, there's an article from the BBC, here's the title; Climate Slowdown Means Extreme Rates of Warming Not as Likely. And it's a, writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say that there has been a stand still in the heating of the earth's atmosphere, and this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades. The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now, and earlier this year the UK Met office lowered their five year temperature forecast. It says this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures.

How odd. Not a single reference to cooling appears in Robert's description of the article. In fact, it doesn't appear to be an article about cooling at all, it sounds more like an article about a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric warming, which as I've already pointed out from the study referenced above, doesn't mean that global warming as a whole is slowing down, and it certainly doesn't mean cooling, except I suppose for residents of Planet Robert.

Robert continues:

ROBERT REES: Uh, long story short, the scientists, even the global warming scientists, the big uh, the sky is falling individuals, they're going uh, you know what, we're kind of at a stand still on temperatures, they really haven't changed that much.

Long story short, is that Robert's summary bears little resemblance to his description of the article. According to his own words, the article doesn't say anything about how much temperatures have changed, only that the change in atmospheric temperatures is not happening as rapidly as previously predicted.

Just for fun, I pulled up the article myself using a google search, and immediately recognized that by leaving out key statements, Robert had intentionally misrepresented the article. The reason he did this is obvious; many of those statements undermine the point Robert was trying to make.

For example, Robert read this line from the article:

"The researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades."

But skipped over the very next line which says:

"But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly."

He also read this line from the article:

"But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures"

But did not read the rest of the sentence, which says:

"in both the short-term and long-term."

Clearly, this is not an article that supports global warming denial. It's main message is that in the short-term, atmospheric warming is still occurring, but at a rate that is slower than previously predicted. But in the long-term, the expected warming will be essentially what has been predicted all along. Robert tried to pass off this article as being about how warming isn't occurring at all, but obviously, that isn't true.

There are some other interesting tidbits in the BBC article that Robert would never mention on his show. One of those is the statement that these results are consistent with IPCC predictions that were made back in 2007.

And finally, there's this little tidbit at the end of the article:

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

Is there any succor in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

And if Robert's description of the article wasn't misleading enough, take a look at the description Cities 92.9 used to describe the podcast of this discussion:

"Some changing opinions on climate change from climate scientists"

Lyndon B. Johnson

It is true that opinions are changing among climate scientists regarding climate change, just not in the direction that Cities 92.9 would mislead their audience into believing. We've come a long way since Lyndon Johnson made this statement in an address to the Congress in 1965:

LYNDON JOHNSON: Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Today, upwards of 97% of the world's climate experts agree that human activities are to blame for global warming.

I've demonstrated previously that Cities 92.9 generally, and Robert Rees in particular, are not reliable sources on the subject of global warming. But in those previous instances, I attributed this incompetence to gross ignorance. No more. I now believe that Robert and Cities 92.9 are actively trying to mislead the public. So much for Robert's claimed advocacy for "the good morals and values that established this country."

Happy New Year!

Could Have Made the Same Point by Tattooing Bigot on His Forehead

The latest entry in the long line of racist Obama displays. This one gets credited to Danny Hafley, a resident of Kentucky.

When asked about it, Danny said "the way I look at it, it's freedom of speech". And he's absolutely right of course, and now I'd like to exercise a little freedom of speech:

Danny, you're a bigot, and an asshole. 

Man I love that First Amendment.


For those who aren't aware of the footsteps that Danny's following in, here's a taste of the few I could stomach posting:

 

Local Conservative Voice Hosts a Merchant of Doubt - Part II

"Time after time, history demonstrates that when people don't want to believe something, they have enormous skills of ignoring it altogether." - Jim Butcher, Dead Beat

I stated in the first post of this series that I had emailed a question to Robert Rees - host of the Morning Rush on Cities 92.9 - in the hopes that Robert would pose my question to Steve Goreham, author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic. Robert did ask my question, and as expected, Goreham either couldn't or wouldn't answer it. Before I reveal the question and Goreham's answer, I'd like to explain the construction of the question itself.

I spent some time reading Goreham's website, trying to get a feel for his position on the issue of global warming. Noticeably absent from his site was any attempt to confront any of the evidence for anthropogenic causes. Basically, it's a website chock full of red herrings, and climate change myths. I even watched an interview Goreham did on Fox News on Oct. 24, 2012, and found him providing much of the same of what he does on his website, like putting emphasis on things that are true, but don't call into question anthropogenic global warming. here's a sampling from that interview:

STUART VARNEY: Have we been had?

STEVE GOREHAM: Absolutely. The world is spending over 250 billion dollars a year to try and decarbonize right now, yet more and more evidence shows that climate change is natural, and man-made influences are very very small.

I couldn't verify Goreham's statement that the world is spending over 250 billion a year on decarbonization, but he is correct that climate change occurs naturally, and man-made influences on climate change are small in comparison to natural processes. But none of those facts calls into question any of the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Arguing that the climate changes naturally shouldn't be confused with an argument that humans can't influence change, and arguing that our contribution is small shouldn't be confused with an argument that small contributions can't have large consequences. So, in the context of discussing AGW, Goreham's statements are simply red herrings, nothing more.

So in constructing my question, I wanted to put Goreham in a position of having to address some actual evidence, since avoiding it seemed to be his standard operating procedure. For me, this was a test of whether he was even familiar enough with the evidence to be able to address it, which would help to determine whether I was dealing with a skeptic, or a denier. A skeptic being someone who takes into consideration all of the available evidence before drawing conclusions, while a denier starts with a conclusion, and ignores all of the evidence that doesn't advance that conclusion's narrative. Goreham's website contains the signature of a denier.

For my question, I focused on 3 facts, which are as follows:

1. Global Mean Temperature is Rising.

Despite claims to the contrary, the global mean temperature is rising. The evidence for this is extensive, and while there are still those who claim it is not rising, their numbers are dwindling, and the remaining hold outs are ignored even in denier circles.

2. CO2 is Rising in the Atmosphere Due to Human Activities.

We know that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere due to human activities because we know how much CO2 humans produce each year, and we also know the extent of the CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere. It turns out that the accumulating amount is about half of what we produce. That means that half of our CO2 is absorbed into the carbon cycle, and the other half offsets a natural balance, thus causing it to increase in the atmosphere. This isn't rocket science. We also know that a natural property of CO2 is heat retention. This isn't rocket science either. More CO2 means more heat retention. QED.

3. Radiation Emitted Into Space at the Same Wavelength as that Given Off by CO2 is Decreasing.

This is something that has been uncovered using satellite measurements. We know enough about CO2 to know the specific wavelength of the heat that it absorbs, and later emits. What has been shown to be happening is that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the heat emitted back into space at the same wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 is decreasing. This is direct evidence that the increased heat in the atmosphere is due to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not rocket science.

There are many more lines of evidence, but I couldn't possibly squeeze them all into my question, so the ones above were the ones I focused on. With that said, here is the question I emailed to Robert:

Mr. Goreham, you claim there is no empirical evidence for man-made global warming, yet we know empirically that the global mean temperature of the Earth is rising, we also know empirically that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activities, and we know empirically that decreasing levels of radiation (heat) are being emitted back into space at the same wavelength as that given off by CO2. The climate science community accepts these facts as empirical evidence of man-made global warming, why don't you, and why is your opinion on the matter relevant, as you have no educational background in any of the fields that study climate?

And here is Steve Goreham's answer:

"Yeah, there's a whole bunch of questions there, and of course, we have had some recent warming, and we have uh, some reduced arctic ice and some other ice, but the important thing for people to remember is that uh, melting is evidence of warming, but not what is causing the warming, and that's where everything breaks down. The link between the tiny man-made emissions relative to the rest of the carbon cycle and to say that's causing all these effects like hurricanes, stronger hurricanes and melting ice, that's where everything breaks down."

So, in response to a question loaded with references to empirical links between man-made CO2 and rising temperatures, Goreham simply says warming isn't evidence of what is causing the warming and downplays the significance of CO2 in the carbon cycle. As expected, his answer doesn't even begin to address the question asked, or speak to any of the evidence. Goreham had the opportunity to put the results of his "research" on full display, but he chose instead to go full dodge. I was now officially convinced that Steve Goreham is not a skeptic, he is a denier. He doesn't know what the evidence is, and probably doesn't care, he just knows that peddling doubt pads his pockets. A real charlatan.

I'll address more of the interview with Robert Rees and Steve Goreham soon. I've contacted some experts regarding some of Goreham's statements, and they've confirmed much of what I suspected. Should be lots of fun.

Schooling Steve Goreham

"Refudiate, misunderestimate, wee-wee'd up. English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!" - Sarah Palin responds to criticism for inventing the word "refudiate", by proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010.

Last week, I posted comments that were critical of author Steve Goreham and his definition for the term climatism; a term coined by Goreham. In my post, I called Goreham's definition a strawman, and stated that that alone was sufficient reason to dismiss without further comment his first book Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic. Goreham took issue with my characterization of his definition, so in an attempt to defend it, he stopped by this blog and left a comment. The comment wasn't much of an argument though, as it consisted of 7 quotes that Goreham had extracted from speeches made by various public figures. Presumably, Goreham hoped to demonstrate with those quotes the existence of individuals who fit his definition of climatism, which could only mean that my characterization was wrong.

But that's not how things played out.

Here is Steve's quote in it's entirety, the emphasis included is mine:

Regarding the definition of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, see the following quotes from Al Gore, James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Jonathan Overpeck, Joseph Romm, and Evo Morales. They talk about destroying the climate, the Earth, civilization, coastal cities, cultures, and nations from man-made climate change. As you can see, "destroy" is a favorite word of those supporting the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.

"We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home--Earth--is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings." --Al Gore, statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 28, 2009

"We the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency--a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential...the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising...indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself." -- Al Gore, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Dec. 10, 2007

"Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed." --Dr James Hansen, letter to Barack and Michelle Obama, Dec. 29, 2008

"One problem facing humanity is now so urgent that, unless it is resolved in the next two decades, it will destroy our global civilization: the climate crisis." --Dr Tim Flannery, Now or Never. Why We Must Act to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future, 2009, p.14

"The consequences would be catastrophic. Even with a small sea-level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that have existed for thousands of years." --Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, National Geographic News, Apr. 26, 2004

"Protecting dozens of major coastal cities from future flooding will be challenging enough--rebuilding major coastal cities destroyed by super-hurricanes will be an almost impossible task." --Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: Global Warming--theSolution and the Politics--and What We Should Do, 2007, p.90

"Capitalism and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet...Climate change has placed all humankind before a great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life." --Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Nov. 28, 2008

Cheers!

While reading Steve's quotes, two things occurred to me:

First, all of the quotes use variations of the word destroy, but none speak to the destruction of the Earth's climate. Not a single one. Steve obviously sees things that just aren't there.

Second, Steve claims to be a full time researcher; a claim which carries with it all that is implied by those who conduct research, including the assumption that said researcher accounts for the full body of evidence, not just those things that reinforce their preconceived notions. Yet, here he is, thinking that a single quote from one speech on one specific date can be used to establish belief, even when the quote is only peripherally related. And this guy wants to sell books based on his research? Pathetic.

Obviously, Steve had taken his best shot, and he couldn't produce a solitary example of a person expressing a belief that man-made greenhouse gases would destroy the Earth's climate. So I replied to Steve's comment, explaining that his group of quotes had failed to justify his definition, to which he replied with the following:

I recommend that you re-read those quotes again. One of the quotes by Gore was in testimony to the United States Senate. The quote by Dr. James Hansen was in a letter to President Obama. I don't hink either person was kidding. One of the marks of a Climatist is that, when  evidence is presented, they are unable to admit when they are wrong.

Cheers!

I'm not sure which made me laugh more; the fact that Steve considers his quotes to be convincing evidence for his claim, or his newly expanded definition for climatism that includes anyone who disagrees with him, even when he's demonstrably wrong. So I replied again with the following:

Hansen and Gore are not referring to the destruction of the Earth's climate, they are referring to the destruction of the climatic conditions that we as humans are used to, and that are hospitable to us. Those are different things Steve, re-reading the quotes doesn't change that fact. Of course, there is a way to settle this bit of disagreement. If you redefine the term climatism so that it describes the position of real flesh and blood people, I'll have no choice but to quit referring to it as a strawman. Let me know if that is a satisfactory proposal Steve.

No word back from Steve yet regarding my proposal.

Local Conservative Voice Hosts a Merchant of Doubt - Part I

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."  - Statement contained in a 1969 internal memo of American tobacco company Brown and Williamson.

On December 2nd, I was tipped off by the host of The Morning Rush - a local radio show - that author Steve Goreham would be appearing on the show the following day. The radio station, Cities 92.9, which identifies itself as the "news and talk of Bloomington Normal", is one that I listen to regularly, although I prefer to call it the news and misinformation of Bloomington Normal, primarily because of the misinformation it dishes out during talk segments, particularly when those segments deal with science.

Robert Rees, the host of The Morning Rush, provided me with the tip about the interview during an email exchange we were having about global warming. Robert had made some rather dubious claims on-air a couple weeks prior, and I had contacted him via email to give him the opportunity to clarify his position prior to criticizing those claims online. Like I said, my email to Robert was about claims he had made about global warming, which had nothing to do with Steve Goreham. It was only after Robert suggested that I might be interested in the Steve Goreham interview the following day, that Steve Goreham became a topic in our discussion. Prior to Robert bringing him up, I had never heard of the guy, and had no knowledge of a prior interview with him in the past, or that he had an impending interview with him the following day. These facts are important to remember because of some statements Robert made the following day while interviewing Steve Goreham. I'll address those statements later in this piece, as they provide a glimpse into the psyche of a guy who by all reasonable standards, plays very loosely with facts.

After Robert tipped me off about the interview, I decided to see what I could find out about Steve Goreham on line. Robert had stated that Steve Goreham was the author of a book called Climatism, which sounded vaguely familiar to me. After doing a basic google search, and finding the web page for Climatism, I realized why. I had touched on this book briefly in a prior piece that was critical of Robert's resources. In fact, I had dismissed the book as rubbish based solely on the author's own definition of the term climatism, which he describes as follows:

"The belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth's climate."

Why did I dismiss the book because of this description? Because it is a strawman. No one who knows anything about the science behind global warming believes that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth's climate. What they believe is that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's climate, at a rate unparalleled by historical natural means, a belief by the way that is supported by empirical evidence. Goreham's use of the term destroy, rather than change, shows he's either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant, neither of which entices me, or should entice anyone for that matter, to read his book. Call me odd, but I like my science with a heavy dose of honesty.

And of course, there's more, much more.

Steve Goreham has a M.S. in Electrical Engineering, and a MBA, both of which help in the argument that Steve Goreham is no dummy, but oddly enough, he has no credentials related to climate science. Of course, that doesn't disqualify him from having an opinion on the matter, after all, I don't have any credentials related to climate science either. But I don't publish books on the subject, and travel the countryside giving talks where I'm introduced as a climate expert, as Steve Goreham often is.

Many of Steve Goreham's speaking engagements are hosted by the Heartland Institute, an organization that receives millions from Exxon Mobile and the Koch brothers, both of whom have a financial interest in stalling or stopping regulations related to CO2. To get a feel for the type of organization that the Heartland Institute is, one need look no further than their recent billboard campaign. From the Wikipedia description:

"On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, "I still believe in global warming, do you? The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question."

There was a silver lining to the billboard campaign however, because of it, Heartland lost a significant number of corporate donors, and with that, significant funding. What they didn't lose was a guy named Steve Goreham, who appeared later that same month to speak at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). That alone speaks volumes about Steve Goreham.

So there I sat with the knowledge that Steve Goreham, the author of Climatism, and good friend of the Heartland Institute, was going to be sitting down to an interview the following day with our own local science denier, Robert Rees. I wanted badly to ask Steve Goreham a question, but I knew I'd be at work during the interview, and Robert probably wouldn't take calls anyway, as I'd never heard him take calls during an interview before. So, I sat down, and I composed a question that I wanted to hear Steve answer, and I emailed it to Robert. To my surprise, Robert asked my question. The question and answer are interesting, and I will address those soon enough, but what I want to address now is how Robert presented my question.

As I pointed out in the second paragraph above, I had never heard of Steve Goreham prior to Robert's email, and my question was composed and emailed back that same night, which was the night before the interview. Here's how Robert introduced my question:

Well, let me uh, let me start right off here because you are the, I said you're the director of Climate Science Coalition of America, and I had uh some people email me after the last time I had you on, and I want to kind of go back to some of their, some of their stuff, cause I had some, I don't know I'd call them attacks or whatever. I figured hey, let's go ahead and put it out here so I'm not being totally biased, even though I, I think these are a bunch of crazy whackos, I call them Earth lickers by the way, I think I told you that before, the uh, climate alarmists.

Did you catch that? Robert started the interview by lying to his guest.

He insinuated that my question was the result of a previous interview with Steve Goreham, and that he'd been hanging onto it ever since. He could have told Mr. Goreham that he and I were discussing climate change the night before, that Mr. Goreham's interview the following day came up, and that I had requested that he ask Mr. Goreham a question, after all, that would have been truthful. But he didn't do that, instead he chose to lie. Why lying came easier than telling the truth is anyone's guess, although, it could be that the inhabitants of Planet Robert just don't care much about the truth.

In Part II of this series, I'll post the question I emailed to Robert, along with Steve Goreham's answer. I think you'll find as I did that Steve does a wonderful job in the interview of exposing himself, not as an expert in the science of climate, but as an expert in the art of obfuscation.

Steve Goreham is no dummy, he knows that his craft is very profitable when put into the service of peddling doubt.

Oh look, there goes Steve now.