The PBS Documentary “Climate of Doubt” – Worth a Look

Posted on October 26, 2012 by bradleydibble

“I think that there is a group of people out there whose goal it is to make the policy debate over climate change toxic, just like Social Security, just like Medicare reform; this thing that if you talk about it, you’re just going to get creamed.”
—Andrew Dressler, professor of atmospheric studies at Texas A&M

This past week, the PBS show Frontline broadcast a documentary entitled “Climate of Doubt” which explored the massive shift in public opinion on climate change in the US over the last few years. I emphasize “the shift within the US” because throughout most of the rest of the world, there has been no such comparable shift.

If you’ve missed the broadcast, you can see it in its entirety here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

I watched it myself and was impressed at how much time was given to those who argue against global warming and climate change. Impressed mostly at how many were willing to talk on camera when the whole point of the program was how these individuals were helping to sway opinion away from what had previously been considered a standard and rational perspective. It’s interesting to see video clips form years past of people like Mitt Romney and Nute Gingrich stating unequivocally only a few years ago that climate change was real, that we are the biggest culprit behind it, and that we need to do something about it.

The broadcast does a good job of explaining how the shift of opinion has taken place over these last few years. It obviously can’t explore things to the same detail as the book “Merchants of Doubt” does (written by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway). But if people have only one hour to devote to learning more on this subject, the documentary does a good job of explaining what has happened.

Even the Heartland Institute gave the show some credit—I expected them to give none—but still criticizes the show, arguing that they only interviewed climate scientists who are not representative of the mainstream scientific community on the matter. However, some of their own group who were interviewed such as Christopher Monckton are seen on camera stating “Green is the new red,” implying that the only possible reason anyone would want to tackle climate change is to introduce a leftist agenda. In other words, “An attack on global warming is an attack on your freedom.”

I have my own opinions on the show, but I’d encourage you to watch it and formulate your own. Given the purpose of the documentary—to explore the shift in opinion rather than to address the debate itself—I think the producers did a great job.

Republicans Criticize One of Their Own for His Efforts at Tackling Global Warming

Posted on July 17, 2012 by bradleydibble

Last week I posted a blog about former congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina, and his efforts at promoting a carbon tax to deal with the issues of climate change. He wants to create solutions to the problem of global warming that fit with the ideologies of conservative voters. In his efforts to make the carbon tax a revenue-neutral effort, he even proposed a reduction in personal income tax. Although I have my doubts that a price on carbon will be a major contributor toward solving the problems of global warming—especially the way he proposes it—I very much applaud Inglis’s efforts to find solutions to the problems while looking at it from the Republican point of view. As Inglis was quoted as saying, “there are a lot of Republicans in foxholes on this hill, ducking as the fire gets intense.”

Soon after his proposal received attention, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) which is also a right-wing think tank hosted a bipartisan meeting looking into just how to put a price on carbon that might help to reduce emissions. Well, it didn’t take long for a number of Republicans to come out with their gloves on and attack Inglis’s efforts and that of the AEI.

One of the best criticisms of the whole thing (and when I say best, I mean dumbest) came from Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, a think tank dedicated to denying that global warming is real or that it has anything to do with human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels. I have to give you his quote in its entirety because it’s so ludicrous that all I can do is laugh when I read it.

Bast said that “Carbon dioxide is not a negative externality, it is a measure of energy use, and energy—as Julian Simon and others have pointed out—is the ‘master resource,’ the single most important input into our economy, the source of prosperity, innovation, and opportunity. The emerging consensus of scientists and economists is that CO2’s effects are either too small to be noticeable or will produce net benefits, not harms.”

I seriously can’t believe that anyone with any reasonable education would listen to this guy. Carbon dioxide is not a negative externality? It’s a measure of energy use? And energy is the source of prosperity, innovation, and economy? That carbon dioxide might produce net benefits? He’s trying to make it sound like those who spew out carbon dioxide are the good guys, and those who spew out the most are the real heroes in today’s society.

So using that rationale, I came up with my own Bastism. (Or maybe Bastardism is more correct?) “Toxic waste is a marker of manufacture, and manufacturing is good for the economy. It creates products we want and jobs to make those products. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with toxic waste when it’s a measure of something that our economy needs.”

Unlike the absolutely incorrect viewpoint of Joseph Bast, the negative byproducts of energy use from the combustion of fossil fuels are precisely the problem. As you can see from his quote, Bast completely misleads or even downright lies by suggesting that the growing opinion among scientists is carbon dioxide isn’t that big a deal.

Perhaps that’s the case among the scientists he manages to round up for his annual “Global Warming Isn’t Real” conferences, but I challenge him to find any national academy of science anywhere around the world that has made such a claim that carbon dioxide isn’t a big deal. He won’t find such a group because they’ve all made claims that are exactly the opposite: global warming is real and that our human activities are the main culprit.

You can find outliers in any profession so of course Bast can round up a few who support his distorted perception of reality. Perhaps he found more this year than last year, explaining “the emerging consensus” he refers to. But he’s sticking his head in the sand, just like the Republicans who feel that Inglis and his efforts are ridiculous.

It’s funny how even the concept of a bipartisan effort is so distasteful to so many in this day and age. I would hope that for the issues that really matter—and I would put the fate of the planet’s future health at the top of the list—that both Democrats and Republicans could try to find some common ground. But so many staunch ideologues refuse to even give the idea merit.

When the Founding Fathers came up with the concept of the United States of America, I don’t believe this was what they had in mind.

The Heartland Institute Billboard: An Update

Posted on May 22, 2012 by bradleydibble

A few weeks ago, I posted a blog on the Heartland Institute and an awful ad campaign it had been running. Rather than trying to use facts in its efforts to sway people against a belief that climate change and global warming are real and result mostly from our human activities, it stooped to the low level of trying to equate anyone who might believe in climate change to mass murderers and terrorists like Ted Kaczynski aka the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, and Fidel Castro. With the huge public outcry and a major loss of supporters that ensued as part of the fallout from the first ad that was posted, the Heartland Institute pulled down the billboard after 24 hours, and didn’t bother to put up any of the others it had planned.

This week, the Heartland Institute has convened its seventh annual international conference on climate change. Dubbed ICCC-7, it’s taking place May 21-23, 2012 in Chicago, not far from where their billboard was posted, no doubt in efforts to promote the event. (As they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.) At least two speakers withdrew from the conference: Donna Laframboise, an opponent of fracking technology, and economist Ross McKitrick. Even Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin who is no friend to the environment—check out his positions on energy and oil and his lack of support for the environment—threatened to remove himself from the conference unless the ad campaign was withdrawn. Despite the campaign being considered a colossal failure by almost everyone, the Heartland Institute has yet to apologize or claim any regret for funding the Unabomber ad.

The Climate Reality Project has decided to use the opportunity to fight back. Founded and chaired by former Vice President Al Gore, The Climate Reality Project has more than 5 million members and supporters worldwide. It is guided by what it claims is one simple truth: “The climate crisis is real and we know how to solve it.” They use funds to help spread Mr. Gore’s message, training speakers to provide lectures similar in format to the one depicted in the Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

This week the Climate Reality Project is going to run their own ad in the same spot as the controversial Unabomber ad. Capitalizing on what I consider a much better ad campaign strategy—passing along facts rather than idiotic rhetoric equating believers in climate change to horrible people—they simply point out that you might want to believe scientists on this scientific issue.

Frequently the point is made that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that global warming and climate change are real, and that we are the main cause of it at present. I myself have frequently used such statements. It’s worth pointing out where such a claim comes from. The largest source of support comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Established in 1988, its reports comprise the work of thousands of scientists from more than 120 countries, with their reports based mostly on peer-reviewed scientific publications. Their last report published in 2007 states that there is a greater than 90 percent chance that human activities are the cause of global warming. As the leading international network of climate scientists, that’s a group worth listening to on the issue in my opinion.

However, many other groups have reviewed data and expressed their own opinions about the issue. National science academies from the following countries have explicitly expressed support for the concept that global warming and climate change are real, and that our human activities have been the largest contributor over the last half-century:

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Zambia and Zimbabawe

That’s a lot of support from the scientific community, and worthy I believe of using the phrase “vast majority of climate scientists” when describing that support. To date, no national academy of science anywhere in the world has published a statement to the contrary.

So my answer to the Climate Reality Project’s billboard question is pretty obvious. I’m always going to believe the consensus opinion of scientists when it comes to scientific issues. They’re the best experts we have.

Is Rational Dialogue on Global Warming off the Table?

Posted on May 11, 2012 by bradleydibble

“I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” —Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber

That’s what you would have seen if you’d driven by the digital billboard on the inbound Dwight D. Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood, Illinois this past week. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, this was their latest ad campaign to try to “educate” the public about climate change, although any useful facts about global warming were sorely lacking with this particular sign.

The Heartland Institute was founded in 1984. Its self-described mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” However, its members are also vehement deniers about global warming, arguing it has nothing to do with human activities. This latest effort clearly tries to discredit anyone who supports the growing belief that the various greenhouse gas emissions we contribute to our atmosphere (30 billion tons of carbons dioxide annually, for example) could play any part in the climate change we’re experiencing.

They make some rather outlandish claims. This is right from their own press release: “The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).”

It’s an interesting tactic. I suppose every person who has undesirable traits must be factually wrong in every statement they make regardless of subject, and incorrect in every belief they hold dear. Is the converse also true? Are people who are fundamentally good always right? The logic is dizzying. If I share any beliefs with a bad person, according to the Heartland Institute I must be just like them, have I got that right? Case in point: I know that Adolf Hitler loved his mother and believed it was important to honour her. Does that mean I’m an awful person because I’m planning to give my Mom a gift on Mother’s Day this Sunday?

Fortunately it would appear that common sense is prevailing. A number of corporations are severing their connections to Heartland over this issue. These include: Statefarm Insurance, the United Services Automobile Association, Diageo (one of the world’s largest beverage companies and parent to Guinness, Smirnoff, and Johnnie Walker), the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, XL Group, and Allied World Assurance.

The billboard campaign was in advance of an upcoming climate conference the Heartland Institute is hosting, their seventh. On the heels of this billboard debacle, two of their speakers have also withdrawn from the event, choosing to distance themselves and protect their reputations. Although Heartland claims on its website that they have no regrets, the digital billboard was removed within 24 hours, and at present they have no plans to run any of the other ads that were part of the same campaign.

Heartland spouts off its rhetoric as if everything they claim is accepted fact in its efforts to sway the public to the dark side. From their own website: “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” This so-called “fringe theory” is supported by anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of Americans, and that’s a country that tends to be less accepting than many other nations in the world. The vast majority of scientists also believe in anthropogenic global warming (although Heartland certainly has tapped into those who don’t and exploits that as much as possible). Hardly seems like a fringe theory to me.

I have had some very interesting and enlightening dialogues with people who don’t subscribe to my belief that the present global warming trend is largely our fault. A minority of them are truly intellectual discussions with many facts that can be interpreted in different ways to support different points of view. I always welcome those discussions because it enhances my own understanding of this problem our planet is facing and forces me to ensure I comprehend every aspect and nuance of this crisis. But one thing those rare discussions prove to me is that reasonable and rational dialogue on this issue can exist among those who differ in their opinions. It’s sad that Heartland chose not to take that route. Given the financial hit they’re taking from the loss of so many supporters, this may be their undoing.