Hill Heat

State Sen. Mark Green (R-Tenn.-22), speaking today at the American Legislative Exchange Council States & Nation Policy Summit in Washington, D.C., rejects the science of global warming. In a September 15, 2013 tweet, Sen. Green said, “I think we need to be concerned about global cooling.”

Green’s tweet cites a Climate Depot link to a blogpost with the headline “Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013.”

This factoid is an indicator of global warming, not global cooling. As the climate has become destabilized, the annual variation in global sea ice has increased, with greater swings in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, as is global land ice. As Antarctica warms, its land ice mass is in decline, while its sea ice extent is on the increase as oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns change in the Southern hemisphere.

Climate Depot is the website of former Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) spokesman Marc Morano.

Green’s tweet continues with a link to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by climate-change denier Matt Ridley, which argues “the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.”

A 2011 ALEC conference presented a panel entitled “Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2.”

Green is also a military veteran, former field surgeon, and radical gun-rights advocate.

Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rejects the science of man-made climate change. In a 2012 interview with Dallas News, Cruz claimed that global warming ceased in 1997, misquoted climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, and claimed that the threat of greenhouse gas pollution is “scientific assumptions that have been totally undermined by the latest science.” Cruz also claimed that any form of market-based or regulatory limits on carbon pollution would “devastate” the United States.

The Dallas News voter guide asked the question: “What is your view on the science of man-made climate change? Do you support legislation that would reduce the output of greenhouse gases, and, if so, what approach would you take?”

Sen. Ted Cruz on global warming:

My view of climate science is the same as that of many climate scientists: We need a much better understanding of the climate before making policy choices that would impose substantial economic costs on our Nation. There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong. For example, the models predicted accelerated warming over the last 15 years, but there has been no warming during that time.

Even Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, the lead author of the U.N. IPCC 4th Assessment Report, recently said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” So, we need to be good stewards of the environment, but we also have to be rational. We came very close to adopting a cap & tax scheme that would have devastated our economy without a single demonstrable benefit. Now EPA has adopted greenhouse gas regulations on the basis of scientific assumptions that have been totally undermined by the latest science—and those regulations are going to have a devastating impact on many American families and businesses if we don’t roll them back.

Cruz’s claims repeat the #5, #7, #24, #54, #58, #102, #140, #143, and #169 myths categorized by Skeptical Science.

In March 2013, Cruz blocked mention of “changes in climate” in an International Women’s Day proclamation. “A provision expressing the Senate’s views on such a controversial topic as ‘climate change’ has no place in a supposedly noncontroversial resolution requiring consent of all 100 U.S. senators,” a spokesman said.

In June, Cruz blasted President Obama’s global warming agenda as “killing jobs” with a “national energy tax.”

Cruz, whose election was strongly backed by Google, will be the keynote speaker on Thursday at the American Legislative Exchange Council Summit, also funded by Google.

On the one year anniversary of the catastrophic Hurricane Sandy, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Business Network is promoting the conspiracy theory that climate science is a liberal fiction. Fox Business host Stuart Varney railed against the “global warming agenda” of the “mainstream media.”

It is one year since Hurricane Sandy ravaged the east coast. The mainstream media continues to use the storm to push a global warming agenda.

Watch it:

Varney’s guest, the conservative Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor, complained that of the 32 segments in network news his group found that mentioned Sandy and global warming, only two questioned the overwhelming science that the increasing greenhouse effect from the combustion of fossil fuels is accelerating sea level rise and making weather more extreme and chaotic. Despite numerous scientific attribution studies on wildfires, heat waves, droughts, and storms that have found global warming fingerprints, Gainor falsely claimed that “we cannot link climate change or global warming to a specific event.” He furthermore dismissed the decades of work by thousands of scientists in all earth-science disciplines that provide our understanding of climate change as “stuff” and “guesswork.”

Gainor did not emphasize that his organization found only 32 mentions of climate change and Sandy in an entire year of network news coverage. (In contrast, for example, there were 52 segments on Iran’s nuclear program in five months of network news coverage from November 2011 to March 2012.)

Climate denial is rampant in the financial press, not just the media organs owned by Murdoch like Fox and the Wall Street Journal. Forbes regularly publishes climate-denial columns, and Reuters editors are openly hostile to climate science. And Comcast’s CNBC features hosts such as Joe Kernen, who argues that the findings of climate science are a plot concocted by a “bonafide cult” of “enviro-socialists” and the “eco-taliban.”

Varney and Gainor also bemoaned the public stand the Los Angeles Times has taken against global warming denial in its opinion pages. Over 25,000 people have signed a petition from climate accountability organization Forecast the Facts calling on the nation’s other major papers, including the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post, to follow suit.

On Sunday, Forecast the Facts hosted a forum held in downtown New York City looking at the role of Wall Street in financing the climate change that threatens New York’s future prosperity. The panelists of the Turning the Tide forum, including Center for American Progress senior fellow Bracken Hendricks, Tom Steyer advisor Kate Gordon, and New Economy Lab’s James Slezak, discussed how the financial industry needs to reject the anti-scientific arguments pushed by Murdoch’s media properties and David H. Koch’s network of think tanks and advocacy groups.

Gordon cited the Risky Business initative, led by Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. The initiative, Gordon explained, is meant not only to provide an economic assessment of the risk exposure different companies and industries have to manmade global warming, but also to change the culture of the financial sector. With that goal in mind, influential Republicans and conservatives who accept the basic science of climate change have been courted.

Wall Street is at a crossroads, all the panelists agreed. On the path of fossil-fuel companies and climate deniers like New York City’s richest man, carbon financier David H. Koch, lies accelerating sea level rise and intensifying storms that will swamp the islands of New York City. But the investors and analysts can choose another path, recognize the science, and invest in a sustainable future that will save their city.

Fox Business Network Transcript:

Nevada Congressman Mark Amodei of the Second District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a recent letter to a constituent, Rep. Amodei (R-Nev.) claimed that scientists “argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth.” His comments were published by Daily Kos.

“The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change.”

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Surface warming from the earth’s radioactive core amounts to only 0.087 watt per square meter, whereas incoming solar radiation provides 236 watts per square meter. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases has increased from 1 W/m² to 2.4 W/m². The global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Rep. Amodei is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sitting on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

The complete constituent letter of Rep. Amodei’s rejection of climate science is below.

Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon of the Fifth District makes light of the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In an April 26, 2013 interview with the Arizona Republic, Rep. Salmon (R-Ariz.) said global warming is “coming from the hot air coming out of Washington.”

“I found the source of global warming is coming from the hot air coming out of Washington.”

Rep. Salmon has taken the Koch Industries’ “No Climate Tax” pledge and voted repeatedly against climate action.

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Freshman Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry of the Fourth District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a September 20, 2012 debate, then-candidate Perry (R-Penn.) said he “take[s] exception” that global warming is “man-made” and is “concerned” that the “theory” of global warming is not “proven.” His comments were transcribed by the York Daily Record’s Ed Mahon for the paper’s political blog.

“I do believe global warming is occurring. …However, I do take exception, whether it’s man-made or not. I learned in public school, the scientific theory. …You have a theory and it has to be proven. And I’m concerned anytime that a nation, or the world, makes up policy based on a theory that … has gained consensus but” does not have proof, he said.

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation – what the word “theory” means in scientific jargon, despite Rep. Perry’s confusion – for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Pennsylvania Congressman Keith Rothfus of the 12th District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a 2010 interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Rothfus (R-Penn.) said he was “dubious” that global warming was “man-made” or a “fact.”

“I do not believe it’s man-made, and I am not convinced that it’s a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming. I think you go back when we had a medieval warm period, where we were growing crops in Greenland. We could do that maybe if we kept warming up over the next 20 to 30 years. I do think the jury’s out on that. I’m very dubious as to whether or not this is what they call anthropogenic, man-made. When you talk about 280 parts per billion [sic] I think of carbon, these are very small amounts.”

Watch:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Rothfus was off on his estimation of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a factor of 1000. Carbon dioxide levels have risen from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 parts per million to the present-day 400 parts per million, a 40 percent increase. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

The so-called Medieval Warm Period was a period between the 10th to 15th centuries of higher than average solar radiation and lower than average volcanic activity where some parts of the world, including Greenland, were about as warm as have been in the past decade. During that period the global climate was significantly cooler than the present day.

Montana Congressman Steve Daines believes that there is “compelling” evidence that solar cycles, not industrial pollution, are causing global warming. In a 2012 radio interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Daines (R-Mont.) details to NPR’s Sally Mauk his version of the “sun causes global warming” canard:

Q: You mentioned that there is debate about whether human activity is contributing to climate change, the burning of fossil fuels particularly. My question is where do you come down on that debate. Is it, or is it not?

DAINES: I think the jury’s still out in my opinion, Sally, on that. I’ve seen some very good data that says there are other contributing factors there, certainly looking at the effect the sun has, and it’s the solar cycles versus CO2 and greenhouse gases. So I look at this as saying I want to keep an open mind on this, but I’m not convinced. I’m a skeptic, I hear sometimes on both sides, because I think they’re using their agenda here just for political points here rather than looking objectively at the data. I think there’s compelling data on both sides of the equation now, for and against, that I think we need to continue to look and study this before making firm policy-type decisions on it.

Listen:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. The variations in solar warming and other natural influences, scientists have found, have had a cooling influence entirely swamped out by human-induced warming. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Full interview audio is available here.

North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer believes that anthropogenic global warming is a “fraudulent science,” the result of a scientific conspiracy to promote wind farms and carbon taxes at the expense of cheap coal. In a February 4, 2012 radio interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Cramer (R-N.D.) details to KNOX’s Jarrod Thomas his version of the “Climategate” conspiracy theory:

“These mandates and these wind farms are all based on this fraudulent science from the EPA, meaning their claim that CO2 is a pollutant and is causing global warming. I’m sure you’re familiar with one of the leading climate research centers in the world there at East Anglia University in England, the Hadley Research Centre. The director, Phil Jones, his emails, he admitted that he was falsifying temperature data. The reason he had to do is because was the data was showing the global climate is actually declining in temperature, temperatures were going down. He was overlaying higher temperatures on the real data to show that it was actually rising. We know the globe is cooling. Number one, we know that. So the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent.”

Listen:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The stolen emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the Hadley Research Centre is a separate institution) do not provide support for Cramer’s libelous attacks on Dr. Jones. The global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Rep. Cramer is a member of the House Committee on Science.

MP3 file. Full interview audio is available here.

A problematic trend among science journalists and climate communicators is the obfuscation of the scientific understanding of tornadogenesis, the processes and conditions necessary for the formation of tornadoes.

• “No evidence global warming spawned twister” — CNN’s Elizabeth Landau
• “No links to tornadoes” — Dr. Marshall Shepherd, American Meteorological Society president
• “Yet a link between climate change and tornado activity has not been established.” — New York Times’ John Schwartz

These claims range from misleading to false.

The link between climate change and tornado activity is atmospheric physics. Tornadic activity is governed by atmospheric and topographical conditions, such as vertical wind shear, humidity, temperature gradients, and geographic contours. The atmospheric conditions are determined by climatic forcings, including greenhouse gas concentrations. Scientists have not established how global warming changes tornado activity, but it is simply incorrect to state that there is no link between climate change and tornadoes. To make that claim requires the assumption that the laws of physics do not apply to tornadoes.

There is strong science about climate change and large storms. In particular, there is both theoretical and observational evidence that intense precipitation events are increasing. For example:

• Trends in Intense Precipitation in the Climate Record (Groisman et al., 2005)
• Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes (Min et al., 2011)
• Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts (Easterling et al., 2000)
• Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes (Allen & Snowden, 2008)
• Heavy precipitation processes in a warmer climate (Frei et al., 1998)

There is also theoretical and observed evidence that global incidence of lightning is increasing:

• Global surface temperatures and the atmospheric electrical circuit (Price, 1993)
• Possible implications of global climate change on global lightning distributions and frequencies (Price & Rind, 1994)
• Lightning activity as an indicator of climate change (Reeve & Toumi, 1999)
• Thunderstorms, Lightning and Climate Change (Price, 2009)

There is theoretical evidence that global warming should increase severe thunderstorms:

• Changes in severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing (Trapp et al., 2007)
• Will moist convection be stronger in a warmer climate? (Del Genio et al., 2007)
• Transient response of severe thunderstorm forcing to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations (Trapp et al., 2009)

There are many questions that are open areas of study, including how storm seasons and geography may be shifting, but that thunderstorms are powered by latent and thermal heat is something that has been understood since the 19th century (see Espy, 1841, Philosophy of Storms).