Business, Economics, Education, General Science, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Climate Exaggerators

16 Comments

Cliff Mass on the academic wages of debunking them:

Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this, I get savaged by some “environmentalists” and media. I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil companies, and stuff I could not repeat in this family friendly blog. Sometimes it is really hurtful. Charles Mudede of the Stranger is one of worst of the crowd, calling me “dangerous” and out of my mind (see example below).

A postdoc at the UW testified at the Environment Committee of the Washington State House saying that I was a contrarian voice. I spoke to her in person a few days later and asked where my science was wrong–she could not name one thing. But she told me that my truth telling was “aiding” the deniers. We agreed to disagree.

My efforts do not go unnoticed at the UW, with my department chairman and leadership in the UW Climate Impacts Group telling me of “concerns” with my complaints about hyped stories on oyster deaths and snowpack. One UW professor told me that although what I was saying was true, I needed to keep quiet because I was helping “the skeptics.” Probably not good for my UW career.

I believe scientists must provide society with the straight truth, without hype or exaggeration, and that we must correct false or misleading information in the media. It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing.” History is full of tragic examples of deceiving the public to promote the “right thing”–such as weapons of mass destruction claims and the Iraq War.

Global warming forced by increasing greenhouse gases is an extraordinarily serious challenge to our species that will require both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (preparing ourselves to deal with the inevitable changes). Society can only make the proper decisions if they have scientists’ best projections of what will happen in the future, including the uncertainties.

What a concept.

16 thoughts on “Climate Exaggerators”

  2. History is full of tragic examples of deceiving the public to promote the “right thing”–such as weapons of mass destruction claims and the Iraq War.

    … and he lost me.

    Maybe he should go read the Robb-Silberman report, where even Democrats looking to hang President Bush couldn’t find more than interpretations they disagreed with, rather than actual deception.

    1. Well, it’s a way of saying, “Look, I’m one of you, so you should listen to what I am saying.”

      1. ^^

        Just like he has to say he agrees with everything about AGW except for a few things that are wrong.

    2. Maybe he should go read the Robb-Silberman report, where even Democrats looking to hang President Bush couldn’t find more than interpretations they disagreed with, rather than actual deception.

      People make mistakes. But these were huge and glaring. Further. these alleged mistakes worked to the considerable advantage of the people who allegedly made them. That’s awfully convenient. And I’m not one to give a politician the benefit of the doubt.

  3. Sigivald, can you explain to me the advantages of tribalism in the science debate?

    Why does position / alignment on independent issues matter for any individual issue? For example, I think Bush was correct on the idea of “Reading First” and phonics in the elementary school system, but incorrect in the idea of federally imposed targets and tests. What does either have to do with invading Iraq or affirming Kyoto Protocols?

    1. He was responding to the tribalist conspiracy theory that wasn’t related to the point the author was making. Expressing disagreement with it isn’t a big deal, just like you expressed disagreements with Bush’s policies.

  4. I had a look at Cliff Mass’s blog and came across his post on the death of a pine tree, he quotes part of an article in the Seattle Times:

    “The cause of death was climate change: steadily warming and drier summers, that stressed the tree in its position atop a droughty knoll.”

    And then Mass goes on at length claiming the article fully attributes the tree death to climate change – but the full paragraph from the Seattle Times is:

    “The cause of death was climate change: steadily warming and drier summers, that stressed the tree in its position atop a droughty knoll. Red turpentine beetles, catching the scent of stress chemicals emitted by the tree as it struggled, bored in.”

    and the following paragraph in the Times:

    “The beetles chewed and fed on the tree’s phloem, conduits just below the bark for the tree’s life-giving juices. Just as damaging, the beetles were vectors for fungus that plugged up other conduits carrying water into the tree. It wasn’t long before arborist Clif Edwards, making his usual rounds, noticed something amiss in the pinetum, the collection of pines at the arboretum.”

    Cliff Mass does NOT ONCE mention the role that the beetles played in killing the tree or that the Times had described that the tree had died not from drought but from beetle attack, instead Mass misleads his readers implying that the claim was that it was entirely climate change induced drought that was the culprit.

    On that basis I don’t rate Cliff Mass as an honest or reliable source.

    1. But the quotes you provide say that the Seattle Times said the death was from global warming and not pine beetles. IOW, the pine beetles would not exist in that tree if it wasn’t for global warming. Pine beetles have been around for a long time. An old tree atop a hill with poor soil will always be a likely victim of pine beetles, regardless of global warming.

      Weather moves in cycles, especially in the PNW.

    2. How would the beetles have found the tree if it hadn’t been stressed by global warming? Do they naturally congregate atop droughty knolls? Is the trees phlegm more tasty if the tree is stressed? Do the beetles know that they are feasting on the very life-giving juices that the tree needs?

      Interested beetleologists want to know Andrew.

      1. Eh, sorry to intrude on the sarcasm, but in this case, stressed, drought-affected, and older trees all produce less pitch and hence, are less able to suffocate the invaders. Whether or not they are tasty, they are more survivable environments for the pine bark beetle. But perhaps the gratuitous poetry does get in the way of the understanding.

        1. You’re all missing the point: there were no pine beetles before we started burning fossil fuels, and there would have been little point, since there were no ailing trees to attract them. We didn’t listen!

  5. OK, I see now. The Seattle Times blamed climate change for the tree wearing a skimpy outfit, which in turn brought it to the attention of beetles that then assaulted it.

    Claiming that the Seattle Times blamed the tree’s demise on climate change is like saying a tree was “asking for it”, which is blatantly tree-ist. I’m glad we got record straight on this matter.

    1. The beetles are just misunderstood. There are probably billions of beetles in the world, and this is a very small percentage of them. We harvest trees, too, so who are we to judge? Think of the chil… er, larvae!

Comments are closed.