A couple decades ago, a smoker I knew smugly pointed out that his aunt, who had smoked all her life, had died of pancreatic cancer. “See! Smoking didn’t kill her!” The very next day, a study came out linking pancreatic cancer to smoking.
Likewise, there have been a number of studies coming out about how the record amount of sea ice in Antarctica may, in fact, be due to global warming. For example, back in March, 2013, an article appeared in Nature: Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice. For example,
Scientists have known for several years that meltwater from ice sheets can form a cold, fresh layer on the ocean surface that protects sea ice from the warmer waters below.
From the Economist, we read
Nay-sayers should not crow too loudly. The world’s changing climate may be altering polar winds, which in turn could be affecting the volume of Antarctic ice. As wind pushes sea ice together, it forces ridging, leading to thicker and longer-lasting ice formations. Stronger winds also drive ice to move more quickly. Antarctica’s blustery weather, and the thicker ice it creates, therefore may be signs of climate change in themselves. Natural variability could, however, be another explanation for the thickness of the continent’s ice in recent years.
Note the rather odd behavior of seizing on this or that item as “refuting” global warming. There is massive evidence for it (mean temperatures, the Arctic, the steady sea rise, increases in hurricane activity, changes in the distribution of species, the retreat of glaciers, comparison of the numbers of record lows and record highs in temperatures, etc.) What is odd is the conservative tendency to seize on one fact, one fact devoid of context, like the aunt’s pancreatic cancer, and insist that this one fact is enough to expose climate science as a fraud.
That behavior, ironically, exposes conservatives as frauds.
mike_cote says
The stupid thing about this is that they deniers are arguing against the name, not the science. The science shows that the climates will become more extreme as the average temperature of the planet increases, and these idiots think every time it snows in the winter, then it must be a disprove of the trend. No concept of the law of high numbers, no concept of the fact that a sample set of one, does not disprove the average or the trend.
Christopher says
…as global warming being just one symptom of broader climate change, though on average the global temperature is headed in the warmer direction.
However, sometimes I think the activists don’t think. Once in DC I was walking outside hustling to get where I was going because the temperature was well below freezing. I was accosted by a couple of folks who wanted me to sign a petition for/donate to their organization the mission of which was to fight “global warming”, which is what they called it. Like I said I was hurrying because of the temperature and while I admire their heartiness braving the elements and completely acknowledge and understand the science, I rolled my eyes and said, “You REALLY want to talk about that TODAY?!”
jconway says
Global warming was changed to climate change for this very purpose.
To get the Dan from Waltham Howie Carr callers from saying ‘look out da window it’s friggin freezin ova heh, tell Al Gohe they ain’t no wahmin heh’.
And from the looks of it, without action, the human race could very well be fucked by 2100. And sadly it’s the third world that will largely be rendered inhabitable around the equator. For the rich that might not be an issue to worry about, but if DFW and the other right wingers still think it’s not worth saving a polar bear to turn down the heat maybe the massive wave of brown third world refugees and immigrants might convince them otherwise. Not to mention MA stands to lose most of it’s seashore communities.
Mark L. Bail says
popularized the term “climate change” because he thought it was less scary. Both terms have existed for a long time, but the change in terminology was a poor choice by the denialists.
Mark L. Bail says
realistic about global warming than many business-friendly publications, but the hedging in this quote is likely due to its misplaced sense of fair play than any actual global warming denial.
Kahneman has an article called “The Belief in Small Numbers.” It’s almost completely about statistics and not directly relevant to this, but I thought the title was ironic give Mike’s comments.
The reason deniers should not be taken seriously is that their project is to disprove or minimize the effects of global warming, not find the truth. Global warming and climate change are great things to deny because they are extremely complicated, i.e. lots of moving parts and flow mechanics.
In fact, Antarctica is gaining ice. But not all ice is created equal.
The Antarctic Ocean is losing salinity, so it’s easier for it to freeze. There’s more evaporation so there’s more rain. It’s not simple stuff. Of course, we can’t have global warming if something freezes.
jconway says
Is they are convinced that science and tech start ups can tackle the problem without any further need for government regulation/action. It’s where their belief in cold empiricism starts to depart into invisible hand fantasies that they lose their senses as reasonable conservative/libertarians on this issue.
Granted, I think a huge concession can be made to valid center-right critiques that BRIC has to get on board with US-EU regulatory regimes for it to be effective. No need for China to free ride on the West.
Mark L. Bail says
Freakonomics Levitt? He’s a freshwater micro-economist! Boo! Hiss! He’s also a complete tool. Crime dropped in the 1990s because there was legalized abortion? What a dumbass.
The empiricism of science and tech start ups is limited to technology; beyond technology, it is misapplied empiricism.
jconway says
He is a complete tool and a prima doña as well. And totally wrong on climate change.
Charley on the MTA says
But I also feel that the endless countering of denialist claims and tropes keeps us spinning our wheels politically. (Yes, I do it too, at great length.) The denialism exists not primarily to make a truth claim, but simply as trolling, to forestall action.
Better to keep concentrating on what we’re going to do, not responding to Donald Trump and whatever dumb thing he says. People who don’t want to be persuaded, won’t be.
We’re right. Now what do we do??
kirth says
Better to keep concentrating on what we’re going to do, not responding to danfromwaltham and whatever dumb thing he says.
If Trump came here and put up a bunch of BS comments and posts, would we be told that it’s good for us?
kbusch says
indirectly by way of DFW.
SomervilleTom says
So long as editors continue to publish “denialist claims and tropes” (or “lies”) in influential outlets like BMG, the wheels will continue to spin.
These are not the harmless eccentricities of a misguided few. They are, instead, intentional sabotage against ANY effective government action. They happen here because BMG is read by high-placed Democratic officials and staffers. Each day that our front page and comments are dominated by such lies is another gain for those who fear the truth.
“Now what do we do”? Ruthlessly delete denialist lies, perhaps by replacing each such comment with a link to one of the many sites that already rebut them.
geoffm33 says
I recommended that your comment right here be stickied above the diary, or delete the diary in full.
danfromwaltham says
This was said in 2000 and I do believe Robert Kennedy Jr. made a similar statement in 2007 regarding snow fall in Virginia. This was my focal point on the issue.
It just seems no matter what happens, no snow fall, or huge blizzards, warm temps during winter months, record cold temps like in Canada (as cold as Mars in Winnipeg), ice sheets melting away, record expansion of ice sheets, its all inclusive, all b/c of man-made produced carbon and the finger gets pointed at me, or us. So climate change has nothing to do with an active sun or volcanic eruptions, just man is the problem and the solution is to live with less, sacrifice our comforts, in hopes of lowing the temperatures by how much?
I have seen Bill Nye get destroyed in a debate with AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi who says El-Niño/PDO and solar cycles and prior high latitude volcanic activity were responsible for higher than normal snow in 09-10, not global warming. Mr. Bastardi points to a sunspot observations since 1750 have increased, which have a significant impact on global temps, as well as oceans and CO2.
In my humble opinion, if the main cause of rising global temps is due to CO2 output, then we are shoveling against the tide b/c the world population is growing and growing, and billions of people want to have comforts which require energy. So, why should we, or I, pay for a world problem which likely won’t even alter the worlds temperatures, rather, but will alter our lifestyle and cost us good jobs. Any promises by any politician saying their proposal will lower temps should be looked at with a skeptical eye and dismissed (you know what I am referring to).
And I do appreciate the editors allowing me to just voice an opinion, as wrong as it may be in your eyes, but I believe it gives you an insight as to why some put this issue on the low importance scale. If we are going to spend time and money on something, lets put it toward finding a cure for cancer.
Mark L. Bail says
Strategy 1: Cherry pick evidence and sources.
Joe Bastardi. Bastardi is a weatherman, not a climate scientist. That doesn’t disqualify him, but it doesn’t grant him any particular authority. Bastardi is Fox News’ climate change expert. Media Matters reports: CLAIM: El Niño Accounts For Warming Trend. A FoxNews.com article reported:
Christopher says
“destroyed” is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen Bill Nye debate science fools and in a debate with a meteorologist I highly doubt he was the one destroyed.
danfromwaltham says
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZU5uvM5Ok
See Bill Nye debate Prof Lindzen of MIT and Julian Morris.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M
dcsohl says
Oh, right, of course, because we as a society are only capable of focusing on one thing at a time.
Won’t somebody please think of the children???
geoffm33 says
So Bill Nye sucks at debating. He’s about to debate some creationist who will gish gallop and Bill Nye will likely look to be the loser in the debate. Who gives a shit. Are we going to throw away the research done in the science community and rely on debates as proof? What next a strongman competition?
Christopher says
…until the day Cape Cod disappears under rising ocean levels for good before we address the problem? By the time the problem is that obvious and immediate it will be too late; some say it already is.
SomervilleTom says
Joe Bastardi was booted from Accuweather (itself a bastion of climate change denial, at least in its executive ranks) because his lies were so extreme that they were damaging the Accuweather brand. Mr. Bastardi published a fraudulent graph that was repeated among thousands of denier sites — a graph that included the Accuweather logo. The graph was quickly identified as a fraud. Mr. Bastardi was bad for Accuweather’s business.
The rest of your comment is, like so much of the material you post here, so content-free that I simply refuse to address it. I would rather debate my dining-room table.
jconway says
And the key is just to ignore him whenever he replies and stop bothering. Calling out Christopher, KBusch, Mark Bail, Mike Cote by name. I’ll take the hit for the Huckabee article, but so far so good in 2014. The rest of you should follow my advice-it’s not a critique but totally friendly for your own sanity’s sake.
petr says
… as most cancers, detected early enough, are easily treatable. We also know now, which you (way back in 1950) do not know, is that the vast majority of cancers are the result of environmental risk factors: tobacco, pollution, pesticides, x-rays, asbestos, radium…
Hmm… tobacco, pollution, pesticides, x-rays, asbestos, radium… Now what do all these things have in common? What is it about all these product, or by-products, that is similar? What could possibly be the link between them… ??
It’s ok. You can say it.
That’s right: The harmful affects were all denied, vociferously, aggressviely and unrealistically, by those with vested interests WHILE THEY WERE ACTIVELY CAUSING HARM
Somewhere, sometime, someone once said about each of these things, “they are safe. No harm can come from them.” Many people, including doctors, once said that cigarettes and tobacco were safe. People were told that X-Rays were safe. Pollution, we were all told, was not a problem. PCBs? Not a worry! DDTs? Think nothing of it! Acid Rain? Nothing to see here, move along…. Widespread and nearly comprehensive distribution and market penetration of Asbestos happened because somebody said “Asbestos is safe. No harm can come from Asbestos.” Women were encouraged to use Radium as glowing makeup, because, well, “Radium is safe. No harm can come from Radium.”
They were wrong. The situation is exactly the same only the scale of the problem is different.
So we have a cure for cancer right in our hip pocket: don’t pollute; Don’t smoke; Don’t use Asbesto; Don’t use pesticides. In short, don’t destroy the environment. Derp.
danfromwaltham says
My goodness, you make it sound so easy to avoid cancer, just eliminate these items from your diet and you are home free.
petr says
.. you think “simple” and “easy” are cognates.
Yes, it is that simple. No, it’s not that easy.
danfromwaltham says
Their cells mutate and doctors are trying to figure out why, and that’s the cure we hope to see, but now we are stuck with chemo.
Because one doesn’t eat organic foods, you shouldn’t blame them for getting cancer.
petr says
… Or do you think that people sit around in their asbestos underwear, ingesting PCBs, puff first-hand smoke, doing up their nails with Radium?
kirth says
petr says
… that 1.5% is an artificially limited number because pneumonia and asthma, also from indoor air pollution, usually kills them quicker.
danfromwaltham says
Me and the kids walk around in tee-shirts b/c it’s so comfy. Actually lying in front of my fireplace insert (Hitzer 983 for those who are thinking about alternative heat) helps loosen my back muscles. Air so clean and pure, I feel like I am at Glacier National Park in Montana.
Mark L. Bail says
asbestos underwear. I was hoping no one knew.
Mark L. Bail says
99% of the time reactionary arguments follow one of three directions:
1. Perversity, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.
2. Futility attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to “make a dent.”
3. Jeopardy the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.
kbusch says
then it’s simple! Cancer goes away too!
kbusch says
or budget either. I meant budget above.