A critique of Chapter “XVII” of the new book by Hirsch, Bezdek, and Wendling.

It’s a scandal to the peak oil movement (if there is such a thing). It’s destined to be divisive. I suspect it will go a long way toward discrediting peak oilers as part of an oil company conspiracy to both raise the price of oil and destroy the planet in the process. They attempt to create doubt about AGW in order to advance their own thesis about how to best mitigate declining oil production, which may be phrased as follows: BURN EVERYTHING.

We do not know whether global warming has been or will be caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. However, after many years of following the literature on the subject, we are concerned by a number of troubling issues: 1) The absence of a temperature rise over that last decade; 2) Inconsistencies and inaccuracies regarding various earthly changes; 3) Potential research data manipulation and contradictions; 4) The politicization of the science; and 5) Some unprofessional and ethically questionable behaviors by both global warming analysts and special interest groups.

I regard their claim to agnosticism at the outset to be a ruse. Theirs is by no means an even-handed look at both sides of an argument. It's boilerplate denialism. It’s clear by the end of the chapter that they don’t believe in human-caused climate change:

...there is just too much that is unsettling [in climate change research] for us to believe that a scientific basis exists to justify draconian, expensive, civilization-changing measures.

What do I “believe” about this issue? Not much. It’s not something I follow. I do believe that, regardless whether or not AGW is true, human beings are incapable of implementing the mass changes that would be necessary if it were true.

Reading the chapter in question, I was struck—even shocked—by the contradictions, absurdities, and selective quoting of their critique. One need only be a critical reader, not necessarily an AGW proponent, to see that their arguments are deceptive and inconsistent—a shotgun blast of everything they can muster. They seem to think the more "arguments," the better, but there is no singular, logical line of reasoning here.

I decided to spend just a couple of hours researching some of their claims—I try to have some semblance of a life—but it didn’t take long to find that Hirsch, et al. are misleading readers in Chapter “XVII” of their book.

Global temperature rise. “Temperatures have been flat or slightly declining over the past decade.” Just look at the charts here and judge for yourself what the trend looks like. The last ten years look like a fly speck on a mountain to me. Near the top of the page it even says that 2010 has been the warmest year in 131 years. Even if we grant the authors’ claim, it doesn’t mean that the preceding 125 years of warming (coinciding neatly with the oil age) didn’t happen because of carbon emissions. Need I add that oil production and therefore consumption has been “flat or slightly declining” for six years of “the past decade”? Might this have something to do with it?

Inconsistencies and inaccuracies regarding various earthly changes. I’d rather call it “inconsistencies and inaccuracies with which Hirsch, et al. represent these various so-called inconsistencies and inaccuracies.” Just a couple: They argue on the one hand that “remarkable weather events” (Hurricane Katrina, floods, etc.) are no basis on which to decide whether human emissions are causing climate change. Point granted. Then, on page 221, one finds this:

In the 1990s when temperatures around the U.S. Seemed higher than normal, we were told that we were experiencing global warming. In the winter of 2009-2010, we experienced record-breaking snow and cold weather along the U.S. East coast and in the south. Indeed, we were told that on February 12, 2010, snow existed in every U.S. State other than Hawaii for the first time in recorded history.

Point granted. I saw it myself: I was in Washington D. C. on February 18th, walking through snow drifts that were more like what we experience here in Maine.

However, you cannot argue out of one side of your mouth that extreme weather events are not evidence of human-caused global warming, then argue out of the other side of your mouth that extreme weather events are evidence that human-caused global warming is unfounded. You shouldn’t be using extreme weather event arguments, period. Besides, according to NASA Earth Observatory:

In late January 2010, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies announced that the 2009 average global temperature was among the hottest observed since 1880. Looking at these maps, though, you can imagine how surprising that conclusion might have been to many residents of Mexico, the United States, central Canada, Sweden, or northern Russia. Each of those places experienced strong, sometimes deadly, cold-temperature anomalies, and in some cases, record-breaking snow this past winter.

Hirsch,et al. conveniently forget to mention that winter ended abruptly in late February. I saw that myself, too. In Maine, the snow was gone by March, and leaves were coming out in late April—unprecedented in my experience. To our shock and dismay, our apple orchard began blooming three weeks early, and we lost 95% of our crop due to a May frost. The local newspapers ignorantly reported that an unusual frost killed the apple crop, but the frost was right on time. It was the early bloom that caused the disaster.

Another inconsistency: The authors argue that data of retreating ice caps are insufficient to establish a case for global warming because “ice coverage data are only available back to the last 1970s.” Compare that to their previous argument that a mere ten years of temperature data ARE sufficient to claim that the global warming trend has stopped.

The politicization of the science. The authors lament, “the next time you see a statement regarding the so-called scientific consensus about human causation, you might question the knowledge and objectivity of the source.” They then proceed—unbelievably—to present cases for “Climategate” and the “Oregon Petititon Project”!

The [University of East Anglia’s] climate research unit director, Professor Phil Jones, was accused of manipulating data and withholding scientific information to prevent its disclosure. He subsequently relinquished his post pending the completion of an investigation.

Compare with:

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”. The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity”. The Mps had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.

…

In July 2010, the British investigation comissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt. The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly-created post of Director of Research.

Hirsch, et al.'s sources: Right-wing blogs such as Big Government and American Thinker.

My source: Wikipedia, which cites The Seattle Times and The New York Times.

Compare

Over 31,000 technically trained skeptics of global warming signed the petition. More than 9,000 held technical PhDs. The number of signatory skeptics was estimated to be twelve times larger than the number of scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
…

The petition cover letter was prepared by Dr. Frederick Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and Nobel Prize winner in physics—not a scientific slouch.

with

The petition drive was begun by Dr. Frederick Seitz, now deceased, and is now led by Dr. Arthur Robinson and his son, Dr. Noah Robinson. . . .

Robinson asserts not just that his collection of 31,072 signatures on a petition has refuted the claim of “settled science” and “overwhelming consensus” among scientists with regard to global warming, but that “The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.” Not only has Robinson failed to substantiate either of his assertions, he is misleading the American public by implying that his petition fairly represents relevant expert opinion.

and

Seitz began working as a permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their medical research program until 1988. Reynolds had previously provided "very generous" support for biomedical work at Rockefeller. Seitz later wrote that "The money was all spent on basic science, medical science," and pointed to Reynolds-funded research on mad cow disease and tuberculosis. Nonetheless, later academic studies of tobacco industry influence concluded that Seitz, who helped allocate $45m of Reynolds' research funding, "played a key role... in helping the tobacco industry produce uncertainty concerning the health impacts of smoking."
...

In 1984 Seitz was the founding chairman of the [conservative think tank] George C. Marshall Institute, and was its chairman until 2001. The Institute was founded to argue for President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, but “in the 1990s it branched out to become one of the leading think-tanks trying to debunk the science of climate change.” ... In 1994, the Institute published a paper by Seitz titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. Seitz questioned the view that CFCs “are the greatest threat to the ozone layer”. In the same paper, commenting on the dangers of secondary inhalation of tobacco smoke, he concluded “there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances.”

No politics there!

Hirsch, et al. quote the Oregon Petition Project.

I quote Wikipedia and Skeptic magazine. (That's "Skeptic" as in "rational discourse," not "skeptic" as in "deny everything.")

I’d had enough at this point.

It’s a dismal experience watching the credibility of peak oil advocates go up in flames. I remember when you could only get the so-called Hirsch report from a high school website. I remember reading the 90-page document twice. But like Matt Simmons, who completely lost his mind over the Deepwater Horizon blowout, and Mike Ruppert, who went ga-ga with 9/11 conspiracies, Hirsch and co. have just self-immolated.

I'll close with a quotation of theirs that should depress our friends here on TOD who frequently comment on AGW:

[W]e believe that the impending decline in world oil production will impose hardships that could be catastrophic to human well-being. To effectively mitigate the enormous oil shortage problem while also trying to reduce world carbon dioxide emissions is impossible in our judgment.