5 thoughts on “My Climate Change

  1. Frank Mancuso

    Seems to me that no matter how we feel about our planet or eloquently write about what we know is happening to it nothing of any significance changes. Capitalism the owner of the vehicle spewing pollution we are only the passengers witnessing what passes by our window watching for the next gas station. Change will only come as it’s mandated by catastrophic events and then it’s too late. It’s too late. The oceans can not absorb any more carbon. Phytoplankton that could sequester it is now ingesting PCB laced micro-plastic and is in decline. How ironic, phytoplankton is the oil that held prehistoric carbon captive in the bottom of the ocean.

    Reply
  2. Mike Dombroski

    Mr. Revkin, I’ve read your big long whine about people not being interested in your pet issue. I won’t say it’s not a serious issue or that there are no actions that should be taken, but I’ve really got a problem with the scientific establishment and science journalists like you and Chris Mooney! I started reading extensively on climate and energy about five years ago and I feel I have a pretty good handle on what the major authors, activists, pundits, magazines, blogs and major scientists are saying. You Climate people have become a parody of a banana republic status quo!

    When you are proposing major changes to our economy and energy supply based on “science”, there are a lot of smart technically savy people who are going to want to check this science. And they have! And many of them have found it wanting! An obscure young scientist (Michael Mann) comes up with a stunning hockey stick shaped graph that practically becomes the logo for the IPCC third assessment
    report. He gets to be a lead author, full professor and funding magnet. Competent people are
    suspicious of the long straight handle without a Medieval Warm Period, disect it and find out that it is bad science and publish papers showing it is bad science. And it’s not only bad, it’s hilariously bad! He made up a technique that mines hockey sticks! This ought to be an interesting story for a science “journalist” — a cautionary tale about overzealousness getting in the way of good science.

    So what does the scientific establishment and press do when confronted with this? Well, in congress there are members on both sides of this issue and they hold separate investigations. There is the NAS
    panal that gets touted as vindicating Mann and the Wegman report that is scathing of Mann’s statistical methods and it is downplayed. Do these reports contradict one another? Gerald North, head of the NAS panal says they agree with Wegman’s assessment! It looks to me like the big climate, academic, journalistic, governmental funding complex is trying to put a clean face on things.

    Then comes Climategate! A bunch of emails between paleo climate scientists are either leaked or hacked and made public. They show cherry picking, gaming of peer review and other bad behavior. A bunch of inquiries are convened that supposedly show that the scientists did nothing wrong. One of the emails is an actual crime! It’s a request to delete emails subject to FOI requests. Chris Mooney interviews Michael Mann and askes him, “You never did do that, right?” Mann says “no” and that he “never had any intent at all to”. The actual email asks him to pass along the request to Eugene Wahl. In his response, Mann says he’ll contact Gene ASAP! And Wahl, who was not contacted by these inquiries, did tell federal investigators that he recieaved this request and complied.

    I can understand that you may feel some solidarity with Mann over your views on climate or perhaps just don’t want to turn on a friend, but then you’re not being a journalist. Your being a PR hack! Mann is now being quoted as a top “climate scientist”, writing editorials, hobnobbing with celebrities and suing a pundit (Mark Steyn) for referring to his hockey stick as fraudulent in a freaking blog post for an opinion magazine! The ACLU and a whole bunch of news organizations wrote amicus briefs against him. No one wrote one for his hurt feelings. As a science journalist, Mr. Revkin, don’t you think this might be an important issue to comment on? And if you think this is a legitimate defamation case, please explain how Mann not disclosing that his R squared results failed is not fraud.

    I see this phsycologist who for all the world resembles a left wing academic version of Jimmy Swaggart, write a transparent hoax of a paper that slimes climate skeptics as conspiracy nuts in which the data only includes a trivially small amount of skeptics or conspiracy nuts. He then has a follow up paper retracted, yet he still gets a paper published in “Nature”! Chris Mooney credulously interviews him and hangs on his every word. I also notice Mooney dutifully reports on Willie Soon’s failure to fill out a line on some form about his funding source while completely ignoring Regenda Palchuri’s sexual harassment charges.

    A shrill nasty ethics position holder named Peter Glieck steals a bunch of documents from a think tank and appears to forge one when he can’t find any dirt.He’s then allowed to go on his merry way. Twenty “climate scientists” write a letter calling for RICO investigations of skeptics. The instigator turns to be scamming huge salaries for himself and family members.

    There are these 97% consensus studies. One gets tweeted by the president. They turn out to be gamed
    by activists. And it’s never made clear what they are agreeing on. It’s the same with their pejorative hate label, “denier”. What exactly is being denied?

    What really bothers me is the refusal to debate. Burning hydrocarnon fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and is causing warming. Is there really that many people disputing this? Everything else, sensitivity, how dangerous, best policies … is debatable!

    Reply
  3. Mike Dombroski

    Mr. Revkin, I’ve read your big long whine about people not being interested in your pet issue. I won’t say it’s not a serious issue or that there are no actions that should be taken, but I’ve really got a problem with the scientific establishment and science journalists like you and Chris Mooney! I started reading extensively on climate and energy about five years ago and I feel I have a pretty good handle on what the major authors, activists, pundits, magazines, blogs and major scientists are saying. You Climate people have become a parody of a banana republic status quo!

    When you are proposing major changes to our economy and energy supply based on “science”, there are a lot of smart technically savvy people who are going to want to check this science. And they have! And many of them have found it wanting! An obscure young scientist (Michael Mann) comes up with a stunning hockey stick shaped graph that practically becomes the logo for the IPCC Third Assessment Report. He gets to be a lead author, full professor and funding magnet. Competent people are suspicious of the long straight handle without a Medieval Warm Period, dissect it and find out that it is bad science and publish papers showing it is bad science. And it’s not only bad, it’s hilariously bad! He made up a technique that mines hockey sticks! This ought to be an interesting story for a science “journalist” — a cautionary tale about over-zealousness getting in the way of good science.

    So what does the scientific establishment and press do when confronted with this? Well, in congress there are members on both sides of this issue and they hold separate investigations. There is the NAS Panel that gets touted as vindicating Mann and the Wegman report that is scathing of Mann’s statistical methods and it is downplayed. Do these reports contradict one another? Gerald North, head of the NAS Panel says they agree with Wegman’s assessment! It looks to me like the big climate, academic, journalistic, governmental funding complex is trying to put a clean face on things.

    Then comes Climategate! A bunch of emails between paleoclimate scientists are either leaked or hacked and made public. They show cherry picking, gaming of peer review and other bad behavior. A bunch of inquiries are convened that supposedly show that the scientists did nothing wrong. One of the emails is an actual crime! It’s a request to delete emails subject to FOI requests. Chris Mooney interviews Michael Mann and asks him, “You never did do that, right?” Mann says “no” and that he “never had any intent at all to”. The actual email asks him to pass along the request to Eugene Wahl. In his response, Mann says he’ll contact Gene ASAP! And Wahl, who was not contacted by these inquiries, did tell federal investigators that he received this request and complied.

    I can understand that you may feel some solidarity with Mann over your views on climate or perhaps just don’t want to turn on a friend, but then you’re not being a journalist. Your being a PR hack! Mann is now being quoted as a top “climate scientist”, writing editorials, hobnobbing with celebrities and suing a pundit (Mark Steyn) for referring to his hockey stick as fraudulent in a freaking blog post for an opinion magazine! The ACLU and a whole bunch of news organizations wrote amicus briefs against him. No one wrote one for his hurt feelings. As a science journalist, Mr. Revkin, don’t you think this might be an important issue to comment on? And if you think this is a legitimate defamation case, please explain how Mann not disclosing that his R squared results failed is not fraud.

    I see this psychologist who for all the world resembles a left wing academic version of Jimmy Swaggart, write a transparent hoax of a paper that slimes climate skeptics as conspiracy nuts in which the data only includes a trivially small amount of skeptics or conspiracy nuts. He then has a follow up paper retracted, yet he still gets a paper published in “Nature”! Chris Mooney credulously interviews him and hangs on his every word. I also notice Mooney dutifully reports on Willie Soon’s failure to fill out a line on some form about his funding source while completely ignoring Regenda Pachuari’s sexual harassment charges.

    A shrill nasty ethics position holder named Peter Gleick steals a bunch of documents from a think tank and appears to forge one when he can’t find any dirt.He’s then allowed to go on his merry way. Twenty “climate scientists” write a letter calling for RICO investigations of skeptics. The instigator turns to be scamming huge salaries for himself and family members.

    There are these 97% consensus studies. One gets tweeted by the president. They turn out to be gamed by activists. And it’s never made clear what they are agreeing on. It’s the same with their pejorative hate label, “denier”. What exactly is being denied?

    What really bothers me is the refusal to debate. Burning hydrocarbon fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and is causing warming. Is there really that many people disputing this? Everything else, sensitivity, how dangerous, best policies … is debatable!

    Reply
  4. mark hanson

    Terrific read! Genuine and honest. I hovered awhile over the words of Walt Munk-“This requires a miracle of love and unselfishness,” he said. Though it seems presently there is no possible solution at the moment, perhaps we are just ‘looking’ at it all wrong. In the future, when the only tools left in the toolbox are ‘love’ and ‘unselfishness’, we may just find a way.

    Reply
  5. Bryan Atkins

    I don’t like this piece. It induces irrational rage, or rational anger, or both.
    There are arguments to counter my reaction, ranging from, it’s standard human hubris to believe we can be planetary stewards but we can’t, to collapse is a when-not-if physics phenomenon aided by our species ignorance and lethally coupled with exponential accelerating complexity, etc.
    I hear those arguments, and acknowledge this is likely futile.
    Below is an emotional reaction.
    “Still, they were great years for reporting.” … while at the NYT.
    “An ambitious package of climate change articles planned that year was spiked as new management, more focused on core issues, settled in.” Why didn’t you walk away Andy? Why didn’t you see that you this paper was a philosophic dinosaur, comprised of status quo hustlers, largely clueless.
    Here’s a future climate meeting generated, in part, by the buying of the status quo. Variations of this meeting have occurred throughout history, in the Ukraine during Stalin’s 1930’s starvation; Mao’s starvation by incompetence; the siege of Stalingrad in WWII; the Irish potato famine …
    In this coming climate meeting, parents discuss which child they should kill to cook for the family.
    “… great years for reporting.” Indulgent suicidal slop? I think a strong case can be made to call it that.
    The paper should have been sieged. It was, and remains, philosophically drunk.
    Here’s some cultural, experiential context for my grabbing of throats, you know, in addition to my personal failings.
    In 1981, I moved into a radical eco-evo-revo group led by a Beat Poet turned revolutionary. He wrote this last stanza in 1975?
    “Once I was appalled… now I’m galled… at the lack of lucidity… and the depth of stupidity… And I’ve shed my tears… And quenched my fears… and vowed my life and force of will… and I’m willing to kill… to cease the Spoilers’ pitiless plunders of the last leaving wonders of our wounded world…”

    In 1983 I interviewed Paul Watson, Captain of the Sea Shepherd. He said this: “We’re in a war for survival and it’s everybody’s duty to get involved. If they don’t, they’ll be drafted into it anyway, by circumstance.”
    1983. “Our system for the selection of leaders who are suited to the time in which we live is no longer appropriate, useful, or effective.” Jonas Salk – “Anatomy of Reality”
    1970: “The oceans are in danger of dying.” Jacques Cousteau
    It took awhile, but American culture responded with The Love Boat followed by Baywatch.
    A homicide detective once said: “Before you connect the dots, you gotta collect the dots.”
    Mr. Revkin, did you not collect enough dots, or you couldn’t connect them, or both?
    Again, other ways to see all this, agreed. Nor do I make claims of purity, of non-hypocrisy. I understand, that by def, I’m full of wrong.
    And rage.
    There are innumerable politicians, media people, business people who have consciously or unconsciously held up cultural evolution.
    It’s probably pointless, already too late to try to take the car keys away from these myopic, suicidal coders, philosophic dark-agers.
    And the parent cannibalism meetings, the rapes, the genocides, the starvations and decapitations, variations of The Horror will abound.
    “Still, they were great years for reporting.”
    Verily, if you were delusional.
    And yes, delusion has been selected for; it’s an app on file that I also deploy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.