In the Press: Joe Bastardi: Obama Prostituting Climate Science

[nchighcountrywx]

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/weather-chief-obama-prostituting-climate-science/

As President Obama tries to rally the world to embrace his agenda to curb carbon emissions, Weatherbell Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi is condemning the “prostituting” of climate science by Obama and others to further what he considers a political agenda.

On Tuesday, Obama addressed the United Nations Climate Summit, saying the world needs to confront the effects of man-made climate change and that no responsible nation can sit on the sidelines while the condition of the earth hangs in the balance for future generations. He also says the U.S. is one of the nations most responsible for the rise of carbon dioxide levels and, in turn, global temperatures.

Bastardi believes this is all a smokescreen.

“This is not about the weather. It’s not about climate. It’s not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda,” Bastardi said. “And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it’s really disheartening to see this going on in my country.”

He believes the real purpose of the climate-change movement was on display in the People’s Climate March, which took aim at Wall Street and big business earlier in the week.

“The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it,” said Bastardi, who earlier this week suggested climate science was “prostituted” by global warming activists.

“I really believe this is an agenda-driven situation, and it’s frustrating to me,” he said. “People got mad at me because I used the word ‘prostituted.’”

He added, “Something I love is now being used for a completely different thing. If there was one positive about that climate march, if you go and look at the people marching and the signs they had up, it should be obvious that it’s not the climate they’re concerned about. It’s the destruction of the American way of life as we were taught: the competitiveness, the capitalism, that type of thing where the individual has the chance to pull himself up. That’s what I believe this is about.”

Bastardi said a dead giveaway that the movement is a fraud can be seen in the evolving terminology of the cause.

“Why would you trust anybody that changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’? If you were playing somebody in a baseball game and suddenly he decided to change it to ping-pong because he was getting beat, why would you get involved with them?” Bastardi asked.

“If you look at the 30-plus excuses now that they have for this so-called pause in warming … over two-thirds of their excuses are natural excuses. Oh, the sun’s not doing this. Oh, the volcano. Oh, there’s this or that. It’s hard to believe this whole thing is occurring.”

According to Bastardi, one of the biggest reasons this political movement gained traction is because the media refuse to investigate the basis for it.

“The media is complicit in this. They don’t even bother looking,” he said. “It’s astounding as a 59-year-old man, remembering all the things that the media uncovered and went after, how they just march along like sheep. I don’t get it. I really don’t.”

“You have to tell the truth, even if you believe you have the greater truth. You have to look at the facts. The media and everybody else have to get on to this thing because, in the end, what’s going to happen is if you don’t have energy to drive the lifeblood of your economy, your economy’s not going to go anywhere.”

As for the science, Bastardi said it’s pretty well established what causes temperature fluctuations.

“Nature, not man, rules the climate. You can do the math. It’s common sense to understand that the sun, the oceans and stochastic events far outweigh what CO2 can possibly do,” he said. “It’s boxed in effectively. It’s one-one hundredth of the greenhouse gases, the most prominent being water vapor.”

Bastardi said the global-warming movement’s contention that human activity leads to more carbon dioxide that leads to higher temperatures is already proven false. In recent years, CO2 levels continued to rise even as temperatures cooled, refuting the famed “hockey stick” of Dr. Michael Mann that predicted temperatures would rise with no end in sight.

Bastardi said climate history is even more definitive.

“I’d like the president or anybody else to explain to me how we had an ice age at 7,000 parts per million,” he said. “If you actually looked at the geological time scale and the relationship of CO2 to temperatures, I don’t understand how you can be driving home this point that the United States, or anybody else on the face of the planet, is to blame for so-called climate change.”

As for the leveling off and even reduction in average temperatures in recent years, Bastardi says actual data is a death blow to Obama and other activists.

“All we need to do is watch the temperatures now over the next 10-20 years. As the Pacific began to cool, temperatures leveled off. The Atlantic’s going to cool. They’ll fall even more. I made the statement back in 2007, that by the year 2030, they’ll fall back to where they were back in 1978, the start of the satellite era and when the Pacific went into its warming cycle,” said Bastardi, who also dismisses the concerns of activists that rising ocean levels threaten the lives of tens of millions of Americans in coastal areas.

“Seven inches a century of so-called sea level rise along our coasts is well within natural realms if you look at how far the ocean has varied up and down over the geological time scale,” he said.

“So when these people say these things, you can sense the frustration in my voice. It takes me 10 seconds to refute them. I could go right to something that shows the opposite going on.”

When confronted by arguments like Bastardi’s, global-warming activists contend those are fringe views and that there is near unanimous scientific consensus. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Obama declared that “the science is settled.”

Bastardi said that’s another canard.

“Over 31,000 degreed scientists signed against the Kyoto Accords, 9,000 of them Ph.D.s, for goodness sake,” he said. “Why doesn’t anybody bring that up?”

However, Bastardi said some statistics do tell the story of the impact of fossil fuels and the industrial era have had on the United States, and he urges Obama to examine them.

“Mr. President, take a look,” he said. “The only true hockey sticks from fossil fuel are in per capita GDP for each human being on the earth and life expectancy, which has shot up. Both those things have shot up in the age of fossil fuels.”

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/weather-chief-obama-prostituting-climate-science/#1PHXcxu1YAXltFGj.99

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Atlantic’s going to cool. They’ll fall even more. I made the statement back in 2007, that by the year 2030, they’ll fall back to where they were back in 1978

 

 

 

 

 

GISS is about .5C warmer than it was in the late 1975-1980 time frame.

 

UAH is about .45C warmer than it was in the late 1970s.

 

Good luck Joe.

[AvantHiatus]

JB's constant rants and tirades againist AGW are getting old now. I value his passion but he could direct it somewhere more productive. As for AGW activism being an attack on Wall Street, possibly however this would be expected as the goal is to lower carbon footprints.

 

Big business is hoarding too much wealth anways, they don't reinvest it properly into the economy and just sit on it/ship it offshore. Wealth inequality is massive as a result in this country.

 

Again, let us kill two birds with one stone and make large companies pay their costs for polluting the environment without bankrupting them. 

[JBG]

Bastardi believes this is all a smokescreen.

“This is not about the weather. It’s not about climate. It’s not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda,” Bastardi said. “And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it’s really disheartening to see this going on in my country.”

He believes the real purpose of the climate-change movement was on display in the People’s Climate March, which took aim at Wall Street and big business earlier in the week.

“The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it,” said Bastardi, who earlier this week suggested climate science was “prostituted” by global warming activists.

“I really believe this is an agenda-driven situation, and it’s frustrating to me,” he said. “People got mad at me because I used the word ‘prostituted.’”

He added, “Something I love is now being used for a completely different thing. If there was one positive about that climate march, if you go and look at the people marching and the signs they had up, it should be obvious that it’s not the climate they’re concerned about. It’s the destruction of the American way of life as we were taught: the competitiveness, the capitalism, that type of thing where the individual has the chance to pull himself up. That’s what I believe this is about.”

I am normally no fan of Joe Bastardi (in particular his seasonal forecasts, which often bust). But on this issue he happens to be right.

A quite abusive and hysterical article made the front pages of the New York Times' science section (link to article). I opened a thread relating to that article (link to thread).

 

This would almost be hilarious except for the fact, as Joe B points out, our freedoms are being put on the line and for no good reason. This is no Pearl Harbor attack. This is an artificial, phony and agenda-driven scare.

[ORH_wxman]

JB

 

[nflwxman]

JB gives meteorologists a very bad name.  And I say that as one.  The funny thing is that he actually is not a terrible mid range forecaster.

 

There is no color to this issue at all.  He's wrong and will always be wrong on AGW.  He put his politics before his science and thats a damn damn shame. 

[JBG]

JB gives meteorologists a very bad name.  And I say that as one.  The funny thing is that he actually is not a terrible mid range forecaster.

 

There is no color to this issue at all.  He's wrong and will always be wrong on AGW.  He put his politics before his science and thats a damn damn shame. 

But how can polar bears be driving an increase in bird populations if the birds are their dinner?And did you hear about the litter those demonstrators, supposedly environmentalists, left behind?

[Sundog]

JB has some balls complaining about others "prostituting" climate science when his business is built on hyping snowstorms no matter what. What a fraud and hypocrite.

[A-L-E-K]

JB has some balls complaining about others "prostituting" climate science when his business is built on hyping snowstorms no matter what. What a fraud and hypocrite.

 

 

 

he's a weenie...snow above all else, it leads to denierism

 

there are hundreds just like him that post on amwx

[ChescoWx]

Tremendous article by JB.....could not agree with him more. It amazes me when folks speak of this as fact. Facts that are beyond dispute  is the earth is round - there is no dispute on that from scientists. Now global warming....er climate change whatever they call it now is very far from fact as many scientists and scholars do not agree.

[Harry]

Tremendous article by JB.....could not agree with him more. It amazes me when folks speak of this as fact. Facts that are beyond dispute  is the earth is round - there is no dispute on that from scientists. Now global warming....er climate change whatever they call it now is very far from fact as many scientists and scholars do not agree.

 

Just so we are clear.. GW is real. What is in dispute is it's causes.

[Jonger]

JB's constant rants and tirades againist AGW are getting old now. I value his passion but he could direct it somewhere more productive. As for AGW activism being an attack on Wall Street, possibly however this would be expected as the goal is to lower carbon footprints.

 

Big business is hoarding too much wealth anways, they don't reinvest it properly into the economy and just sit on it/ship it offshore. Wealth inequality is massive as a result in this country.

 

Again, let us kill two birds with one stone and make large companies pay their costs for polluting the environment without bankrupting them. 

 

If you want to completely kill any progress in lowering co2 emissions, start talking about money. There are a lot of honest climate scientists and there are also a lot of pseudo anti-capitalism ones... Don't give any time to this crowd.

 

Co2 emissions are a bi-product of human evolution, one simple step.... Don't kid yourself into thinking the face of the polluter is simply a fat cat on wall street.

[A-L-E-K]

Just so we are clear.. GW is real. What is in dispute is it's causes.

 

 

 

not really

 

jesus christ

[LithiaWx]

JB has some balls complaining about others "prostituting" climate science when his business is built on hyping snowstorms no matter what. What a fraud and hypocrite.

 

Nailed it.

[nflwxman]

If you want to completely kill any progress in lowering co2 emissions, start talking about money. There are a lot of honest climate scientists and there are also a lot of pseudo anti-capitalism ones... Don't give any time to this crowd.

 

Co2 emissions are a bi-product of human evolution, one simple step.... Don't kid yourself into thinking the face of the polluter is simply a fat cat on wall street.

 

I agree with this, Jonger.  It's so ingrained and inherent in our society.  We do need to start with power plants, as those are the largest single emitters in the country.  The fossil fuel lobby has done a decent job sowing doubt in the minds of the public and politicians with this issue.  To be fair, I don't look at them as evil people.  They are people simply trying to run and business and please shareholders.  Heck, Exxon employs nearly 100K Americans (including my father).  There needs to be honesty on both sides- but the corporate demonetization doesn't actually help IMO.

 

I do think demonetization of individuals is completely appropriate though.  People like Anthony Watts and Jim Inhofe are just so obviously on the wrong side of history, it's hard to look at them favorably. 

[NEchestercountydude]

Has anyone read JB's twitter? You cant help but laugh reading some of his posts, now he has every right to post his thoughts on whatever matter but man. According to him if you're A. Liberal, or B. Believe in climate change, you're a socialist... Even on strictly a business sense, why would you ostracize half of you're potential customers like that?

[The_Global_Warmer]

he's a weenie...snow above all else, it leads to denierism

 

there are hundreds just like him that post on amwx

 

The question is why is it so strong with so many snow lovers.

 

It's like there is this irrational associative fear that global warming = less cold and snow.

 

I remember feeling it quite strongly when I first accepted the science of global warming.

[AvantHiatus]

The question is why is it so strong with so many snow lovers.

 

It's like there is this irrational associative fear that global warming = less cold and snow.

 

I remember feeling it quite strongly when I first accepted the science of global warming.

However, eventually many areas will be locked out of the snowbelt, long-leads tho. Yeah, it's very irrational because it is like denying the sky is blue...

[The_Global_Warmer]

However, eventually many areas will be locked out of the snowbelt, long-leads tho. Yeah, it's very irrational because it is like denying the sky is blue...

 

Most of us will be dead or old by then for the most part.

 

It's all clear natural variation like we saw in 2013-14 can still bring temps pretty close to the modern "coldest" records.

 

And total snowfall has increased in many mid latitude regions East of the Rockies recently towards the lakes and NE.

 

years where natural variation rocks us with average to warm to torching conditions I think we agree around the 35-39N or so regions will see the biggest drop off in snow during those years. 

 

 

On the flip side my backyard had a 15" snow event last year.  That is 2nd or 3rd deepest single event since 1900.

 

It was cold as hell around 20-1 ratios all powder.

[ORH_wxman]

There's a lot of irrational behavior when it comes to global warming/climate change.

 

In addition to some snow weenies denying it out of fear, we have:

 

1. Some extreme alarmists who claim to be so concerned about the earth tend to "root" for the worst case scenarios. Or they scoff at new papers/literature that might be considered "good news" for those concerned. (i.e. lower sensitivity, extreme weather not as attributable, etc)

 

2. People point to winters like 2013-2014 as proof global warming is a hoax

 

3. People point to summers like 2012 as proof global warming is "worse than we thought"

 

4. People point to <insert extreme weather event here> as proof climate change is causing worse weather.

 

5. People point to RSS as proof global warming has stopped for 18 years (ignoring all other datasets).

 

 

 

There's a lot more to this too...but these are just many of the most frequent behaviors and lines of thought you will come across in climate change discussion. They get repeated so often despite robust evidence in front of them to the contrary.

[donsutherland1]

I'm not surprised that Joe Bastardi would reference the recent climate march declaring, "The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it." Even as I accept the general scientific understanding of climate change, including the anthropogenic contribution, I'm not sure this march was the most effective way to go about publicizing the issue. That there were many non-climate-related messages only muddied the overall message on the scientific understanding of climate change and created opportunities for Bastardi and others to tie climate science with those non-climate-related causes.

 

Attacks on nuclear power, capitalism, etc., may actually strengthen opposition to realistic climate change policy initiatives. If policy makers and the general public are presented with the position that one can only address climate change by abandoning market economics, that position will prove non-viable. Even as there are limitations e.g., externalities, associated with market economics, no better system has been devised and one cannot dismiss the enormous standard of living benefits that have been produced from a more market-oriented arrangement. Realistic and balanced policy approaches, not purist demands, offer the most promising prospect of moving away from "business as usual" in the longer-run. I don't believe this march contributed toward that end. If anything, the march might have been counterproductive to promoting a realistic climate policy as it gave critics a chance to divert the issue away from the science.

 

Finally, the piece cited at the beginning of this thread states, " In recent years, CO2 levels continued to rise even as temperatures cooled..." Actually none of the major climate data sets (GISS, HadCrut, or NCDC) show cooling has commenced over a statistically significant timeframe. Instead, the rate of warming has slowed.

[Kelathos]

Political discussion can make for long topics but the quality of the commentary is something you may find lacking. I suggest keeping a banter topic to collect all non observational / weather / science discussion for Climate Change.

 

As for this topic, it could be used to understand Joe's argument. To examine and highlight our objections to it. First of all he is relying on RSS, a notable outlier biased towards colder readings.

 

Do we think RSS could drop down to the 1970s temperatures?

Will it not warm in the next 15 years?

[Quixotic1]

JB gives meteorologists a very bad name.  And I say that as one.  The funny thing is that he actually is not a terrible mid range forecaster.

 

There is no color to this issue at all.  He's wrong and will always be wrong on AGW.  He put his politics before his science and thats a damn damn shame.

He put his wallet before his science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Political discussion can make for long topics but the quality of the commentary is something you may find lacking. I suggest keeping a banter topic to collect all non observational / weather / science discussion for Climate Change.

 

As for this topic, it could be used to understand Joe's argument. To examine and highlight our objections to it. First of all he is relying on RSS, a notable outlier biased towards colder readings.

 

Do we think RSS could drop down to the 1970s temperatures?

Will it not warm in the next 15 years?

 

Zero chance without a major major volcano.

[stadiumwave]

I'm not surprised that Joe Bastardi would reference the recent climate march declaring, "The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it." Even as I accept the general scientific understanding of climate change, including the anthropogenic contribution, I'm not sure this march was the most effective way to go about publicizing the issue. That there were many non-climate-related messages only muddied the overall message on the scientific understanding of climate change and created opportunities for Bastardi and others to tie climate science with those non-climate-related causes.

 

Attacks on nuclear power, capitalism, etc., may actually strengthen opposition to realistic climate change policy initiatives. If policy makers and the general public are presented with the position that one can only address climate change by abandoning market economics, that position will prove non-viable. Even as there are limitations e.g., externalities, associated with market economics, no better system has been devised and one cannot dismiss the enormous standard of living benefits that have been produced from a more market-oriented arrangement. Realistic and balanced policy approaches, not purist demands, offer the most promising prospect of moving away from "business as usual" in the longer-run. I don't believe this march contributed toward that end. If anything, the march might have been counterproductive to promoting a realistic climate policy as it gave critics a chance to divert the issue away from the science.

 

Finally, the piece cited at the beginning of this thread states, " In recent years, CO2 levels continued to rise even as temperatures cooled..." Actually none of the major climate data sets (GISS, HadCrut, or NCDC) show cooling has commenced over a statistically significant timeframe. Instead, the rate of warming has slowed.

 

[stadiumwave]

This is interesting:

Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024601865_climateweatherstudyxml.html

 

Link to the paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract

[donsutherland1]

This is interesting:

Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024601865_climateweatherstudyxml.html

 

Link to the paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract

This paper further builds on an earlier one by Mochizuki et al (2009) in which decadal-scale climate variability over the Pacific Ocean and nearby land areas were found to be "strongly related" to the PDO.

 

Natural variability remains an important factor, even as it occurs within the context of increased forcing associated with the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. That the Pacific Northwest's temperature is greatly influenced by the PDO should not be very surprising given the PDO's impact on the all-important PNA pattern for the region. ENSO (especially Region 1+2) very likely plays a similar role with respect to the climate of coastal Peru.

[CoastalWx]

Bastardi just proves how polarizing the topic is. It does nothing to help the science. I mean it's ridiculous and only slows the science down and serves as a turnoff to many.

[WXheights]

Everybody should know that its complex and the "either or" is a "crap-trap" and move on.

 

Same authors said "We know that the influence of humans on climate is only growing over time. We expect over coming decades for that influence to get bigger and bigger.”

 

On that, the study’s authors agreed.“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”

 

 

There's a lot of irrational behavior when it comes to global warming/climate change.

 

In addition to some snow weenies denying it out of fear, we have:

 

1. Some extreme alarmists who claim to be so concerned about the earth tend to "root" for the worst case scenarios. Or they scoff at new papers/literature that might be considered "good news" for those concerned. (i.e. lower sensitivity, extreme weather not as attributable, etc)

 

2. People point to winters like 2013-2014 as proof global warming is a hoax

 

3. People point to summers like 2012 as proof global warming is "worse than we thought"

 

4. People point to <insert extreme weather event here -- EXTREME PRECIPITATION EVENT > as proof climate change is causing worse weather.

 

5. People point to RSS as proof global warming has stopped for 18 years (ignoring all other datasets).

 

 

 

There's a lot more to this too...but these are just many of the most frequent behaviors and lines of thought you will come across in climate change discussion. They get repeated so often despite robust evidence in front of them to the contrary.

Mostly agree excepting point 4. ORH on regional areas for statistical increase upper Midwest, Ohio valley, and most definitely the NE and adjacent Canada. 

[ORH_wxman]

Everybody should know that its complex and the "either or" is a "crap-trap" and move on.

 

Same authors said "We know that the influence of humans on climate is only growing over time. We expect over coming decades for that influence to get bigger and bigger.”

 

On that, the study’s authors agreed.“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”

 

 

Mostly agree excepting point 4. ORH on regional areas for statistical increase upper Midwest, Ohio valley, and most definitely the NE and adjacent Canada. 

 

 

This is only for extreme precipitation events relative to the middle 20th century...and not other types of weather.

 

We see attribution tossed out like Halloween candy by some when most of them aren't supported by the literature. There are a few exceptions like the one pointed out above.