An internally inconsistent straw man from the Cornwall Alliance

A few months ago the pseudo-religious science-denying cult the Cornwall Alliance posted a bunch of denialist videos on YouTube. I didn’t watch most of them, though a few hundred people have.  One of them did catch my eye. It had the title: Greener on the Other Side - Attacking the Person, Not the Argument, Is Wrong.

I liked the message, however it struck me as a possible example of a straw man logical fallacy. Still, I wondered if there were going to be examples given where the research was sound, but was criticised solely because of the funding source. (I realised it was probably too much to hope that the Cornwall Alliance would be telling fake sceptics to stop attacking climate scientists and instead read their research.) Anyway, I watched the entire one minute and thirty second video almost through to the end (missing only the final long promo). I thought I'd check to see if the argument was supported by examples or if it was just another logical fallacy typical of science deniers.

There weren’t any examples given. It was pure straw man through and through. However it turned out to be more than just a straw man fallacy. The very short video contradicted itself. Below is the transcript so you can see for yourself.

NASA has-beens seek "an orderly market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives"

A small bunch NASA has-beens who call themselves "the right climate stuff" want us to "keep on burning" till we're toast.  Well, not quite, as it turns out.  Read on...

Burning all the carbon dioxide!

Here is some of what they say, according to Anthony Watts at WUWT (archived here) who copied and pasted it from James Delingpole, interpreter of interpretations from the denialati:

Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

Given that deniers like to work in kelvin, I expect they are arguing that global surface temperatures will rise by  3.5K or 3.5 degrees Celsius.  On the other hand, they might be working with the Celsius scale and arguing surface temperatures will rise by 0.18 degrees, which would be odd, given that the temperature is now 0.8 degrees higher than it was a century or so ago.

The wrong interpretation - again, and again

James Delingpole, interpreter of interpretations, gave the wrong interpretation, further down he wrote:

Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.

So, is it 1.2% or 1.2 degrees?  And what's that about "burning ... carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel"?  In any case, when you read what the NASA hasbeens write, it's not 1.2 degrees C all up.  What they are arguing is that there will be an additional 1.2 degrees Celsius - which is a rise of 2 degrees Celsius overall.  And that's just in the short term.

Wrong again!

The NASA has-beens are headed by a chap named Harold Doiron.  According to Anthony / James:

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

James Delingpole and Anthony Watts can't even get that right - the April 2012 letter was signed by 49 people, only three of whom didn't list themselves as being "ex-NASA" employees, making it 46 not 40 ex NASA employees.  And the list contained signatories from eight astronauts, not seven.

The fact that they probably tried but couldn't make 50 signatories - out of all the tens of thousands of ex-NASA employees, says a lot.  It wouldn't come close to the 8% mark, which is roughly the proportion of "dismissives" in the general population.  Heck, it's only 0.275% of the current NASA workforce!

Models predicted 2160 kelvin in 35 years time? I don't think so...

Moving away from James' wrong interpretations, here is some of what the NASA has-beens themselves said. In their top twenty list, these NASA has-beens searching for a new mission go on about CO2 is plant food and other denier memes.  At one point they said:

After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. 

Over-predicted actual measured temperatures by a factor of 750%?  Hmmm.  Again, using the scale preferred by deniers, this would mean that the models predicted a temperature for earth of 2160 kelvin in 35 years.  I don't think so.

How about using the Celsius scale - a prediction of around 112 degrees Celsius in 35 years? - again, I don't think so.

Perhaps they meant to write "actual measured temperature anomaly" but they didn't specify a baseline.  Let's say instead of predicting a one degree rise, they predicted a 7.5 degree rise in 35 years time?  Again, I don't think so.

Maybe they were just talking about the rise over 35 years.  So, say, a 2.25 degrees rise over 35 years instead of 0.3 degrees? Or 3 degrees instead of 0.4 degrees? Again, I don't think so.

In any case, how do these NASA ex-whatevers know that the models have over-predicted anything?  35 years from the report is still around 34 years from now.

An orderly market-driven transition from fossil fuels

The NASA has-beens are promoting "an orderly market-driven transition from fossil fuels" - whatever they mean by that, writing:

12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)
13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)
14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)

But they seem to be happy enough for more than double CO2, which is extremely dangerous.  These ex NASA has-beens don't think so.  They reckon that the transient climate sensitivity is 1.6 degrees, which is in the ballpark of the IPCC estimate. The IPCC AR5 WG1 report states:

With high confidence the transient climate response (TCR) is positive, likely in the range 1°C to 2.5ºC and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C, based on observed climate change and climate models (see TFE.6 for further details).

They go on to talk about transient climate response and argue that we shouldn't worry about anything after that.  Let their children's children put up with our legacy and like it or not survive it (or both).

From the WUWT comments

As usual, some of the WUWT crowd didn't bother reading the article, they just used it as an opportunity to write crass comments.  The ones who did were not all that happy with the NASA has-beens.


Fabi says:

March 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Glad to see their response, although I hate to see them adopt the language of the cAGW crowd, especially terms such as the Social Cost of Carbon.

Damian is a bit upset that the ex-NASA mob didn't provide any facts or accompanying data (did I get that right?) and says:

March 8, 2014 at 3:52 pm
WOW. Reality + common sense. These guys should expect the vitriol and personal attacks to begin any minute now. And as always it will happen without any facts or accompanying data.

Aphan says:

March 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
They are using the EPA and DOE’s terminology.

Speed, like me, doesn't know what they are basing their percentages on and says:

March 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm
… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.
What’s that in degrees?

NZ Willy can't have ever seen a scientific paper because he says:

March 8, 2014 at 4:03 pm
I like this very much, but can they, or will they, submit to a peer journal?

They just did - it's called WUWT!



garymount noticed the bit about burning carbon dioxide and says:

March 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm
The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide.

That's what you get when you rely on an interpreter of interpretations for your "science".


garymount and I got the same answer to the 1.2% and says:

March 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
1.2 percent would be about 3.5 C (or K). Remember, temperatures start at 0K not 0C, or 0F.

The Wrong Climate Stuff

Apparently a handful or so "clueless geriatric" engineers and astronauts from the Apollo days (not climate scientists) have got together and are publishing some anti-science propaganda about climate.  While they generally agree with the fact that humans are causing global warming, they want to delay action.  They are merchants of doubt and therefore climate science deniers.

(Putting this into perspective, if this survey is any guide, at least 300,000 or more who worked on the Apollo missions, including thousands of engineers, scientists and astronauts, accept and respect climate science.)

To save you reading their gumf, here's a summary:

Global warming is happening, by the way plants love CO2, and it's caused by burning fossil fuels but it might not be all bad and plants love CO2 and sea levels will rise but there's still time and it might be caused by us old fossils and whatever, but we shouldn't start to do anything about it yet because not 100% of everything is 100% known yet and because we're still alive and we don't like taxes and anyway plants love CO2.  Did we say plants love CO2? (mumble mumble.... where did I put my dentures?.... did someone remember to put in the bit about plants loving CO2?...I can say how I hate government now that it pays me a generous superannuation instead of a salary  ... mumble mumble)

Yeah, right! Plants might love CO2 but they don't like drought or extreme heat waves or floods or shifting seasons or wildfires or losing their bird and insect pollinators or shifting plant zones.  Plants can't walk away when conditions get too uncomfortable.  They can't move uphill when it gets too hot if they are already at the top of a mountain.

In support of their 'case' to delay responsible action, about the only people these retired engineers seem able to trot out are  Richard Lindzen (who has tried but failed to show low climate sensitivity) and Roger "not a climate scientist" Pielke Jr. who agrees that humans are causing global warming but is reluctant to do much about it mainly, as far as I can make out, for unfathomable ideological reasons of his own.

Thousands of climate scientists vs a dozen denying engineers

There's no mention of the fact that 97% of the thousands of climate scientists, and other scientists whose research work relates to climate, agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change by burning fossil fuels and other activities.  Or that if we don't start acting now, the consequences will be dire.

Me? I'll go with the 97%.  This is the Critical Decade.

Stick with the specialists

The astronauts are lucky the Apollo missions were managed by specialists in rocket science and space exploration.

Who are you going to call on to find out about climate science? We can thank our lucky stars that climate science is done by climate scientists, not retired engineers and rocket scientists who know nothing about climate.

You can read the answers to some of their questions here.