Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

Slate’s Emily Yoffe shows just how successful the Denyers’ disinformation campaign has been. Here is what she wrote in the Washington Post today:

Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: “NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for Atlanta, Chicago, DC in Summer.” But I regained my cool when I realized the forecast was for close to the end of the century. Thanks to all the heat-mongering, it’s supposed to be a sign I’m in denial because I refuse to trust a weather prediction for August 2080, when no one can offer me one for August 2008 (or 2007 for that matter).

There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I’m oddly reassured. We’ve seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.

It’s also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can’t agree about the present – or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed).

Sad that a smart writer like Yoffe would buy into 4 or 5 major Denyer talking points by my count, including the infamous: “we can’t predict the weather, therefore, we can’t predict the climate” — a favorite of Michael Crichton’s.

These myths are all debunked here, a valuable resource I will comment more on later in the week.

Note that Yoffe is right that “hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low” — but that could just as easily apply to predictions (like hers) that we don’t have to worry about climate change. I’ll stick with the predictions of climate scientists, especially since they have so far underestimated climate impacts and feedbacks.

Washington Post: The First Major Change in Fuel Efficiency Law since 1975. “The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation’s vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters. After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.”

Wall Street Journal (subs. req’d): Democrats Achieve “Sweeping” Energy Legislation. “The Senate, voting 65-27, approved sweeping energy legislation that would increase fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, provide tax incentives for development of alternative fuels and require far greater use of ethanol and other so-called renewable automotive fuels…The measure was on hold for hours last night as supporters rounded up senators, many of whom had already left their Capitol offices for the day. Early in the evening, senators on a quick voice vote approved higher automobile fuel-economy standards, an important step toward the first increases in more than two decades and a major defeat for Detroit’s Big Three auto makers.” (Wall Street Journal, 6/22/07)

New York Times: Democrats fight off push by car manufacturers, achieve victory. “The Senate passed a broad energy bill late Thursday that would, among other things, require the first big increase in fuel mileage requirements for passenger cars in more than two decades. The vote, 65 to 27, was a major defeat for car manufacturers, which had fought for a much smaller increase in fuel economy standards and is expected to keep fighting as the House takes up the issue.”

New Scientist is usually sharp, but not with the poll that led them to conclude, “the US public has a clear preference for action in the electricity sector rather than vehicle fuel.” The methodology was flawed:

We split the sample into three groups. One was told that the vehicle fuel policies would result in the price of a gallon rising to $4. The second group was told that a gallon would rise to $7 and the third $15. We did the same for electricity, telling the groups that a typical monthly bill would rise from $85 to either $87, $95 or $155. Then we presented all the respondents with the six policies and for each asked: “If an election were being held today, would you vote in favour of this policy or would you vote against it?”

Gosh, people would rather their electricity bill rise a little than their gasoline bill rise a lot. Duh.

And this polling completely misses the point that you can cut emissions in both sectors without raising energy bills — if you focus on energy efficiency.

Jeers to New Scientist for trying to pass off this silliness as serious analysis.