CCD Editor’s Note: Roy Spencer, a published, credentialed climatologist, takes on the thoroughly inept Chuck Todd, who did climate science no favors when he spent the entire hour of ‘Meet The Press’ misinforming his viewers about global warming using the ill-informed ‘strawman’ argument. #
Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman
or, All Credentialed Journalists are Sex Abusers
Chuck Todd, on a recent episode of Meet the Press, highlighted the issue of global warming and climate change.
He unapologetically made it clear that he wasn’t interested in hearing from people on the opposing side of the scientific issue, stating:
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
This is what’s called a “strawman” argument, where you argue against something your opponent never even claimed. (SEE ALSO: Chuck Todd Bans Climate ‘Deniers’ from Climate Change Special)
I cannot think of a single published, credentialed skeptical climate scientist who doesn’t believe in the “existence” of climate change, or that “the Earth is getting hotter”, or even that human activity is likely a “major cause”.
Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, and myself (to name a few) all believe these things.
That journalists continue to characterize us as having extremist views shows just how far journalism has fallen as a (somewhat) respectable profession.
What if I claimed that all journalists are sex abusers? Of course, no reasonable person would believe that.
Yet, I would wager that up to half of the U.S. population has been led to believe that climate change skeptics are “deniers” (as in, Holocaust deniers), about whom journalist Ellen Goodman said 12 years ago,
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”
At least my hypothetical claim that “journalists are sex abusers” is statistically more accurate than journalists’ claims that we skeptical scientists “deny” this, that, and the other thing (for those allegations, see Mark Halperin, Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley, Michael Oreskes, and others).
The fact is that even if humans are, say, 60 percent responsible for the warming of the global ocean and atmosphere over the last 60 years (which would be consistent with both the UN IPCC’s and Todd’s phrasing), the latest analyses (Lewis & Curry, 2018) of what this would mean leads to an eventual warming of only one deg. C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we are currently about halfway to that doubling).
That’s only one-third of what the IPCC claims is going to happen and an even smaller fraction of what the ratings-boosting extremists who journalists like to trot out will claim.
A Nuance Chuck Todd is Ill-Prepared to Discuss
Journalists are notoriously under-informed on science issues. For example, let’s look at the claim that recent warming has been human-caused. It is easy to show that such attribution is more faith-based than science-based.
Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats has measured an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C.
That’s less than 0.004 deg. C/year, an inconceivably small number.
Significantly, it represents an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the climate system of only one part in 260.
That’s less than 0.5 percent and climate science does not know any of the NATURAL flows of energy to that level of accuracy.
The tiny energy imbalance causing the warming is simply ASSUMED to be the fault of humans and not part of some natural cycle in the climate system.
Climate models are adjusted in a rather ad hoc manner until their natural energy flows balance, then increasing CO2 from fossil fuels is used as the forcing (imposed energy imbalance) causing warming.
That’s circular reasoning. Or, some might say, garbage in, garbage out.
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief.
It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles.
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
So, journalists do a lot of talking about things of which they know nothing. As Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz said in 1939,
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
The proof that global warming is a hoax is clear as the hand in front of your face. Remnants of ancient forests have been found in the debris of receding glaciers in Switzerland and British Columbia. Google this. It’s true. This is proof that temperatures were at least 3 degrees warmer when these forests were growing. The ice core data also shows us that carbon dioxide was below 300 PPM during these times. The only thing that can change the earth’s temperature that much is the sun. The earth’s orbit around the sun has a repeating cycle (known as the Milankovitch Cycle) which has a periodicity of roughly 100,000 years, which also happens to be the periodicity of currently glacial advances. The cycle is more complicated due to wobbles and sway of the earth’s orbit. Think of a top as it slows down.
It’s just difficult to believe that scientists and our governments have been lying to us for 30 years. Personally, I believe the big economies are scrambling to fill the energy gap before they become fully reliant on Rouge Nations like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, ….. But wait, there is hope, Canada has enough oil to bridge the gap between now and when the developed world can build their own energy infrastructure. Invest in Canada and stop funding the rogue nations, especially Russia, who under cut our democracy. Stop funding terrorism.
When the United Nations and NASA are fudging data to keep the public believing in Global Warming, you know they have bigger concerns but just can’t come right out and say it.
Spencer-et-al are GHG Theory “Lukewarmists”.
They show us a long term graph that clearly shows that CO2 levels LAG global temperatures; then turn around and claim that CO2 warms the atmosphere, but only slightly and, therefore not catastrophic.
What kind of nonsense is that?
Try this: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
The two ideas are compatible. It might explain why dinosaurs thrived in Canada. Temperature increases release sequestered CO2, and CO2 is sensitive to a narrow band of the infrared portion of the light spectrum. It’s natural and it continues until some catastrophe causes another Ice Age.
Chuck Todd preaches to the converted. Don’t expect him to share the pulpit with atheists.
O.K.
So the great majority of professional scientists (cowed by their professional organisations into keeping their heads down until they’re retired – or else!) take a back seat while the activists among them publicly prostitute ‘climate science’ for political ends and monetary gain.
Then we have maybe 95% of prominent mainstream media journalists, like Chuck Todd, variously too ignorant, lazy, or downright immoral to even attempt to look for the truth about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
And finally we have most of the mainstream politicians in the world treating the CAGW deception as though it’s an incontrovertible scientific fact, instead of a clearly indefensible extrapolation of poorly understood (and often mysteriously ‘adjusted’) oceanic and atmospheric data.
These same politicians, I might add, wouldn’t normally believe anything from anybody unless it suited their own political ambitions, but they believe wholeheartedly in CAGW. (Interesting isn’t it?)
So my point is this: With roughly $4 billion a day (yes, that’s billion with a ‘b’) of taxpayers money pouring into climate related boondoggles all over the world, and our information system already thoroughly subverted by climate alarmists and their ‘useful idiots’, do we really have ANY realistic chance of stopping The Great Global Warming Scam before it achieves its ultimate goal?
$4 billion US per day hasn’t stopped the “crisis” ? No one has claimed progress , let alone success. No evidence that trillions of dollars has had a global cooling effect.
In the real world, corporations give quarterly reports to shareholders. Presidents give annual state of the union addresses. The climate change mob gets a free pass. Why?
Chuck, it’s easy to spout all your rhetoric when you have banned anyone that would challenge it from the conversation.
Dr. Spencer,
I enjoy reading your reasoning and your easy methods of putting the scare-mongers and their kind in their place. You hit the topic head-on when you cite the ocean temperature data. Anybody who knows about climate understands that it is the oceans which really count in the climate dynamics equation.
When global warmers scheme with their climate models and come up with a temperature imbalance that points to a possible warming, they are always quick to find a human criminal element in the mix. It is equal to a cashier who, at the end of the shift, finds a shortage (or even an overage) of a few dollars (as is nearly always the case in retail) and determines that some dastardly individual must be responsible for the difference.
People without Brains doing a lot of Talking you mean people like David Hogg, Hollywood Liberals Liberal Democrats Chuckie Todd the Odd and Eco-Wackos sitting in trees or blocking meat isles at the Super Market/Grocery Store
Reminds me of the Supreme Court case, US v Miller in 1939. That’s the case that ‘gun control’ folks like to quote. There was no defense in that case, Miller wasn’t present, no attorney represented him, nor were any written briefs submitted. One sided – you bet…..
I would challenge Chuck Todd to name one person he might otherwise have been willing to invite onto his show who denies that the earth has a climate, the essential requirement to be a “climate denier”.
Unfortunately, Chuck Todd is not the only journalist or media personality who conflates catastrophic anthropogenic global warming / climate change skepticism with “climate denial”. However, his linguistic laziness pales in comparison to the offensive laziness of Michael Mann, Joseph Romm and others who clearly understand but callously ignore the difference.