The WaPo On Climate Change - Can't Get It Right Even When Reporting Others Are Wrong

Juliet Eilperin and David A. Fahrenthold of the WaPo cover the latest unraveling of the IPCC but still manage to recycle a mistake Ms. Eilperin made last November.  Here we go again, from their third paragraph:

There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

And a bit later:

Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel's central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it. Some researchers said the U.N. panel's attitude -- appearing to promise that its results were infallible, and reacting slowly to evidence that they were not -- could undermine the rest of its work.

Ahhhh!  Based on the IPCC 2007 report (p. 5), there is a consensus that it is "very likely" that human activity is responsible for "most" of the observed global warming:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.  It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).

That is a bit different and might be worth getting right one day.  Even the Times has accomplished that.

CAN'T KILL WHAT'S ALREADY DEAD:  I like this political analysis:

It is unclear whether the controversy will hamper passage of a bill to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which has stalled in the Senate. Paul W. Bledsoe, of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, said that if people want to know why the "bill is having a hard time in the Senate, I would rank [concern about climate science] lower than the economy and the financial meltdown."

Comments

[PaulL]

I prefer Scam From Beginning To End.

[Poof]

'Very likely', just ain't anymore.
=================

[Rob Crawford]

They've pinned so much of their hopes for a dictatorship to the AGW boogeyman, they can't let it go.

[BumperStickerist]

AGW not "science", it's "science-ish"

.

That said, I'm a "let's don't pee in the bathtub" environmentalist. There's no doubt that raising the awareness of "cause-effect" relationships between human actions and the ecosystem is a good thing.

But the over-reaching nature of AGW and the zealotry of its adherents --- Hello, Charles! (Prince and Johnson) --- is both unseemly and unscientific.

.

[Neo]

I love the argument that ... because of our importing of foreign oil we still need "cap-and-trade"

Exactly how does taxing domestic coal and natural gas help to keep down imports ?

[Obama's science advisers are so ideological than they cannot help make errors in policy.]

Neo, if they can't push the social control with carbon guilt, they'll do it over fear; national security is helped by domestic energy sources. The blindered think solar and wind instead of our huge stores of hydrocarbons, or instead of nuclear power.
==========================

[Rob Crawford]

The blindered think solar and wind instead of our huge stores of hydrocarbons, or instead of nuclear power.

In the interest of accuracy, I believe "solar and wind power" should instead be called "unicorn smiles and fairy farts". Each is as reliable as the other.

[Fritz]

So if Toyota and Honda have to recall their cars, some many years old, because of deficiencies which have now come to light why do the newspapers not have to recall their faulty product over reporting on AGW (and just about everything else)?

[We won't survive the 'further discussions'.]

You must learn to welcome your new overlords, Fritz.
============================

[clarice]

Eilprin's husband works for one of the warmist organizations. The WaPo been repeatedly told that there is a conflict and still insists she can do a good job.

Incestuous nincompoopery and scoundrel time.

[Neo]

IPCC = Obama = STUPID

[Appalled]

TM:

While cap and trade may be dead as a legislative matter, the EPA still has its project to regyulate carbon emissions.

While I don't anticipate new proposed regulations before November, I can see something coming out right after the election, and a real fight over the comment period. (This is the act that is going to bring the whole climateate, IPCC nonsense into the US political system. It should be interesting.)

[Rick Ballard]

BumperStickerist,

"Scientistic" is the term used by Hayek in describing the Marxist misappropriation and abuse of the terminology of the scientific method as it was developed and implemented in the 17th and 18th centuries. Climate scientology appears to be roughly analogous to Lysenkoism as a justificatory mechanism for the necessity of one world government and the tax on air which is necessary to support it.

Making fun of climate scientology just isn't very progressive and making fun of the ferocious CO2 Monster indicates a certain lack of "likeability" (defined as credulous gullibility).

[Neo]

I expect to see the EPA neutered in the courts.

It will take them a decade to come back but by then they will have nothing but the d*cks in their hands.

[narciso]

We abandoned exclusive dependence on wind, and solar, three hundred years ago, a little
thing called the Industrial Revolution. Other substitutes aren't viable without scarcity conditions

[Appalled]

Neo:

The courts were the people who said the EPA had to dabble in this in the first place. You don't likely get a reversal unless it gets to the Supreme Court, who is not goign to be looking at the science (or lack thereof) so much as whether the EPA was granted the authority to regulate by the Clean Air Act. (Unless you see the supremes overturning the grant of regulatory authority of that Act -- which I do not see.)

By the way, Neo, I didn't know the EPA owned any ducks. Seems they have enough quacks on their hands without them,

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Holy shit, Bayh is retiring from the Senate!

[not_bubaroooni]

i'm gonna go think this whole AGW thing over while shoveling out the 4 inches of fresh snow in my driveway.

i know 'weather' vs 'climate' right...

[Ignatz]

--You don't likely get a reversal unless it gets to the Supreme Court, who is not goign to be looking at the science (or lack thereof) so much as whether the EPA was granted the authority to regulate by the Clean Air Act. (Unless you see the supremes overturning the grant of regulatory authority of that Act -- which I do not see.)--

Yes, Appalled, but wasn't the case made by the EPA that it had such a right based on the contention that CO2 was a pollutant?
Seems to me that case is getting weaker by the day.

[Janet]

This paragraph from the article caught my eye too...
"U.N. Foundation President Timothy E. Wirth, whose nonprofit group has highlighted the work of the IPCC, said that the pirated e-mails gave "an opening" to attack climate science and that the scientific work "has to be defended just like evolution has to be defended.""

To me this whole man-made global warming scam is a remake of the no-God evolution scam. One MUST believe the approved scientists, or you are a _______(fill in the blank). You may not question any aspect, or you are a _______(fill in the blank). The approved scientists state unproven "facts", and the sceptics must disprove them. Sceptics may NOT believe what their eyes see....only what the approved scientists say.
...and the approved scientists use many undeniable true discoveries, but mix these facts with unproven why and how stories.

[windansea]

Realclimate tries to put a happy face on the IPCC errors.

Gavin Schmidt who runs RC chastises a commenter for commenting that BBC bias is due to their pension investments.

I camment on Gavin's response:

136.Gavin sez: The ’success’ of AGW? This chasing down the rabbit hole in search of imaginary reasons why anyone would actually want AGW to be true is simple delusion.

Phil Jones: As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers

Phil

Comment by windansea — 15 February 2010 @ 10:03 AM

[Danube of Thought]

It was the Supreme Court itself that ruled (in 2007) that the EPA could not continue to refrain from regulating CO2. The Court was relying (purportedly) on the language of the Clean Air Act.

But it left open the possibility that the EPA could refrain from acting if it either determined that CO2 wasn't causing climate change, or even if it simply couldn't determine the issue one way or another.

And a GOP president and congress can amend the Act.

[windansea]

bye Bayh.............

[anduril]

Charlie, holy shit is right. I think that's a damn big story. Should really shake up Dems everywhere.

[windansea]

deadline to file in Indiana is this Friday

hehe

[This was great and grand evil. I called a 'bilbo' on Mooney's blog 'Intersection 'Spawn of Mordor'..]

windansea, the dissonance deafens them. This is why I feel sorry for them. I wish it would end in ridicule, but Peter Bocking was right; too many have died already.
========================

[windansea]

oops scratch the above, deadline is tomorrow

Bayh had stockpiled a $13 mil war chest

maybe he's gonna take a run at Obama

[Extraneus]

He coulda been a contender.

Maybe he still plans to be, but if he'd have come out strong against the health care takeover, he really could have. I'm amazed that none of them were selfish enough to see that golden opening.

[We do not know the effect of CO2.]

The EPA's endangerment finding is fearfully dependent upon IPCC science. It will not stand. But, as I replied to a very perceptive Mari at Climate Audit when she ridiculed the appeals inherent in the investigatory commissions, 'Nature is the judge of CO2's innocence and all these mortals' appeals will ultimately go unheard'.
==============================

[Janet]

You might be right windansea...I keep waiting for Sen. Jim Webb (VA)to denounce the Obama admin. and try to save the Dem. party.

[windansea]

windansea, the dissonance deafens them. This is why I feel sorry for them. I wish it would end in ridicule, but Peter Bocking was right; too many have died already.

I don't feel sorry for them Kim, I've been called too many names for several years. For me es muy delicioso :)

[Danube of Thought]

I would just as soon never see or hear from the oaf Trump ever again, but I give him a pass when he says the Nobel Committee should take Gore's prize back.

[Jane]

Hey Charlie,

Did you ever know Tim Wirth - since he is from your part of the world? I knew him back in '72. I had no idea that was his job.

[verner]

Janet, I'm starting to think that the old democrat party is dead. The Socialists have taken over, and the so called "conservative" democrats are delusional if they think they still have a home there.

In other words, America now has two parties alright--the SOCIALIST and the ANTI-SOCIALISTS.

[Old Lurker]

But the Anti-Socialists include some who aren't.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Flash:

Evan Bayh is retiring because of "excessive partisanship".

Polls: Ahead of Coats by 20%.

[Danube of Thought]

What happens to the $13 million? Can he just give it to the DSCC or the DNC?

[See Tim Wirth re opening the windows at Hansen's infamous 1988 hearing in Congress.]

Yeah, I've been called names, too. But most of them are fundamentally good-hearted environmentalists; truly, they define 'useful idiots'.
=================

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

That's what I get for reading the thread from the latest comment and not getting back to windandsea's real scoop upthread.

I should have known that one of the JOM regulars would have already caught this one.

[It's been guerilla war.]

To be fair, windansea, you are close to the center, and I've certainly seen you abused by the perpetrators, not just random true believers like my experience.
===========================

[Pops]

Well, since my wind turbine has stopped working because the oil was not designed for below freezing, and my solar panels are covered by 4 feet of snow; I would really like to give you man-made global warming deniers a piece of my mind, but I'm really getting tired of pedalling to keep this darn computer runninnnnnnn....

[Rick Ballard]

Jim Rhoads,

The +20 for Bayh is a Koskidz production - Rasmussen had him at +3 against Hostettler and -3 against Pence. Pence decided not to run.

Bayh will probably hoard the $13 million against the probability that we'll be hearing an LBJ style "I have decided not to run..." speech from B+ after the '10 Tsunami. It's a very decent political move. Bayh is distancing himself from the prog cretins who insist upon destroying the current Democrat Party (may their strength hold until the goal is reached).

Becoming the Centrist Phoenix is not a bad idea at all.

[Old Lurker]

Pops: "Well, since my wind turbine has stopped working because the oil was not designed for below freezing, and my solar panels are covered by 4 feet of snow; I would really like to give you man-made global warming deniers a piece of my mind, but I'm really getting tired of pedalling to keep this darn computer runninnnnnnn...."

Dear Pops,

We feel your pain. But you obviously failed to read the fine print on the installation documents of those systems. You will note our strong suggestion that you install a natural gas fueled backup system capable of meeting 100% of your needs on the cahnce that your current condition be encountered.

Sincerely,

TBP

[MikeS]

I'm making a list of the parts of AGW theory that I'm not convinced are accurate.

1. The climate warming we've measured since about 1850 is unprecedented.

2. The cause of the unprecedented warming is increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. The cause of the increased atmospheric CO2 is that the small amount (5% of the yearly emissions) of human caused CO2 is throwing the ecosystem out of balance.

4. The temperature of the Earth during the 20th Century was ideal and any change would be catastrophic.

[Captain Hate]

DoT, I generally have no use for an egomaniacal gasbag like Trump but he's a humble mensa compared to Weird Al.

[It seems I remember you from a blog long forgotten, and far-off.]

That's excellent, MikeS. You marvelously illustrate the concept that you no longer have to be a climate expert to understand what is the matter with the failing paradigm that CO2=AGW. Heh, unless, of course, you are a climate expert.
==============================

[But yesterday's gone.]

There will come a day when Al Gore dare not show his face in public.
======================================

[Danube of Thought]

"There will come a day when Al Gore dare not show his face in public."

Perhaps that day has already come--no sightings in quite a while, so far as I know.

I've been predicting that in thirty years there'll be musical comedies written about this whole hysteria, and Al will be the principal butt of them.

[Captain Hate]

That's excellent, MikeS. You marvelously illustrate the concept that you no longer have to be a climate expert to understand what is the matter with the failing paradigm that CO2=AGW.

I'm incredulous that such a large number of purportedly intelligent individuals put all their eggs in such a threadbare basket; to think that something incredibly complex such as climate could be overly influenced by a solitary factor. Could the underlying politics be any more transparent?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Mike, that's really an excellent summary.

[It froze to death.]

The Croegan Oak has been felled by an axe as powerful Charlemagne's.
=======================

[Danube of Thought]

" The temperature of the Earth during the 20th Century was ideal and any change would be catastrophic."

More specifically, the ideal temperature happens to coincide precisely with the days of Al Gore's youth.

Seems to me that Phil Jones's admission that there has been no warming since 1995 hasn't been getting the attention it deserves. Our side should be hammering on that one big-time.

[MikeS]

Thanks for the props guys.

[This has colllapsed everywhere else already, the WaPo is just surrendering the last fortress..]

Steve Milloy at Green Hell Blog fisks Heilperin mericlessly.
================================

[Extraneus]

Our side should be hammering on that one big-time.

Well Rush did his part today. Complete with pompous foreign scientist accent.

[sylvia]

One thing I was wondering, having CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to warm the earth.

But, is there any cooling effect from REMOVING CO2 from the earth's crust? Just wondering.

[sylvia]

Just to expand on that, the amount of CO2 in the earth remains the same. Does it really make that much difference where it lies? Sky or ground.

After all, probably the earth is warmed by heat retained in the soil and reflected back into the sky. If you remove a lot of the CO2 from the soil, does that effect the soil's radiant heating qualities? Maybe decrease it slightly? Also what happens when you add or decrease CO2 from the oceans. Something to think about.

But I bet it's not as simple as the science so far suggests. Too many feedback loops.

[google 'carbon cycle' and enjoy.]

'Too many feedback loops' is right, sylvia.
==========================

[Captain Hate]

Just to expand on that, the amount of CO2 in the earth remains the same.

Wrong; it's a compound not an element. Its volume is continually changing.

[Old Lurker]

Mike, I am a big believer of reducing messages to "elevator speeches", and your list does that beautifully.

When I steal it and make it my own, I will probably modify it a little...if you will accept the changes:

#1 The warming we have measured since 1850 has restored temperatures not seen since the Norman Conquest.

#2 The cause of the warming is that CO2 in the atmosphere increased from trace levels of 2 parts in ten thousand to 4 parts in ten thousand.

#3 The cause of the increased atmospheric CO2 is that the small amount of human caused CO2 (1 part human, 19 parts natural) is throwing the ecosystem out of balance, and that if the human contribution were completely eliminated, the warming would stop.

#4 The temperature of the Earth during the 20th Century in each specific location was ideal and any change in any location would be catastrophic.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

One thing I was wondering, having CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to warm the earth.

But, is there any cooling effect from REMOVING CO2 from the earth's crust? Just wondering.

No. The reason CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature is that CO2, like water vapor and methane, is more or less transparent to light in visible frequencies, but opaque to light in longer frequencies, ie, the infrared. So when the solid parts absorb visible light, they're heated by it; they re-radiate that heat, which can't escape as easily as the light came in.

CO2 bound in the soil doesn't change the transmissivity of the atmosphere, so it doesn't affect the temperature as much. (Some CO2 compounds, like limestone, may be relatively "white" but that's a much smaller effect.)

Just to expand on that, the amount of CO2 in the earth remains the same. Does it really make that much difference where it lies? Sky or ground.

CH, I think she's saying "Assume the amount of CO2 stays constant; does it make a difference where it is?" That's a sensible question.

The answer is "yes, it does make a difference." For example, as temperature goes up, CO2 is less soluble in water. That implies there could be a feedback effect, in which CO2-driven warming would lead to more warming. Some people think that's why Venus is hellish instead of another Earth. But this hasn't proven out in real life on Earth, apparently because higher temps lead other processes to bind CO2 more or to increase the albedo, reflecting more heat away from the earth.

[Captain Hate]

Ok, I just wanted to make clear that the volume of CO2 is variable because it's continually being produced and consumed.

[boris]

"opaque to light in longer frequencies, ie, the infrared"

CO2 is mostly transparant to infrared as well. It has a number of IR absorbtion bands. One of the bands is close to the center of the black body radiation curve for Earth.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I'm guessing that means you missed the "more or less" part, Boris?

In any case, interestingly, the AP version of the WaPo story has lost Eilperin as an author.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ok, I just wanted to make clear that the volume of CO2 is variable because it's continually being produced and consumed.

Absolutely right.

[boris]

"Boris?"

Present.

"more or less transparent to light in visible frequencies ..."

You guessed wrong. Say, you get paid for writing stuff like that?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Present

Okay, so my attempt at the charitable interpretation fails, and you're just being a moron. Again.

[We know so little.]

Both a ya'. Look up Miscolzi.
=================

[MikeS]

Sounds good to me Lurker.

[boris]

"you're just being a moron. Again"

Ah yes, pedantry for thee but not for me.

my attempt at the charitable interpretation ...

I'd say applying "more or less" to "opaque" in your sentence goes way beyond "charitable".

more or less transparent to light in visible frequencies, but opaque to light in longer frequencies

Looks more like an attempt to steal a base.

[Jim Ryan]

I see that IR-absorption-band-semantics disputes can be quite heated.

[LouP]

The world has already spent $$MM, if not $$BB, on this nonsense. When do some folks become accountable? Is accountability even a viable concept these days?

[daddy]

Well the good news up here in Alaska is that we now really care about Gaia and are no longer interested in drilling and Natural Gas production to fuel the great energy beast of capitalistic America.

Instead we plan on drilling, and then selling">http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/story/1139611.html">selling it to the Chinese so they can fuel their economic energy beast.

Change we can believe in!

[Old Lurker]

Makes me see red, Jim.

[daddy]

Just for refresher, here again is the link to the companies that are joined in the 4 trillion ">http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx"> Euro Carbon scheme, headed by the BBC.

Might be worth thumbing through to identify tie ins to various folks who still adamantly promote AGW.

Yesterdays Scotland Sunday Herald had this story Calls">http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/calls-for-sacking-of-climate-change-sceptic-from-water-regulator-board-1.1006366">Calls for sacking of climate change sceptic from water regulator board. I can't tie in yet any of the Eco-Witchhunters calling for this guys head, but it sure wouldn't surprise me if there are such tie-ins.

[Cecil Turner]

In any case, interestingly, the AP version of the WaPo story has lost Eilperin as an author.

That is interesting. I suspect they don't want to keep responding to increasingly persuasive allegations of bias. But the biggest recent hit to global warming has nothing to do with the stuff Eilperin is spinning . . . it's that the dog apparently ate CRU's records:

In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

[Janet]

Jones and Sandy Berger....hahaha those good old messy guys. What are we gonna do with them. God luv um.
Liberal criminal defense....I am untidy.

[Janet]

The "I am untidy" defense was also used by Pincus of the Washington Post during the Bush administration when he printed up a press release from Sen. Carl Levin instead of the actual National Security paper.

His desk was untidy. The WaPo even printed a picture of his untidy desk.

[clarice]

Janet, my thoughts exactly. When caught with the docs in your pants, claim you are an absent minded nitwit.

But as a smarter climate watcher than I said in today's pajamas media, who cares if he lost the data it was carp anyway?

[Sad to say there is a lot of money wasted on carp research. We've got to start over with open minds.]

Well, now we don't have to prove it was carp, an argument that could have gone on forever. But with no underpinning for their science?
=================================

[Janet]

This liberal MSM useful idiot can do no wrong, because he is untidy. Same goes for Jones and Berger.

If a mistake was made....well, they regret it.

[Old Lurker]

Kim, between the hilarious creativity of your ever changing poster names, and the Harry Potterish stiletto symbolism of Rick Ballard's name calling, this place keeps me smiling.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Boris and Chaco-

Kim was pointing you towards

[Je m'amuse.]

Miscolzi's stuff is controversial, but the fact is that we do not know the effect of CO2 on our climate. We've been wild-guessing, or determining it from the inadequate and circular models.

OL, we endeavour to give satisfaction.
====================

[daddy]

Can somebody please post ">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/christy-and-mckittrick-in-the-uk-times-doubts-on-station-data/"> the picture atop this Watts Up story, as it depicts in unbelievable clarity why we can't trust some of the temp sensors they've been using to prove the world is getting warmer. Its worth not just a thousand words, but 6000 pages worth of IPCC reports.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Left something unfinished, sorry, she was pointing at Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. The two papers are what you need to be referring.

The answering of critics (Nick Stokes) is particularly entertaining.

[The temperature data is hopelessly adulterated and apparently deliberately.]

Anthony Watts has hundreds of similar pictures with Stevenson Screens next to air conditioning compressors and barbecue installations and parking lots, but downstream from jet engines is a particularly good one.
=====================================

[daddy]

Please post 'em Kim.

My kids are looking over my shoulder and laughing at how stupid the Rome Airport temp sensor is. I think a 4 year old could understand it.

Ann, if you're available, please post that pic. Thanks if advance if you're lurking today.

[boris]

"she was pointing at Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi"

Yes, I am familiar with the concept and think I referenced it here late 2009. As long as certain temperature effecting components are present and operating withing their active ranges the amount of greenhose effect will be roughly constant regardless of exact proportions of the components. IIRC my analogy compared it to the proportions of ice, liquid and vapor for the triple point of water.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Heh.

[Shall we bring up Gerlich and Tscheuschner again?]

Watts has them all over his Surface Stations site.

Do you understand Miscolzi well enough to critique him, Boris? I can smell that he might be right, but I'm not much of a scientist.
================================

[Melinda Romanoff]

kim, who was the aggregator for looking up all the US weather stations?

I can't remember who piled up those photos as a project....

[The science of remote sensing is far advanced. Collecting temperatures isn't yet.]

I'm pretty sure you are talking about Anthony Watts and his Surface Stations project. See LUN.
==========================

[Some asshole from the NOAA stole a lot of his research and published it in a vain attempt to pre-empt Watts' coming story.]

Yes, daddy, go to surfacestations.org and look for the odd locations over on the right sidebar.
================================

[boris]

"Do you understand Miscolzi well enough to critique him?"

Only that compared to the scary tipping point arguments used by AGW advocates, the Miscolzi hypothesis is far more likely. If true it would be another one of those physical properties of the universe that seems curiously contrived to make evolution possible (more like inevitable).

[DrJ]

Kim,

If Gerlach and Tscheuschner are the German Physicists who released a 100 page tome on Global Warming, please let's not bring it up. I waded through that turd, and don't wish to revisit that stench again.

[daddy]

Thanks Melinda,

The Science is scuttled:)

[Very few understand Miscolzi, Gerlich or Tscheuschner.]

That's funny, DrJ. They've endured a lot of criticism, but I said from the beginning that they were only debunking the IPCC's conception of the greenhouse effect. I'm not sure that still isn't so.
==================================

[And I do suspect it has to do with the three phases of water.]

boris, there is something that keeps our climate steady enough to support life.
====================================

[boris]

Pretty much has to be kim.