Why Americans Have Inconsistent Perceptions of Science

A Harrison College 2nd year A-level student delivers a seminar on centripetal force to fellow students. Mathematical facility as well as high level scientific literacy are expected of every HC student before graduation.

A recent Denver Post article ('Americans' Views Of Scientists Complicated', Aug. 4, p. 6A) highlighted Americans' confusion over science, and scientific research.   The good news from the results of last Friday's Pew Research Center survey?  Well 86 percent of Americans say they trust scientists at least "a fair amount".  This  is up from 70 percent 3 years ago.

The bad news?  There is a split (between parties) reflecting the polarization across issues in the larger society.   For example, 79 percent of Democrats say that scientists should be active in policy debates compared to 43 percent of Republicans.  In terms of addressing a science -related policy problem (e.g. climate change, nuclear weapons) a majority of Democrats (54%)  see scientific experts as better at decision making than most people, including politicos.  Among Republicans only 34 % concur.  In other words,  to them Tucker Carlson's input on rising sea level may well be as sound as say, Bill Nye's.

According to the authors of the piece, the differences may be accounted for by how Republicans and Democrats view bias. In particular, the Republicans polled were more likely to say that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as other people.

But see, the difference is when a scientist seeks to make a claim or advance a new view of reality (theory) he needs to submit his work to a journal for peer review.  This peer review ensures quality control and that the bias  - if any - is a minimum.  To the claim that climate change deniers' papers are rejected - as made by one Intertel member some three years ago-  I pointed out in response:

"They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of scientific authority - including: proper data selection,  analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of  authoritative science which is in fact  pseudo-science."

In effect, the claims of bias by the Right arise precisely because they can't accept that propaganda or non-evidentiary material - such as deniers create - isn't the same as science.

There is also the broader issue of why Republicans generally have the beliefs they do, apart from whether they are highly educated deniers like Roger Pilke, Jr.  These beliefs almost always assert severe doubts regarding the more controversial scientific findings, i.e. that rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations emphasize the need to cut carbon emissions.  So what makes Republicans more susceptible to asserting (by 64%) that scientists are susceptible to bias?

I'd argue it is because they are victims of agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' i.e.  the study of culturally constructed ignorance. We know this is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).

Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends.   Since Republicans - conservatives are more committed to economic and political imperatives - say over scientific ones - then it stands to reason they'd trust economists and politicians more than scientists. More importantly, they'd trust economic and political solutions much more than purely scientifically-based ones, say like drastically cutting carbon emissions.

This distrustful faction often have attained high educational credentials - say in psychology or economics, perhaps even physics -- but their lens of perception is distorted by economic, political obsession.  Hence they become convinced they can opine on issues outside their specialty fields -  like global warming - without doing any hard work or proper research..  Their opposition to solutions that potentially affect the economy is sufficient, so they believe they can simply bloviate from their armchairs  on what they  are convinced the science ought to be.  And the latter is generally in the guise of denier pseudo-science. (They also invoke the specious comeback that "Well, because the proponents -scientists can't put it into simple words" then it must be wrong or at least not compelling.)

This is probably why Cary Funk, director of science and society research at Pew,  described respondents' attitudes toward scientific experts as having "soft support".    That is, they aren't ready to wholeheartedly embrace actual scientific experts, and if the researcher' specialty veers into a "sensitive" area for the person (say affecting economic growth, higher stock valuations, 401(k) returns etc.)   there will be a  lot more skepticism and imputation of "bias".  Again, this is most prominent in environmental science and climate science.

There is also the mystifying leaning toward "practical practitioners" as opposed to researchers in pure science, say astrophysicists and cosmologists. Thus, overall people are more likely to trust "dieticians or physicians" more than say, Neal deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking.   According to Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton who studies trust:

"Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are.  The motive of the research scientist can be murky.  But with a doctor you assume the motive is to help people."

Yes, but that assumption could be wrong.   The physician may only be that in order to pay off his/her student loan debt more expeditiously. Say as opposed to being a biology teacher, the actual calling.   There may be little interest in actual "helping" but more in making money off your visit.  Let's also bear in mind most physicians aren't their own persons but operate under the auspices of some business or corporate entity - say Centura Health - that dictates their patient flow, time allotted for each and so on.   So the belief in any 'help" may well be a total illusion.

At the same time, the lack of trust in a pure researcher because his motive is "murky" is rather laughable.  In fact, it usually isn't the research  or its motive that is "murky" but the respondent's understanding of it.   But the more disturbing aspect as revealed in the Denver Post piece is the caricature of the research scientist (often derived from the characters in "The Big Bang Theory') ensconced in too many brains of ordinary folk. As we learn:

"Shows such as the Big Bang Theory partially explains why experts who do research are seen as 'capable of immoral conduct'.    Essentially, the study found that this attitude is less about thinking that scientists are bad people and more about seeing them as being so robot-like that no one could possibly know their motives."

Which is mind boggling.   But at least Ms. Fiske did get to the central point:

"I think part of what's going on here is that the more people know the more they trust."

I touched on some of this in my July 26th post when I pointed out why so many ordinary folk exhibit impatience with theoretical physics and its researchers such as  portrayed ( e.g. by the characters "Sheldon" and "Leonard")  on the Big Bang Theory. E.g.

"Most of the public - even those who read Scientific American- probably halted their math courses at Calculus, if they even took that.  And from what I've read in a few education journals, barely 1 in 1000 Americans ever see the inside of a physics lab in connection with a college level General Physics course.   So it is little wonder there is an existing impatience with theoretical physics and its "gibberish" equations and material"

Anyone who's even seen a few episodes of BBT would have noted how the two fictional Caltech physicists peppered their boards with equations (which by the way are vetted by actual physicists in string theory etc for correctness).  And since higher mathematics is the language of most theoretical physics, and most Americans probably didn't get past intermediate algebra,  it makes sense they'd find the motives of pure physicists murky - because their own math ability is murky!

 As is their basic understanding of science.  The authors of the Denver Post piece argue much of the trust gap can be breached provided "scientists post candid stories of themselves doing scientific work".  In other words, provide a personal insight or perspective into their research. But let's face it that only goes so far. Getting an insight into a scientist's personal life and approach to his or her work will not actually open the doors to understanding that work.   That major step requires a commitment to learning and reading about it, as opposed to squandering time on Instagram or Twitter or playing video games. In other words, the choice to understand scientific research - including theoretical - rests with the choices of Americans themselves.  Will they now finally really READ Neal deGrasse Tyson's 'Astrophysics for People In a Hurry' or Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History Of Time' or will they go back to some superficial distraction on TV or a streaming service?

Only by making this leap will they be able to put "two plus two"   together. That is, graduating to the appreciation that pure theoretical work can lead directly to practical, technological manifestations. Thus, without the very abstract general theory of relativity your GPS navigation system wouldn't work. Without the abstract ideas of quantum mechanics we wouldn't have lasers and solid state electronics.

At issue then is basic scientific literacy which, alas, too many of our countrymen lack.  Demonstrating that literacy would, at the very least, mean passing a basic physics test, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/10/basic-physics-test.html

Achieving that would at least show that citizens possess enough scientific competence to intelligently comment on major contentious issues of our time - whether global warming/climate change, or aspects of current defense spending-  such as the advisability of replacing our nuclear arsenal.   Or, making nuclear energy a component of any viable 'Green New Deal'.

In addition, a  more uniform competence across multiple scientific disciplines would arguably close the gaps between Democrats and Republicans, especially in terms of whether scientists have the right to contribute to policy discussion, decisions.

The takeaway? Americans have inconsistent perceptions of the worth of scientific work  (and motives of researchers)  because they have inconsistent scientific backgrounds and knowledge themselves.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-state-of-us-high-school-physics.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-american-students-really-math.html

The Futile Effort To Misrepresent James Hansen's Climate Predictions From 1988 Continues

 Incredibly, in the face of all the evidence the denier brigade continues its incessant drumbeat to ignore what's happening all around us and regard climate change-global warming as a myth, or at least its predictions as sensationalized and exaggerated. Here in Colorado no one is stupid or ignorant enough to believe either of those tropes. The current drought has seen the least snowpack in almost ten years and all the signs are there for a severe fire season such as we last beheld in 2012-13, e.g.

Indeed, the "416 Fire" has already wrought massive destruction in La Plata County and it's only June.  Recall for reference here that an NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) projection given in 2002 forecast the American West would see extended drought, hotter weather and fire conditions into the near and distant future ...on account of climate change-global warming.    Right now seven Colorado counties classify as disaster areas because of the drought and things will only get worse as the summer progresses. Meanwhile, several rivers have reached peak flows, the Rio Grande - which originates in our state - is  down to barely 250 cubic feet per second compared to over 1400 cfs several years ago.

But the global warming "exaggerations"  nonsense keeps churning, the latest appearing June 22,  WSJ, p. A15 by two lackeys from the Libertarian CATO Institute (Pat Michaels, and Ryan Maue).  Of course, according to Libertarian ideology every manjack must cope on his or her own, such as in Puerto Rico after being flattened by Hurricane Maria. You are not supposed to "grovel" to the government for any "handouts", but do what Ayn Rand would have: do for yourself even if it means drinking toxic water out of waste dumps. Hey, at least you won't die of thirst!

According to the CATO pawns all of  James Hansen's forecasts from 1988 were either wrong or overblown by the media.  Hansen delivered three "scenario" forecasts, A, B and C with A based on "accelerating emissions" for CO2, B based on more moderate emissions, and C "the least likely" e.g. only constant emissions commencing in 2000. We now know the last was a pipedream - see top graphic-  given the relentless increase in global mean temperatures.  Despite this,  Michaels and Maue  insist: "scenario C is the winner" because:

"Global surface temperatures have not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger than usual El Nino of 2015-16."

But this bejabber flies in the face of the data during that time span and shown the top graphic.  Thus, "14 of the 15 warmest years occurred since 2000." This was including 2014 which "broke all records".

What gives? Are the CATO authors ignorant or just low IQ dupes? Actually, mainly ignorant.  A first clue appeared thanks to Thomas Karl, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a June 4, 2015 paper which appeared in the journal Science.

This concerned inconsistent data treatment, particularly in processing sea surface temperatures - especially as measured by buoys.   This error was likely compounded in conjunction with the misinterpretation of Hadley UK Center future projections on climate that I've already discussed at length, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/george-will-no-warming-for-last-16.html

I would even venture to say that the preponderance of false judgment by too many (mainly conservatives like George Will, i.e. in his first and only recent appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time) is due to inadequate study of the climate backstory. That includes the role of changing carbon isotope ratios over geological time, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/carbon-isotope-ratios-and-climate.html

As Thomas Karl noted, quoted in Eos Transactions - Earth & Space Science (July 1, 2015):

"The biggest takeaway is there is no slowdown in global warming".

Indeed, he added that warming the past fifteen years is the "strongest it's been since the latter half of the 20th century". Putting an exclamation point on that, July that year (2015) was the hottest July since records were initiated.

A good summary of the paper may be accessed at:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html 

Why the measurement difficulty? Well, because the data gathering and process of analysis are inherently complex.  In order to achieve such a measurement as how Earth's average global temperature is increasing, there's a lot of "sausage making".  First, scientists must combine thousands of measurements from Earth's surface, taken by land instruments, ships. buoys and orbital satellites.

Second, each of these has its own random errors, all of which must be identified. Not only must researchers comb through the data to eliminate these errors, they must also correct for any differences in how each type of instrument measures temperature.

Thus, the authors of the Science paper had to dig into NOAA's global surface temperature analysis data to examine how sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were being measured. SSTs are measured in various ways:

-  collecting ocean water in a bucket and measuring its temperature directly

- measuring the temperature of water taken in by a ship engine as a coolant

- using floating buoys moored in the various oceans

Each technique records slightly different temperatures in the same region so scientists have to adjust the data. In the past couple decades the number of buoys has increased - adding 15% more coverage to the ocean. But because buoys tend to read colder temperatures than ships at the same locations, a measurement bias is introduced which must be corrected for. This was the primary task set out by Karl et al.  They corrected for the bias by adding 0.12C to each buoy temperature. 

By then combining the ocean data with improved calculations of air temperatures over land around the world, Karl and colleagues found that overall global surface warming over 2000-14 was 0.116C per decade or more than twice the estimated 0.039C starting in 1998 that the IPCC had reported.

 

Basically then the WSJ's  CATO contributors are guilty mainly of rank ignorance in: a) not knowing how sea surface or other global temperatures are processed, and b) failing to appreciate the significance and why the rise in temperatures fully comports with Hansen's model.

All of this also comports with the latest data from the United Nation's World Meteorological Association that notes the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has now reached 403 parts per million.   

Note here that every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect  by 2 W/m².  Further, the increase has been by 3 ppm since 2015-16. So no surprise the UN Report concluded:  

 

"Geological records show that the current levels of CO2 correspond to an equilibrium climate last observed in the mid-Pliocene (3 - 5 million years ago) , a climate that was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer  - where the Greenland West Antarctic Ice sheets melted - leading to sea levels that were 32- 64 feet higher than those today."

This, of course, torpedoes the CATO authors next claim e.g.

"In a 2007 case deposition Mr. Hansen stated that most of Greenland's ice would soon melt raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years."

Hmmm....looks like Hansen was pretty spot on to me, judging from the UN WMO report!  Indeed, it looks like he was way too conservative, projecting only 23 feet increase in sea level vs. the 32- 64 feet from the WMO report based on now being in a Ploiocene climate (given the CO2 concentration at 403 pm). 

Again, the two CATO clowns misjudge and misinterpret as when they cite a Nature paper  which "found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain".

Failing to note that the latest findings (June 13, Nature) disclose Antarctic ice melt has tripled since 2007.   They use this to project a 15 cm sea level rise by 2100 - but this study takes no account of the Greenland melting rate - which is accelerating faster from Jokulhlaup (cf. Jokulhlaup Observed in Greenland ice sheet’, appearing in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Vol. 89, No. 35, 26 Aug. 2008, p. 221). The cited paper specifically noted an increased frequency in occurrence of “jokalhlaups”or sudden glacial bursts of melting runoff from glaciers. It was this phenomena that also played a role in the “unusual cracks" that set off the separation of a “chunk of ice the size of Manhattan” (19 sq. miles)from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s northern Arctic. In the case of the increasing Greenland Jokulhlaup we are looking not just at one massive breakoff, but the loss of perhaps 45% of the entire Greenland ice sheet on account of the underground splintering effects producing ever larger cracks in the ice and the inability of it to support the overlying permafrost and other ice. Thus, onset will be sudden and perhaps more like a "terror attack" from nature.

So again,  the CATO authors did not do due diligence in the preparation of their article. Other missteps are also in evidence, e.g.

 

"Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No, satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature."

Again, wrong.  According to SciCheck, a division of FactCheck.org:

"The most recent analysis of what’s known about the effect of climate change on hurricane activity comes from the June 28 draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Climate Science Special Report.  One of that report’s key findings said that human activities have “contributed to the observed increase in hurricane activity” in the North Atlantic Ocean since the 1970s. The Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey formed, is part of the North Atlantic Ocean.

The draft report echoes the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 assessment report, which found that scientists are “virtually certain” (99 percent to 100 percent confident) that there has been an “increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s” in the North Atlantic Ocean."

Again, this follows logically from the current 403 ppm concentration of  CO2  in the atmosphere which also must be tied to higher surface temperatures (see the graphic again) and also note he planet is currently  subject to a radiative heating effect equivalent to 2.5 x 10 ⁷  TJ injected each year into the atmosphere or roughly 400,000 Hiroshima size A-bombs.   This in turn conforms to the observed  addition of 2 ppm  per year  in CO2 concentrations and an associated heating increase per year of             2 W/m².    

Result?  The temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by 0.6W/ m²  and this is almost entirely due to the annual rate of CO2 concentrations increasing. This is not due to any natural phenomenon but to human injection of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the planet's climate system. The end result of which is to RAISE global temperatures!. 

The CATO clowns then dig themselves in deeper, asking:

"Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage to the U.S. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such damage measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product"

But that is because gross domestic product is an unreliable measure, given it omits so many "externalities"  i.e. the loss in potable water, electric access after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico.  And as noted in the WSJ :'The Hurricane Lull Couldn't Last', (Sept. 1, p. A15):

"The U.S. has seen 20 storms causing a billion dollars or more in damage since 2010, not including Harvey, compared with nine billion-dollar floods in the full decade of the 1980s." 

This definitely shows an alarming increase in damage, never mind the  bogus invocation of % of GDP    As  Financial Times contributor David Pilling explained in a TIME Viewpoint article ('Why GDP Is A Faulty Measure Of Success',  Feb. 5, p. 41):

"Invented in the 1930s, the figure is a child of the manufacturing age - good at measuring physical production but not the services that dominate modern economies. How would GDP measure the quality of mental health care or the availability of day care centers and parks in your area?  Even Simon Kuznets, the Belarussian economist who practically invented GDP, had doubts about his creation."

GDP is supposed to measure the total production and consumption of goods and services in the United States. But the numbers that make up the Gross Domestic Product by and large only capture the monetary transactions we can put a dollar value on. Almost everything else is left out: old growth forests that maintain cooling and act as CO2 repositories, watersheds, animal habitats, e.g. the Everglades, and costs of infrastructure maintenance. But ALL of these count toward  the physical security and welfare of a society, and assume particular import after being majorly impacted in a monster hurricane - such as the type seen over the past decade.

Michaels and Maue claim next that the "list of what didn't happen is long and tedious"  - but I could counter that by asserting the list of my subsequent demolitions of your arguments about Hansen's  "failed" predictions is also long and tedious.  For example, the dynamic duo argue:

"Hansen's models and the UN's don't consider more precise measures of how aerosols emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases"

Which is pure poppyock, because we've known for decades - from thermal physics - the effects of aerosols on global warming, and the former don't even make the cut of an ant fart in the wind. In this regard, .one can't forget or omit diffusive reflection and re-transmission of radiation, say arising from particulates . Chandrasekhar in Radiative Transfer, (Dover Publications) shows that for angles of incidence in the range : 0.5 < i < 0.8 radian, diffusive reflection allows the radiation reflected normal to the incidence direction to actually have higher intensity than the original. (E.g. for optical depths 1.0 < < 2.0).

In effect, if conditions in the lower atmosphere incorporate such optical depths (and angles of incidence for scattering, diffusive reflection), on account of increased presence of particulates, aerosols, then we will expect to find an "anomaly" say in the temperature. The most alarming aspect of global dimming in this regard - as made public by global dimming researchers (e.g. Dr Peter Cox) is that it has obviously deceived many (like the CATO clowns) into underestimating the true power of the greenhouse effect, including the role of CO2.

Hence, Michaels and Mauer's tripe is expected only if one hasn't properly reckoned the presence of dimming particulates- aerosols ,  especially their scattering, re-reflection (and hence false albedo effects) into global warming models! 

The key clue to the REAL agenda of the authors and their persistent misdirection is embodied in this remark:

"Why should people world wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if the cuts have already been made?"

Actually, my fine pair of CATO clowns, the global temperatures are NOT acting any such way other than in your fevered imaginations.  Again, see the top graphic of continuous increases in worldwide temperatures.  The point here is that Maue and Michaels have exposed their hand as primarily concerned with economic costs, hence they qualify as agnotologists - not climatologists.  Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied this shtick to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. 

Michaels and Maue fit this profile to a tee, and is the biggest reason why their op-ed needs to be taken with a grain of salt, or ... with the gravitas of a solitary ant fart.

"Climate Change Has Run Its Course?" More Balderdash From An Academic Know Nothing

Devastation in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, which climate scientists agree was spawned by warmer ocean temperatures from global warming.

In a WSJ article Tuesday (p. A15) by Steven F. Hayward  ('Climate Change Has Run Its Course') it is claimed that climate change is now passé  and "climate change as an issue is essentially over". It is quite possible that Hayward, a "senior resident scholar" at the University of California -Berkeley,  really is a scholar of some repute at least in "government studies".   But the tripe he wrote for the WSJ a few days ago discloses him as merely another climate know nothing who probably has never even taken a college physics course.

Basically this dunderhead trots out all the usual canards which I do not intend to go through  in detail -  as I've addressed them dozens of times  with other uninformed dopes, pretenders and propagandists, e.g. Steve Koonin, David R. Henderson, Roger Pielke Jr. et al.  So I will just take up the new arguments that Hayward insists disqualifies the topic as anything of immediate import.

What is ironic here, is just as I was reading Hayward's codswallop, wifey and I were on the phone with an agent from the Hartford, to discuss yet another roof replacement.  This was to do with replacing all the tiles on our roof after another mega hailstorm barely three weeks ago - with many stones the size of golf balls or half dollars. This followed an initial hail storm featuring baseball size hail in 2016 which saw us replacing the roof for the first time.  This after residing 17 going on 18 years here in Colorado, but which featured two massive hailstorms in the past two years that required new roofing.  Of course, even the most menial moron ought to be able to grasp this is linked to climate change. Just as the drought we're in the middle of which has now eroded the snowpack to 50 % of what it was a few months ago.
 
This triggered water restrictions in Manitou Springs, nearby, but not yet here in Colorado Springs. (Though it should!)  Meanwhile, we're now in the midst of a string of 90 degree plus days or some 15 degrees hotter than normal.

And this is just the beginning of what we here in Colorado can expect. Merely two years ago the average temperature in Denver for June, July and August was 72.7 degrees — 1.5 degrees higher than the annual average of 71.2 dating to 1872, according to Kyle Fredin, meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Boulder. If current trends in heat-trapping emissions continue, Denver residents by 2050 will face an average of 35 days a year where temperatures hit 95 degrees or hotter, the study found. 

Boulder by 2050 will have an average 38 days a year with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees and, by the end of the century, an average of 75 such days a year. The studies found Fort Collins by 2050 will have an average 24 days with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees and 58 days on average by the end of the century.

These numbers may not significantly impress many people, but they should given they mean vastly more demands on the power grid.  Moreover, our power grid demands will be multiplied across the nation and people will take notice as their electricity costs spike upward from 100-200%.   Also, as extended periods of each day find people - wherever they live- without power,  especially in 100 degree plus temperatures.

Factor in also the "one hundred year storms" with rain downpours the likes of which that can sweep whole towns away - such as for Ellicot City, MD recently.   See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/11/rivers-from-skies-nature-of-mega.html

Then there is the ongoing risk of flooding in Miami  given sea level rise.  Even though it may only be measured in inches these rain events are able to flood the streets even on sunny days if there is also a king tide on those days..

Research published  in the journal Environmental Research Letters  and reported in the WSJ (April 21-22, p. A3) shows that "single family homes in Miami Dade County are rising in value more slowly near sea level than at higher elevations."  

 Reinforcing Keenan's work, the WSJ (ibid.) cites another new paper from researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder and Pennsylvania State University. This paper "shows the trend in Miami is playing out across the country, with homes vulnerable to rising sea levels now selling at a 7 percent discount compared to similar but less expensive properties."

But all this is but a prelude to what can be expected by 2035, e.g. as seen in this U.S. Geological survey projected map:


I reference all the above, as well as the monster hurricanes last year, that wreaked havoc in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico given the following words from Hayward's piece:

"While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved the high salience among the public,  despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans consistently ranked climate the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues."


Eliciting the question of why this is so when Europeans - who generally aren't threatened by monster hurricanes or tornado outbreaks - rank it consistently higher. Are the Germans, Dutch, British more intelligent than Americans? I wouldn't say so only that their media do not undermine the message by  canceling out the alarms by publishing the dreck from rightist and libertarian think tanks in the misplaced interest of "balance".   These op-ed pieces are written mainly by propagandists and climate deniers paid by the think tanks so the newspapers save money by filling space without using actual journalists.. Again, we call this agnotology.   As Exhibit One I present this garbage published in the WSJ in January, 2012:











In many ways it's cut from the same patch of recycled, already skewered balderdash as Hayward's recent piece. As I have pointed out repeatedly, agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' - the study of culturally constructed ignorance- is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).

Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue.  Hence, it's no surprise most of the twits who scribble these pieces hail from economics, government studies or political science - and also belong to rightist, corporate think tanks (e.g. American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution). In Hayward's case, he is an imp from  the American Enterprise Institute.

Despite all this, as well as the fact that typical brains take more time to process slow moving threats, I am still convinced climate change will make its way up the priority ranking of issues for Americans.  It is bound to after enough of their homes are destroyed by tornado outbreaks, hail storms, floods, or general severe storms such as intensifying hurricanes.  All spinoffs as climate change ramps up.

Knowing Hayward's connection to that think tank I wasn't the least  surprised when he wrote the following:

"The descent of climate change into social justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause  that has lost its vitality."
-
SO in other words, we are to ignore the fact that the poorest, most resource -devastated populations are usually the most ferociously hit, such as in Puerto Rico. (See image at top).  In that instance, when reporters like David Muir from ABC travel to Puerto Rico's hinterlands to show us vast scenes of devastation and the people drinking from contaminated pools to get water,  we are to see them as detached from us - maybe a different species. But lord help you if you identify with them.  As if there is no way such a fate could ever befall the rest of us, especially in the nightmare that is Trump world - where Scott Pruitt's EPA is daily wrecking more and more protections from climate change onslaught.

Anyone can see this is irresponsible nonsense, and in fact if we dispel identity politics in any form we cede the memetic and political battlefield to the Right.  Naomi Klein put it thusly in her book NO Is Not Enough - Resisting Trump's Shock Politics'   :

"It is short-sighted,  not to mention dangerous, for liberals  and progressives to abandon their own focus on identity politics",

because:

"To a terrifying degree, skin color and gender conformity are determining who is physically safe in the hands of the state, who is at risk from vigilante violence, who can express themselves without constant harassment and who can cross a border without terror."

Process that the next time you see the images of Trump tossing packages of paper towels to Puerto Ricans after Maria, and marveling at only "16 dead" when we now know the total is over 4,600.

Instead of peddling horse manure like in his WSJ op-ed, Steven Hayward ought to be explaining to his groupies why it is that reinsurance companies like Munich Re all have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans. But he won't because he's a puppet for those whose only interest is to milk the oil out of the planet, even if it surpasses the 550 gigaton limit we can extract without triggering the runaway Greenhouse.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jeremy-brecher/79526/a-climate-constitution-in-the-courts-and-the-streets

Trump Appoints Denier Loser Looneytune To Head EPA Transition

Denier dimwit Myron Ebell who will head Trump's EPA transition.

Forget about Trump's appeal to "unity" and "bringing everybody together". After appointing the libertarian looneytune Myron Ebell to head the EPA transition, it's just more hollow bollocks.. Ebell directs environmental and energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group in Washington. As we know, and as I've shown, the libertarians almost rival Repukes in terms of their climate science denial and stupidity.

See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/08/intertels-resident-libertarian-deniers.html


As for Ebell, he clearly prides himself on his climate ignorance and challenging accepted science. This is even as determined groups have painted him for what he is, a renegade and climate dunce. Just like the sundry libertarian climate change deniers belonging to the high IQ societies who believe their status gives them license to bloviate and blurtate about anything when they can't even pass a basic test in thermal physics, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

Ebell's transgressions extend beyond blatant denial of clear, obvious scientific facts to do with warming and include lying about the position of scientists - claiming:

"Most scientists think global warming is silly."

Uh no they don't, doofus, especially the scientists most involved with climate investigations. Specifically, I've referenced the scientific consensus on global warming reported in Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman who found that (p. 24) :

“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

In their analytic survey for which 3146 climate and Earth scientists responded, a full 96.2% of specialists concurred temperatures have steadily risen and there is no evidence for cooling. Meanwhile, 97.4% concur there is a definite role of humans in global climate change.

The authors concluded (p. 24) :

“The challenge appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact (non-existent debate among real climate specialists) to policy makers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate exists among scientists”

In Ebell's case, his  mug-shot appeared on posters, pasted on walls and lampposts around Paris by an activist group during the United Nations climate talks last year, and were hardly flattering. But why should they be when one is an intentional idiot? Would it not be better then to see the likes of this visage applicable to all such morons?




The French protesters have rightfully depicted Ebell, a climate contrarian, as one of seven “climate criminals” wanted for “destroying our future.”  This is not too extreme a characterization given that anyone responsible for creating false notions or sowing doubts of magnitude sufficient to delay effective actions, IS  destroying our future. For they have used their status of voice to delay much needed, or timely action. As before I have put this under the header of "agnotology".

Agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' - is the study of culturally constructed ignorance- and is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).  The agnotologist and his ilk succeed once the following trope is emitted and embraced by the power structure or media:

‘There is still so much uncertainty, we shouldn’t invest money to solve the climate problem,’

This is egregious on so many levels that it boggles the rational mind. First, any modern scientific pursuit must include uncertainty. Uncertainty is acknowledged every time I perform a measurement - say of the solar diameter, or a sunspot's Zeeman effect,  and express it with plus or minus magnitude values. It signifies that final measurement cannot be presumed free of measuring error which is inherent in all our physics, astronomy etc.

The matter of "too much uncertainty" is also the wrong way to look at the issue for any scientific model or measurement, because they can as easily UNDER-estimate a potential threat or occurrence as over estimate it.  In the past thirty years, for example, we have learned we've actually underestimated the intensity of warming by up to one-third because of the fact global dimming had earlier concealed one third of it. Thus, the presence of aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere have diminished radiant heating effects that otherwise would be one-third greater.

 

Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied agnotology of the type promoted by Ebell and others to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, those like Ebell are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Prof. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue. Just a few years ago, in fact, Heritage Foundation offered $10,000 per article written by a "scientist" to try to refute global warming. We don't know how many takers there were, but I've counted over 200 letters or articles (usually op-eds like the one shown) in which either single hacks or groups of them have attempted to disparage global warming or insist "there's no need to panic". Well, there damned well is need to panic, as this year's unfolding weather disasters, including new heat waves and droughts will show.

EBell is so aberrational he appears to be comfortable with how he's been portrayed. According to this misfit. He told an interviewer at the Paris climate talks

“I’ve gotten used to this over the years. But I did go out and get my photo taken with my poster, just so I have it as a memento.”

In truth, looking for someone to follow through on his campaign vow to dismantle one of the Obama administration’s signature climate change policies,  Trump probably could not have found a better candidate for the job than Ebell. A non-scientist, proud of his climate ignorance and hostile to reason though he professes to be the opposite, e.g. “I really think that people should be suspicious of authority,” he told an interviewer last year. Adding: “The more you’re told that you have to believe something, the more you should question it.”

Which ought to apply with special force to any economist who couldn't even predict the credit meltdown of 2007-08.   But never mind, Ebell never cracked open an advanced thermal physics book in his life but is quite comfortable taking on the scientific consensus on global warming. 

To review Ebell's background: He got his undergraduate degree at Colorado College and master’s at the London School of Economics, where he studied under the conservative political philosopher Michael Oakeshott. Note that his economics background already places him in the category of an agnotologist who sows doubt and deliberate skepticism in order to undermine trust in science in favor of economic priority.

 

Ebell also leads the Cooler Heads Coalition, a loose-knit group that says it is “focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.”  But people need to know that Ebell's whole organization is financed in part by the coal industry, and has been one of the most vocal opponents of the linchpin of that policy, the Clean Power Plan. Developed by the Environmental Protion Agency, the plan it is a far-reaching set of regulations that, by seeking to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation, could result in the closing of many coal-burning power plants, among other effects.

Ebell has been one of the nation’s most visible climate contrarians, known for dispensing memorable sound bites on cable news shows and at events like the annual conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based group that rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

All of this confirms what most of us have feared: that having this fool in charge of EPA appointments will set our nation's emission goals back to the metaphorical Jurassic period.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/payback-really-is-bitch.html