So is it "Global Warming" or "Climate Change?"

One of the things that seems to cause a lot of confusion is the use - and misuse - of the terms "global warming" and "climate change." Frankly, people misuse words all the time and this one example shouldn't be that big of a deal. Mostly the confusion is caused not by the words themselves but by the lack of understanding of the concept of climate change, both from normal ignorance (not everyone can be a climate scientist) and from intentional abuse in order to avoid policy discussions to deal with the science. In either case, it doesn't change the science to say global warming when you should be saying climate change. Still, the jargon used by various professions tends to be confusing to those outside the profession.

So this article begins a series in which basic climate science will be explained for those who want to know but don't have a background in climate science. Feel free to refer to them when talking with your friends, family, or deniers on Facebook and other social networking sites. First up, some definitions so we all know what we're talking about. I'll start with the obvious ones and I'll update as questions arise during subsequent commenting and posting.

"Global Warming" and "Climate Change": As I said, for most people it doesn't matter which you use, but in practice the terms have specific meanings. Remember your high school SAT questions? Well this is more or less like "orange is to fruit" as "global warming is to climate change." An orange is just one of the many kinds of fruit (in technical terms, a "subset"). Global warming is just one component of the many things happening that tell us there is a changing climate (e.g., ocean acidification, melting ice sheets, altered migration patterns). Of course, it's not really that simple, as we will see in subsequent posts, but it's a good start.

"Anthropogenic": Simply put, "man-made." That doesn't mean there aren't natural forces out there also at play; natural forces have impacted climate for millennia. So when scientists say anthropogenic or man-made or human activity they are referring to that component of global warming (or climate change) that is attributable to the things we do - most notably the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And over 100 years of data tells that what 7 billion humans do make a significant difference to our climate.

"Theory": This is another word that causes great confusion because the general public uses it to mean something completely different than do scientists. To most people, in common usage a "theory" is like "well, yeah, he could win the game in theory." In other words, most people use "theory" when they mean more or less a wild guess, or at best an educated guess. That's not what it means in scientific circles. When a scientist says "theory" he means it is an unequivocal conclusion based on the preponderance (i.e., vast majority) of the evidence. It is built on the forming of hypotheses (proposed explanations for something we observe and measure), the testing and refining of those hypotheses, and then eventually a pretty solid case for what causes what. Hypotheses stay hypotheses as data are collected and analyzed until every attempt to find some other explanation proves futile. Once the evidence is so overwhelming that all other explanations are ruled out it becomes a "theory." In short, things that are unequivocally demonstrated are called theories. Most people wouldn't be too worried about the meaning of "the theory of gravity.;" gravity keeps us from floating off the planet. The same holds true for "the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change." The data are unequivocal; we are warming our climate.

"Scientific Consensus": Another common point of confusion is when scientists say that there is a scientific consensus. In the case of climate change, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and it is being caused by human activity. When most people hear this they think of a bunch of people sitting around a table discussing where to go for lunch. "Aha, we've reached a consensus, it's definitely Taco Bell!!" In other words, many people think it's like taking a vote. But that is not what scientific consensus means at all. When a scientist says there is a consensus that means that the issue has been studied for a long time and in many different ways and the sum total of all the collected data from multiple lines of evidence and all of the analysis done by multiple people has eventually built up the evidence to a point where it leads so overwhelmingly to a particular conclusion that the vast majority of scientists agree that what the data tell them is true. That sentence may be a mouthful, but basically it means the conclusion is overwhelmingly, and unequivocally, demonstrated by the evidence. This is the case for man-made climate change.

"Uncertainty": Scientists are always looking at "uncertainty." In every published scientific paper there is a section in which the uncertainties are discussed. In most cases, those uncertainties are quantified statistically to the point of something like "I'm 95% certain the result is this..." This causes confusion to the general public because to most people uncertainty means "we aren't sure." That is not what it means in scientific studies. As science is always collecting and incorporating new data, nothing can ever be said to be 100% "certain." But that doesn't mean we aren't sure. It just means we aren't sure about some particular details. For example, we can be very sure that gravity exists, but there is uncertainty as to exactly how and why it exists. Think about what you would do if the weatherman said there was a 95% chance of rain. That means there is still 5% uncertainty, but I'm betting nearly everyone will have their umbrella handy.

Here are some other terms that have different meanings to the public and scientists (meme from internet, original source uncertain):

 

In addition, the USEPA has compiled a list of useful climate change terms that could come in handy.

Okay, that's all for now. Any other terms that people think need to be defined? If so, put them in the comments and I'll add them to the list.

Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, by Cathy O'Neil (Book Review)

A hugely important work filled with knowledgeable insights, this book takes a hard look at the promises and pitfalls of big data. Mostly pitfalls. Written by an insider data scientist, the book's title riffs off the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) of a decade ago, trading the Mass for Math. The clever theme continues with chapters labeled Bomb Parts (basics of mathematical modeling), Shell Shocked (the author's path toward recognizing the problem), Arms Race (going to college)...all the way through Collateral Damage and The Targeted Citizen.

Along the way author O'Neil examines how big data - mathematical models - are now used to determine who gets into college, how corporations target advertising to specific groups, whether you get and keep a job, and assessing credit ratings and insurance risk. Through insider interviews and personal experience, O'Neil documents how model building often integrates the inherent biases of the people building the models, as well as historical biases. In many different ways, and through dozens of pertinent examples, it becomes clear that WMDs are designed primarily to reduce costs and promote higher income for the companies that use them.

Worse, WMDs reinforce societal prejudices and stereotypes, targeting - even if sometimes unintentionally - the poor and minorities, further driving them downward and limiting opportunities for upward movement. The poor are kept poor by reducing access to affordable loans, depressing credit scores, and blocking job options through linkage to factors that are irrelevant or biased. And because these models are black boxes both to the people held back because of them and, often, the people administering and using them, there often is no way to even know why rejections have occurred. Without the model feedback seen in more useful models, these WMDs cause their destruction with no hope of ever improving the algorithms used.

O'Neil jumps from the financial crisis of 2008 to the removal of teachers unfairly to how Google and Facebook influence behaviors simply through their choice of what people see in their feeds - and who gets to see it.

As models, algorithms, automation of processes, and online data collection continue to become more prevalent, and potentially more destructive, this book becomes essential reading. Its valuable insights, whether you agree with everything the author suggests or not, are critical to our informed discussion of what we want our future to look like.

Available on Amazon.

The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, by Shawn Otto (Book Review)

The War on Science is a must read book for scientists and anyone even remotely interested in science or policy or politics or decision-making or life. Yes, that means you.

The book is actually much more than the title suggests. Shawn Otto (one of the founders of ScienceDebate.org) delves deep into the history of science, but also in the psychological, sociological, political, educational, and religious histories and their interactions with science. He points out that the early leaders of this nation were promoters of science. George Washington said "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of Science and Literature." Jefferson heavily promoted science during his presidency and noted as he was leaving office that "Science is my passion, politics my duty." Great Republicans presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and William McKinley all emphasized the importance of science and technology. The author notes that Republicans were once the party of progressive optimism and tolerance, of environmentalism and finance, of rationalism and national parks. Only recently have Republicans turned against science. [But Democrats have their anti-science as well, which he discusses]

The reasons for this turn toward antiscience are discussed in great detail. Otto digs into the history of religious intolerance for science that contradicts scripture, most notably by the excommunication of Galileo (who, ironically, was devoutly religious), but also with many other examples ranging through history to today. He examines the interplay of antiscience and "freedom," including how fear of annihilation from Cold War/nuclear weapons led to the "live for today" attitude of the 1960s. But not just nihilism, this constant stress and attachment to the "military-industrial complex" caused a suspicion of science.

Further, the book delves into the turn towards postmodernism, which denied the existence of objective truth, claiming that all "truth" is subjectively in the eye of the beholder and that your opinion (often, ignorance) is as good as decades of scientific fact. This postmodernist belief severely damages education, where no longer are students expected to learn from accumulated facts but how they "feel" about reality. The media promotes this subjectivism, combined with the need to create controversy to garner ratings, as well as promote "false balance." All of these erode citizen confidence in science for no reason other than to assuage their fears of the unknown.

Otto also takes a closer look at the "three-front war on science" from identity politics, ideology, and industry. All three provide substantial and substantive background and analysis and should be read closely. The third, "The Industrial War on Science," is extensive and examines the long and fruitful strategies of industries (often working in tandem with religion and media) to deny established science and delay or eliminate any policy action. We saw this for decades as the tobacco industry denied smoking causes cancer, and today as fossil fuel and libertarian lobbyists deny man-made climate change, as well as many other examples. Otto documents in detail the tactics used by denier lobbyists and their hired spokespeople; even quoting from their own strategy materials. He shows also how companies like Exxon and the Koch companies shifted from paying directly to denier front groups to slipping the money in through "dark money" vehicles like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

The final three chapters look at "winning the war" in the sense of how do scientists and others battle against the misinformation of identity politics, ideologies, and industrial disinformation campaigns. In short, it isn't easy. Otto discusses how to engage in conversations in ways people can relate to. He also proposes a series of 14 "battle plans" to communicate science and overcome denial. The plans begin with something as simple as "doing something;" getting out there and trying to communicate. They continue with specific actions like creating a science advisory organization, pushing for science debates, using science advisors more effectively, and reaching out to religious, educational, and political leaders to help them understand the importance of science and its role in policy making. Otto also suggests that scientists need to fight back against the harassment, disinformation, and personal attacks of denial organizations.

All of this can get rather intense. The book is dense in both information and thought. Otto has done tremendous research in a wide range of science and sociological history to develop the incredible insights he displays in this book. I highly recommend that all scientists read it, but I also highly recommend everyone who has an interest in honest discussion and policy making to read it. Finally, every responsible American citizen should read it as it helps put into context our role as citizens in this democracy. 

Amazon page for War on Science

The Story of Western Science: From the Writings of Aristotle to the Big Bang Theory by Susan Wise Bauer (Book Review)

I highly recommend this book. "The Story of Western Science" is indeed presented as a story, or rather, a series of highly readable stories in 28 succinct chapters ranging, as the subtitle notes, from Aristotle to the Big Bang (and the Butterfly Effect). Bauer's writing style is easy and fresh, even when she is communicating difficult to understand scientific concepts.

The author relies on the writings, i.e., the key historical books and texts, to illustrate each topic, though she brings in numerous other key scientists and writings to coherently fill in the flow of scientific knowledge.

The book is laid out into five Parts, each containing 5-7 chapters:

I. The Beginnings: Here she covers the first attempts to write down the principles of science as they are being developed, the first accounts of the universe, the first thoughts on evolution, the first mathematics to measure the universe, and the transition from an Earth-centered to Sun-centered understanding of our worlds.

For example, After introducing Plato's principles, the differences between him and his student Aristotle, the Archimedean calculations, and the Lucretian principles, she introduces the fundamentally and completely erroneous model of the universe as espoused by Ptolemy. She goes on to Copernicus and his more accurate, though still flawed and theoretical, heliocentric view. Along the way the author deftly points out the development of new ideas and theories, along with their many side tracks and sometimes century-long disappearances only to reappear in different forms and by different researchers.

II. The Birth of the Method: All of the early work by the ancient Greeks and others was largely ad hoc. In this section she traces the influence of Francis Bacon and the development of what would become the scientific method of inquiry. No longer reliant on undocumented grand theory, science would advance by following a system of observation, experimentation, and reasoning. This would be assisted by the improving of instruments and "helps" like telescopes, microscopes, and other devices of measurement and observation.

III. Reading the Earth: This part begins a series of three parts that take focused looks at geology, biology, and cosmology. Ironically, the science of geology got its start in astronomy. As scientists discovered more about the cosmos, they realized that the Earth is not so special, i.e., that it was similar to other planets. Thus, processes that effect other planets and moons, like meteor craters for example, could also happen here. This led to debates about whether changes in the Earth came about slowly by the same processes we see today (e.g., volcanism, erosion) or through catastrophic events (e.g., "the Biblical flood" or asteroid strike); uniformism vs catastrophism. Along the way there are conflicts between religion and science, the age of the Earth, continental drift, and others.

IV. Reading Life: Bauer takes a look at the first systemic attempts to categorize life on Earth. Debates about the origin of species, inheritance of traits and genetics, evolution, and biochemical development were widespread. Again she is able to tease out the key points from their technical basis and present them in ways readers can understand. The shift from the obtuse writing of Copernicus (in Latin) to the writings of Julian Huxley, intentionally designed to be read by a non-scientific audience, are brought to light.

V. Reading the Cosmos: In this final part she examines the broader investigations into relativity, quantum physics, the Big Bang, and Chaos. She shows the limits of Newtonian physics and how Einstein and others replaced it with space-time fluctuations that can be hard to understand even as she makes them more accessible. And then the replacement, of sorts, of that with quantum jumps.

All of this she does adroitly, extracting key principles and documenting the myriad steps and key players as our understanding evolves from one place to the next (sometimes going back steps or skipping steps, only to return to them later). Bauer has done a wonderful job showing how science, and scientists, works.

But Bauer goes one step further. Since she uses key writings of science over the ages as the skeleton on which she hangs her history, at the end of each chapter she tells you how to find the books. She even tells the reader which editions to obtain and which other secondary texts do a good job of explaining the more technical writings. In the front of the book she lists all of the key texts she refers to, separated by Part.

To reiterate, I highly recommend this for anyone who wants to get a solid history of the development of science from the beginnings to today. Bauer does an excellent job of making the science accessible without "dumbing it down."

[The Dake Page periodically reviews books related to science and science communication. To see other reviews click here and scroll down. Click here to reach the Amazon page for the book.]

Science Debates Needed for Presidential Candidates

Science is critical to every facet of our lives, and scientific innovation has been a part of American government since George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Despite being hamstrung by the Republican Congress, President Obama has been a big supporter of science research to the point of hosting annual White House Science Fairs. But what do the current candidates to take over the job of President say about science?

Science Debate is needed.

We do have a basic idea of where the candidates stand. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton explicitly said, and I quote, "I believe in science," in her acceptance speech at the convention. She went on to say she believes "climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs."


Republican nominee Donald Trump, in contrast, called climate change a "hoax," and claimed it "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Jill Stein, ironically the "Green Party" nominee and a former medical doctor, nonetheless has espoused anti-science positions on vaccinations, homeopathy, and GMOs. Critics have accused her of pandering to the anti-science left wing as much as Trump has pandered to the anti-science right wing.

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson scores relatively well on basic science literacy in one survey but comes out as anti-vaccination and anti-GMO on another survey. That said, the basic rule of libertarians is to spend as little money and engage in as little government activity as possible, which suggests he would be in favor of cutting science budgets in the executive branch.

Even with these basic overviews, however, we don't know how much priority the candidates would put on science once elected. Issues such as climate change are critical to continue the progress made by President Obama. Other issues such as fracking require more complex assessments and decision making, so here again the ability of the new president to deal with science-based issues is critical. On top of this, of course, are the funding requirements of science agencies like NASA, NOAA, EPA, FDA, NSF, and others. These agencies conduct basic research as well as fund external researchers in addition to their more overt roles.

ScienceDebate.Org is a non-profit organization organized by Shawn Otto, author of the book The War on Science as well as a previous book called Fool Me Twice. Dozens of science organizations have combined efforts to produce 20 Questions related to science to ask the presidential candidate. Questions related to their views on basic science, the anticipated level of priority for their administration, levels of funding, views on education, innovation, public health, water, energy, food, vaccination, and many more. Even immigration has a science component, and one question asks "Would you support any changes in immigration policy regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy over employment and the H1-B Visa program?"

Ideally there would be a separate Science Debate in which these questions can be asked directly of the candidates. Barring that, the public should encourage standard debate moderators for the three presidential and one vice presidential debates to ask these questions. Even written responses to the questions would provide the public with input on where the candidates stand on science-based issues. And the public does want that input.

So all of us should be reaching out to the candidates, to debate moderators, and to others in our communities to have these all-important questions addressed by the candidates.

For more info on Science Debate, go to their website.

Talking to People About Climate Change

Man-made climate change is making our climate warmer, causing the rise of sea level, and diminishing Arctic sea ice extent over time. These things are happening and human activity, primarily the result of fossil fuel use, has been shown to be the dominant cause. This is unequivocal, as in undeniable and demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence.

So how do we communicate that fact?

As this page has discussed many times, there are lobbyists who spend millions of dollars and terabytes of internet bandwidth to intentional misrepresent the science to the public. That is their job as fossil fuel, libertarian, and other corporate lobbyists; all to protect profits of industries and corporations that benefit from outsourcing the costs of their products to the public.

I've spoken already about how climate scientists can communicate with the public. Strategies include speaking at local libraries, churches, and schools; teaching classes at community colleges or online; making yourself available to the media, and even doing TV shows. While these are all good ideas, there are several things that all scientists must keep in mind when talking to the public.

1) Lose the jargon: I mentioned this in the above linked article but it's important to reiterate it. Anyone who has ever read a medical report knows that every profession has its own language for describing things. This language allows professionals to communicate using words that have precise meanings - to them. To everyone else they are gibberish. No one expects everyone to understand the jargon of anyone outside their profession. So don't talk to the public like you're talking to your fellow scientists at a scientific conference. Doing so makes you look clueless.

2) Make it personal: Gee, reduced albedo enhances thermal absorption...; say what? Albedo? Is like libido? Needless to say, this falls under the "lose the jargon" item above. Just say as less white ice means the darker water absorbs more heat from the sun and makes the remaining ice melt even faster. Then move on to why this matters to the person you're talking to. Explain that their favorite beaches may disappear, or that wine growing areas may shift, or their allergies may get worse. Know your audience and what is important to them, then explain how climate change effects them personally.

3) Have patience: Remember when you just couldn't understand what your PhD advisor was trying to tell you? Now think about what it must be like for people who haven't spent all those years studying in your field. Remind yourself that some of these concepts are pretty intense. Make it clear and take your time. And again, lose the jargon.

4) Don't explain everything: Seriously, dude. There is no reason to get all statistics and math on people. Sure, the devil is in the details, but only for fellow scientists. The public doesn't need to know exactly how many gigatonnes or gigawatts or gigawhatever are involved. Just explain that the massive amounts of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere are warming the climate, which leads to Arctic sea ice extent decreases, increasing sea levels, greater likelihood of more severe droughts, yada, yada, yada. Better yet, tackle one issue at a time, and leave out the math.

5) Don't waste time with trolls: Remember "have patience?" There is one exception - trolls. In pre-internet days trolls were just obnoxious people you could walk away from and keep out of your life; now they walk into your living space via Facebook and other online social networking vehicles. But guess what - you can still block them from your life. Do it. Trolls serve zero useful purpose. Their entire existence is a mission to disrupt, and frankly, it's a disservice to your readers and listeners to let trolls disrupt the right of honest people to learn.

6) Be polite: This can often be hard to do (see #5, Don't waste time with trolls). Descriptive terms like "denier" for someone who denies basic fact are okay (though some would disagree even on this point), but personal attacks allow trolls to whine about how they are being attacked and protect them from having to defend their statements. If you can't be polite, move on.

7) Tell them what they can do: Most people want to do their  part, but figuring out what that part is can be daunting. Steer them to some solutions that they, as individuals and as local groups, can do. The USEPA has a nice page that gives some ideas for what to do at home, at the office, on the road, and at school. The David Suzuki Foundation offers 10 ways to stop climate change, and many others have ideas as well. 

One way is to actively reach out to your elected officials at the local, state, and/or federal level. Learn about the effects that man-made climate change is having, or will have in the future, on your community. Reach out to your congressional representatives. Insist that rational actions be taken to ensure a future for your children and grandchildren.

No one person should think that they have to "save the world" by themselves, just that they can take one small step. If all of us each take a step, those steps become miles and, eventually, light-years.

Finally, one more:

8) It's already happening: Man-made climate change is here. It's already having impacts on our lives, and will continue to get worse without action. But action is also happening. The global community has begun taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions. The energy industry has begun taking steps to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. The public has begun to take steps at the local and state levels - some small, some large. The federal government has begun shifting to renewables. Even corporations have begun to modify their behavior and investments to reduce carbon footprints, which they often find also decreases costs and improves corporate finances.

So all of us need to remind all the rest of us that we're already on our way to solving this problem. All it takes is for each of us to take that step.

Communicating Climate Change - Resources

Today is the last day of the Democratic National Convention, following last week's Republican National Convention. The differences between the parties could not be more stark on virtually every issue, including climate change. In short, Democrats acknowledge the unequivocal science of man-made climate change; Republicans deny it. Meanwhile, climate scientists are concerned that they have underestimated the magnitude and speed of the problem. It could be much worse than we already know.

Communicating the science of climate change to the public can be challenging when there are entire lobbying industries intent on misleading that public. This post is intended to provide some resources to scientists and informed public on how to communicate the science.

Recently I was reading my notes on a book I had read several years ago but for which I never wrote a full review. That book was called Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style by Randy Olson, a long-time scientist who gave up his university professor job to become a full time science communicator. Olson's specialty is film making, so not surprisingly he advocates the use of visual effects whenever possible. The main title reminds scientists to stop talking to the public as if the public was the audience of a scientific conference. The subtitle is reminiscent of Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Massage, that is, that "substance is style" (or, "style is the substance"). In short, scientists need to stop trying to communicate every detail of the science to the public and focus more on getting the main points across in a way that isn't boring. Motivate and educate, arouse and fulfill. [I'll have a full review of the book in the future]

The ability to communicate science to the public and to policy makers is critical for our well-being. I've mentioned several other books on science communication in these pages. Click on the links below for full book reviews:

Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public by Cornelia Dean

Unscientific America: How Science Illiteracy Threatens Our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter by Nancy Baron (link to Goodreads)

The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (Note that the author is more often than not supportive of the denier lobby, but this book offers useful insights that all scientists should consider)

In addition to books, there are several posts on this page that have discussions about science communication:

Communicating Climate Science - The Series (a four part series examining how scientists do research and how they can communicate to other scientists, policy makers, and the public)

The Science of Communicating Science (including how to translate common scientific terms into English)

Science Communication: How to Deal with Trolls on Facebook

Scroll down this link to see other climate communication posts.

In the future I'll have more on other resources for communicating the science.

Climate Communication - What Happens When We Don't Set a New Heat Record?

Both NASA and NOAA report that the first six months of 2016 have been the warmest half-year on record. This year, 2016, has a 99% chance of setting a new record for the hottest year ever recorded in global surface temperatures. It would surpass the previous record year, 2015, which surpassed the previous record year, 2014, thus making 2016 the third straight year setting a new heat record. But what happens when we don't set a new record?

This fact is inevitable. While increasing CO2 is causing a long-term trend in increasing temperatures, there is short-term variability that can make any year either a bit higher or lower. Check out the basics in this short video. [See also here for a good explanation of trend vs variation]

So even non-record-setting years are still getting warmer, just not record-setting warm. You can see this clearly in a NASA graphic of January-June temperature trends taken from the first link above: 2016 blows away the old records and even less warm years are well above the older years.

CO2 will continue to push temperatures upward over the long term. But short-term phenomena like El Nino and La Nina (and others) are what defines the level for any given year. For the earlier part of the 21st century we saw very little in the way of El Nino events after the massive 1998 El Nino that spiked temperatures higher. That is why deniers always pick 1998 as the start date for any dishonest claim of a "pause" in warming. There never was any "pause" or "hiatus," just short-term variation caused by lack of El Ninos and a series of La Ninas (the latter of which tends to dampen warming just as the former tends to enhance it). We've had a very large El Nino the last year or so, which is partially why the rising temperatures have broken the records by such a great amount (keeping in mind that the 2014 record was set without any help from El Nino).

That El Nino is dissipated and scientists anticipate a La Nina starting up this fall, so while 2016 is still likely to set a new record for the third year in a row, conditions appear to be setting up for 2017 not to set a new record. If it comes up less warm than 2016 we'll see all the climate deniers screaming "See, it's getting cooler," despite the fact that "less hot" does not equate to "cooler." [Think of your stove: the high setting is very hot, but the medium setting is not "cool."]

Just as it is inevitable that we'll have a year that is not as hot as this year (though the following years will continue the upward trend), it's inevitable that the climate denial lobbying industry will misrepresent the less hot year as "cooler." We've seen this with the non-"pause" and we've seen it with the "Arctic sea ice has recovered" every time the short-term variation gives a year where ice decreases slightly less than the previous year. These lobbyists know what they are saying is dishonestly misrepresenting the science, but they do it anyway. That is their job as fossil fuel lobbyists.

So scientists and science communicators need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable deceit of climate deniers when a year, possibly 2017, shows less warming than the previous record years.

Common Tactics of Climate Change Deniers on the Internet

The fact that humans are warming the climate is unequivocal, undeniable, and built on more than 100 years of peer-reviewed research.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "Anthropogenic drivers...are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." - IPCC, AR5, 2013-2014

But that doesn't stop internet trolls from denying the science. We've discussed here before how there are professional denialists (lobbyists, their front groups, and their spokespeople) and amateur denialists (mostly ideologically and willfully ignorant people). The professional deniers seed the internet with falsehoods and count on the amateur deniers to plagiarize ad nauseam, thus saturating the blogosphere with crap. Amateurs do this without employing any skepticism of their sources or veracity of what they plagiarize; they gladly accept whatever idea agrees with their predefined narratives no matter how obviously ludicrous the talking point.

Let's take a quick look at some of the tactics used by amateur deniers on social networking sites, in particular, Facebook.

1) Deny: Obviously. Just deny all the science. Deny 100+ years of well-understood basic physics. Deny 100,000+ peer-reviewed published papers. Deny millions of data points. Deny all the world's climate scientists know the science they study. Deny all of this has reached a burden of proof. Deny the consensus. Deny, well, you get the idea. Deny everything. Rinse, Repeat.

When someone simply denies all the evidence, they are a denier by definition.

2) Lie: The repetition of falsehood is a primary tactic of climate deniers. Lie about the "hockey stick." Lie about the "pause." Lie about what scientists say. Lie about "climategate." Lie about even the dates of the reports. Lie about what other commenters say. A variant of this is to ignore all evidence presented by commenters; simply make believe it wasn't said. Then repeat the falsehood already debunked. Lying can also take the form of generally commenting dishonesty, for example, creating a strawman and harassing other commenters over and over to answer the strawman.

When someone chooses to comment with such dishonesty, you can understand their self-deceit.

3) Spam: Many commenters will simply spam the post with dozens of comments. Any reply gets not one response, but a series. Spammers leave multiple comments even when no one is talking to them. Their goal is to saturate the blog such that honest commenters choose not to participate. It's also a form of violence; spamming multiple comments is like beating someone with a stick over and over. Spammers are easily recognizable not just by their multiple comments in a row, but by the fact that they quickly come back to spam again if their target leaves a response even a day later.

Besides being a form of violence and harassment, it's a sign of mental insecurity, and in some cases, mental instability. It's also a trolling strategy taught by the Koch lobbying organizations to disrupt online discussions.

4) Non-Awareness of Ignorance: There is nothing more embarrassing to see than someone who repeatedly shows their shortcomings.

Most amateur deniers don't even understand how little they understand. Ironically, they believe they understand more than the scientists who study the science.

5) Reliance on Lobbyist Sources: Invariably, amateur deniers will cite lobbyist sources instead of scientific sources (assuming they bother to cite any source at all). Amateurs have convinced themselves (and lobbyists have trained them to believe) that all scientists are corrupt and part of a multigenerational global conspiracy and "Al Gore!" (Deniers usually find a way to insert Al Gore into the discussion; the name is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs). So to replace 100+ years of science, deniers rely on a series of blogs funded, supported, and seeded by lobbyists, their front groups, their spokespeople, and other conspiracy, scam, or ideologically motivated non-scientists.

If someone is citing WUWT, Climate Depot, Heartland, Laframboise, JoNova, and a slew of other non-science, lobbyist-supported, propaganda blogs, you know they haven't bothered to learn about the science. Each of these, and all their offshoots, have been shown to be wrong. Every single time. Every article or post is easily debunked, and most are simply recycling of older talking points that have been debunked many many times before. Often these blogs are so egregiously wrong it is hard to understand how any sentient being would put any weight in anything they say. But this is who deniers rely on.

Meanwhile, these same deniers dismiss NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSIDC, and every other scientific organization as somehow incapable of understanding the science they've been researching and publishing for decades. And yet when they find it convenient, deniers will claim they are citing NASA (two breaths after calling NASA corrupt) - except they don't really cite NASA, they cite a lobbyist blog that has manipulated NASA data and/or fabricated a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence and is often the opposite of what NASA actually said. [See #2 Lying]

Mostly these deniers are trolls. They choose not to learn, and never will. Interacting with them is mostly a waste of time, with the only exception being that when they go into spamming mode they tend to reinforce Facebook's positive feedback algorithms (think in terms of  climate science and you know what I mean).

So be aware of the tactics of climate deniers, both the professionals and the amateurs. But don't waste effort on them because they are there largely to convince themselves they aren't as inconsequential as they actually are. It's sad, but it's true.

The rest of us can focus on communicating the science to the public.

Obama Signs Chemical Safety into Law - This is how Bipartisan Works

President Obama on June 22, 2016 signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century law into force. It's been a long time coming, but it reflects the kind of action that can be accomplished when both parties focus on the reaching the goal rather than thwarting each other. Yes, the bill was bipartisan.

Let me emphasize that. The bill was bipartisan. And not bipartisan in the sense that one party rammed it through and got one or two members of the other party to sign on to it (which is how most "bipartisan" bills are passed). This was truly bipartisan. After both houses of Congress passed their own bills, and after the committee set up to do so reached agreement on a combined bill, the final bill was passed. And not just passed.

House: 403-12
Senate: Unanimous voice consent

Even the name of the law shows bipartisanship: the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century. Frank Lautenberg was a Democratic Senator from New Jersey who first introduced a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, pronounced TOSCA) in 2005. Lautenberg introduced bill after bill during the next 10 years in an effort to update TSCA, a law passed in 1976 and horrendously inadequate for protecting the public from chemicals. Every Lautenberg bill died in committee without a vote. Literally in the final months of his life, Lautenberg agreed to lend his name to a compromise bill industry helped write for David Vitter, the Republican Senator from Louisiana to introduce. After Lautenberg's death, Tom Udall, Democratic Senator from New Mexico, stepped in to work with Vitter, the chemicals industry, the health and environmental advocacy representatives, the states, the EPA, and dozens of other stakeholders to fine tune the bill into the version signed into law by President Obama. 

Yes, the bill is very much industry friendly and nothing like the original bills Lautenberg introduced (which more resembled Europe's REACH law and had zero chance of passing in the United States). And no, the new law won't instantly make Americans any safer. But it does provide a way for EPA to assess the over 62,000 chemicals that were grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory back in the 1970s without any health and safety assessment at all, and for which the EPA had very limited ability to evaluate. The new law also creates a new way of assessing new chemicals, one that requires a "yes" or "no" conclusion on every chemical (the old system allowed chemicals to default to "yes" if EPA hadn't explicitly said "no" within 90 days. And there are more benefits.

For those not aware of what the new law or the old TSCA does, you can read everything you need to know here. You can read President Obama's comments at the signing here, or watch the whole thing on C-SPAN here.

As the President noted in his remarks:

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century will make it easier for the EPA to review chemicals already on the market, as well as the new chemicals our scientists and our businesses design.  It will do away with an outdated bureaucratic formula to evaluate safety, and instead focus solely on the risks to our health.  And it will finally grant our scientists and our public servants at the EPA the funding they need to get the job done and keep us safe.

There is a lot more that needs to be done, mostly by the EPA to come up with the regulations to implement the law, but it shows what can be accomplished when both parties work for the people that elected them and not for their party gains itself. It took a dozen years and a lot of hard work.

Let me emphasize that last part. It took a dozen years. And it took a lot of hard work. A lot of that hard work was done by lobbyists. Yes, lobbyists. This page hasn't been shy about standing up to lobbyists who abuse their power by dishonestly attacking scientists or the EPA or politicians. But lobbying is not always evil (perhaps, at least in some cases, it is a necessary evil).

This law came about not just because of the work of lawmakers and their staffs (who worked very hard), but also because of the hard work of people outside of government who lobbied those lawmakers and staffs. The American Chemistry Council, led by Cal Dooley (a former Congressman himself), was the primary advocate for chemical companies, though there were many other chemical lobbyists who contributed. The Environmental Defense Fund, led by Richard Denison, advocated tirelessly for human and environmental health provisions to protect the public. Again, many other environmental and health advocacy groups lobbied on the public's behalf. The end result is not perfect, and not everyone is perfectly happy with it, but it provides a much better system for evaluating chemicals - new and old - that should in the long run be better at protecting the health and safety of the public.

Finally, this new law is a reminder to the public that our elected representatives can actually do their jobs when they want to. As the President noted:

You don’t get all these people in the same room without a few late nights on Capitol Hill.  I know there were times when folks questioned whether or not all the parties involved would be able to reach this agreement....But that’s what public service is about –- pushing through disagreements, forging compromise, especially when it’s hard, and especially when it’s about something as important as the health and safety of our kids and our families.

It's up to us, the public, to pay attention, learn the facts, and press our elected officials to act. They won't do it without us pressing them to do it. That's true for chemical safety, rational gun laws, climate change, and every other issue that affects our every day lives. For Congress to act, we, the people, must act.

Climate Denial and Climate Fraud

We've known it for a long time, but a recent analysis of court documents has provided further proof that fossil fuel corporations and trade associations (aka, lobbyists) have intentionally worked to mislead the public about man-made climate change. From the Guardian:

Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and think tanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial.’ The company has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations.

Peabody Energy is the euphemistically deceptive name for the biggest coal mining company in the United States (but hey, Peabody Coal sounds dirty, so voila, it's Peabody Energy). On April 11, 2016 the firm declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which meant in order to avoid paying their debts they had to file substantial financial records with the courts. Those records, like other bankruptcy filings for other companies before them, have documented how Peabody and other fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists have funded the denial of climate science for decades.

Among the deniers being funded by Peabody Energy are:

• Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (aka, CO2 Science), who routinely promotes the benefits of CO2 to plants while dismissing the warming impacts.
• American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the infamous conservative legislation-writing lobbying firm responsible for blocking renewable energy and blocking emissions control efforts.
• Americans for Prosperity chapters, which is a Koch lobbying firm and conservative lobbyist.
• George C. Marshall Institute, the lobbying group started by Reagan appointees and involved in every instance of science denial since the 1980s.

Individual denier scientists were also funded by Peabody (and others), including:

• Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT but now paid by the Cato Institute, a libertarian lobbyist.
• Willie Soon, the infamous provider of "deliverables" to ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute
• Roy Spencer, whose recent work, like Lindzen's, seems to have difficulty standing up to scientific scrutiny. Spencer, of course, is also on the Board of the aforementioned George C. Marshall Institute.

And these are not the only ones. Bankruptcy filings by Alpha Natural Resources (another euphemism for one of the country's largest coal companies) revealed that Chris Horner, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (itself a lobbying firm), was being paid to protect coal interests (hence his constant misrepresentation of the science). In addition, records show another climate denier and lobbyist, Patrick Moore, has been paid by coal interests to speak on their behalf.

Peabody's reach was extensive:

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy. 

Peabody Energy and Alpha Natural Resources are not alone in funding climate denial. Records show that Exxon was well aware that fossil fuel burning was causing man-made global warming as far back as the 1960s. They initially undertook an extensive scientific program to determine the cause and effect, but after determining that the ramifications to their profit margins were significant, they shut down the program and instead invested in denying the science and funding climate denial and a broad network of lobbyists, front groups, and malleable scientists like Fred Singer and others. Collusion among the various lobbyists, key spokespeople, and media outlets also recently came to light.

The prior knowledge and then suppression of that knowledge by Exxon follows the playbook of the tobacco industry to deny smoking causes cancer. In both cases, corporate denial and subterfuge results in huge human health and environmental costs to society. The similarity to the tactics used by the tobacco industry is why once again many state attorneys general have banded together to launch investigations into Exxon's (now ExxonMobil) deceit. As a public company, stockholders have raised the questions to corporate executives of whether their knowledge and obfuscation endangers their stock holdings.

So once again fossil fuel interests have been caught paying for climate deniers to mislead the public and misrepresent the science, all to protect the profit margins of fossil fuel corporations. As these bankruptcies show, however, fossil fuels have peaked and businesses are failing due to a combination of mismanagement, fraud, and the higher and higher costs of trying to extract fossil fuels from ever more difficult locations. Still, these companies aren't going to give up their remaining profits without a fight, no matter how much deceit and collusion needed to do so.

Yes, CO2 is Warming the Climate (And no, Exhaling is Not the Cause)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is the primary driver of man-made climate change (often called global warming). This has been demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence and is undeniable.

"But we exhale CO2 when we breathe, right? So CO2 can't be harmful, right?"

Wrong, and let me explain.*

Those new to climate science may be confused by intentionally deceptive graphs like the following, which was recently making the rounds on Facebook and denier lobbyist blogs. Often, especially on Facebook, the graph is given with no further explanation (insinuation and innuendo are common tactics of climate deniers). People who post it claim "it comes from a reliable source," but then refuse to actually cite and/or link to that source. It's because the source is the denier lobbyist industry. The goal of the graph is to mislead the public. Here's the deceptive graph:

Let's assume the values given are at roughly accurate. The green highlighted level of 400 ppm (parts per million) is approximately the current level in the atmosphere. You wouldn't know it from the graph, but 400 ppm in the atmosphere is exceptionally high; we'll get back to that in a minute. The graph is deceptive for two reasons: 1) it suggests levels in the atmosphere aren't high because levels in other situations are okay, and 2) it assumes the toxicity level of CO2 is somehow relevant to the physical warming capacity of CO2.

Both of these points are absolutely and grossly false. It's akin to saying that because we drink, swim, bath, and are composed largely of water, we can't drown in it.

CO2, like water, has multiple properties. At very high levels it is toxic. A very low levels it is necessary for plant growth. All well known and understood.

But CO2 also acts as a greenhouse gas. CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the Earth at a relatively stable temperature. Without the CO2, Earth's surface temperature would be about 30 degrees Celsius colder and, well, none of us would be here. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere warms the Earth. This is just basic, well-understood, physics. CO2 keeps us warm; more CO2 = more warming.


While not intended by its creator, the graph actually shows how important CO2 is to warming. According to the values given, much of the northern hemisphere was just coming out of glaciers at 190 ppm but was comfy for us at 275 ppm, only about a 45% increase in CO2 levels. We're now at 400 ppm (and growing), which is roughly another 45% increase in CO2 levels.

So we've added as much CO2 since the beginning of industrialization as was the difference between glaciers and comfortable climate. As Vice President Biden might say, that's a Big F'n Deal.

To use slightly more technical language, the fact that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas is basic physics known for more than a century. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and heat gets radiated back to space, but a lot of that heat gets trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases and sent back to the surface. This process is continuous and keeps our Earth warm. We've been in a narrow balance for hundreds of thousands of years, but since we started burning fossil fuels we've added a lot more CO2 to the atmosphere (about 45%). More CO2 means more warming. Basic physics (and math). All demonstrated over and over again.

So don't be confused by intentional acts of deception like the first graph given above. The reality is that whether CO2 is toxic at 400 ppm or not is irrelevant to CO2's warming properties in the atmosphere.

A more relevant graph is the one below from NASA (see on this page), which shows that our current CO2 levels (arrow, top right) in the atmosphere are unprecedented in the modern age (i.e., during the time us humans have made a home here):

And a result, we've caused warming of the atmosphere, as the graph below clearly shows (source here). The red dot is February 2016. New heat records were set in 2014, then broken in 2015, and are on track to be broken again in 2016. Year to year fluctuations occur because of short-term events like El Nino and La Nina, but the overall trend is absolutely clear.

Bottom Line: CO2 is warming the climate, and humans are the dominant cause of that warming.

Now that is a big deal.

*A note about the exhaling of CO2. Yes, we exhale CO2. No, breathing isn't contributing to man-made climate change. The CO2 we exhale is the same CO2 that has been cycling around for thousands of years, moving from plants to soils to air to humans to everything else and back again, just as it has always been. The amount of CO2 has been stable within a relatively narrow range (second graph above) because it cycles in and out of things but is always somewhere. But here's the kicker - CO2 from fossil fuels is not part of that cycle. It has been buried in the ground for millions of years getting turned into coal and oil and natural gas, completely out of the carbon cycle. During the last century we've dug up a lot of that "out-of-the-loop" carbon and emitted it into the atmosphere in humongous amounts where it hasn't been during human civilization. More carbon = more CO2 = more warming.