Conjunctions

A certain Tom Russell, chief meteorologist (!) at CBS Channel 21 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, penned this op-ed at The Patriot-News.  It is not really worth commenting on, but I guess I’m up for the exercise. It is a prime example of just how lazy climate change deniers' thinking can be. Here is a list of his obvious, and by now familiar, lies:

• Mistaking weather for climate:  Mr. Russell starts off by implying that seasonal changes in weather disproves changes in climate.  A bit further on he disingenuously says: “So, when I see humans trying to blame weather cycles on something other than nature, I get incensed”.  But off course, we are not talking about weather.  It should not require this much effort to understand the difference between a local mico phenomenon, weather,  and global macro climate. This has been addressed before.

• Pretending climate is cooling: “But did you know the June-August 2009 tempera­ture for the whole U.S. was below av­erage?”, he asks.  He conveniently ignores that temperature figures even for the whole U.S.  does not tell us anything about global temperature.  Hard to believe I know, but in terms of the whole Earth, the whole U.S. is merely local.  And measurements in the rest of the planet that disproves his insinuations are comfortably ignored. Please look at the full set of figures to see the global pattern.

• Insulting his opponents:  He calls us arrogant, and implies that we are stupid.  Just appreciate this statement: “Ironically, the same people who tease me about not getting the seven-day forecast correct totally believe in the faulty science that says we can predict the weather 100 years from now.” 

• Quotes discredited experts: In this case Roy Spencer, who proves that combining right-wing fantasies (climate skepticism and intelligent design) can make you popular with Rush Limbaugh.

• Implying that climate change is natural and there is no problem: This is probably the most infuriating sleight-of-hand argument, a special favorite of Roy Spencer mentioned above.  As I’ve posted before, this is completely irrelevant:  it does not really matter who or what causes it, we still need to live with the changing conditions.  On his homepage, Spencer himself concludes that '”Climate change — it happens, with or without our help”,  so no question that we have a problem.

• Providing pseudo-scientific observations:  For example, Mr. Russell maintains that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”.  I suppose because we breath it? I know a little trick Mr. Russell can use to prove how benign carbon dioxide really is – it only involves a car, a hose and a running engine.

These unscientific propagandists should not be allowed outside their fantasy theme parks.

“It does not really matter who or what causes it, we still need to live with the changing conditions.”

Of course it matters what is causing it. This is what Cap&Trade depends on. If humans weren’t responsible, Cap&Trade would be irrelevant. If it were caused by the Sun then Co2 would be out of the picture, and there would be no need to limit carbon emissions. But the whole Carbon emissions trading industry depends entirely on the theory that humans are responsible for changing the climate. To say that it does not matter who or what is causing climate change shows that you don't understand what is at stake in the climate change battle. The climate denialists don’t deny that the climate changes, they deny that humans are responsible. There is a huge difference there.


Regarding your last point, surely you don't really think that Co2 is a pollutant. Come on now. I have some extremely green environmental friends who don't believe that line. They cringe every time they hear someone make that suggestion, simply because it is unsupportable and makes the entire Greene movement look idiotic. If you fill your living space with water you’ll drown but water is not a pollutant (Unless the EPA says it is of course, and someday they probably will).

Thanks for your reaction Klem. I guess I did not express myself clearly. Let me try to clarify:

As for the causes of climate change being irrelevant, I mean in so far it is an excuse for non-action. The full scientific picture about climate change will remain complex and changing as we learn more. I am worried that deniers use the natural scientific uncertaintly to nitpick at details and obstruct action. So, yes, it does matter that climate change is caused by humans for how we deal with it, but not for the fact that we deal with it.

Regarding CO2 as a pollutant. To me, the exact chemical classifications are not that important. To pollute means 'to make foul or unclean, to render less effective or efficient'. In this sense, like the water in your example, excess CO2 in our environment pollutes.