Confirmation bias, rent-seeking and the rush to print the latest climate science "scoop" (Lindzen-Choi)

TokyoTom — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Since I`m in Tokyo and deprived of Bob Murphy`s enviable access, via talk radio, to cutting-edge climate science, I thank him using his blog to bring it to the attention of his audience (which occasionally includes me). Says Bob (emphasis added):

Chip Knappenberger explains the significance (and remaining holes to be plugged) in the recent Lindzen-Choi paper that's got talk radio in such a tizzy. The opening sentence: "MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth’s “climate sensitivity”—the degree the earth’s temperature responds to various forces of change—at a value that is about six times less than the “best estimate” put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Well, well, if talk radio is covering a new article that purportedly downplays climate risks, then others who have invested time in casting doubt

I`ve blogged previously about my various conversations with Chip Knappenberger, who is employed by the self-described "advocacy" group of Pat Michaels, New Hope Environmental Services.

I went to pay a visit to his post at Rob Bradley`s pro-coal, "free market" MasterResource blog, which I have discussed on any number of occasions here - especially after Mr. Bradley unceremoniously withdrew the welcome mat for libertarian critics (yours truly) while in mid-conversation with (and without notice to) several of his guest bloggers.

I reviewed Chip`s precis of the Lindzen-Choi paper and attempted to leave comments at MasterResource, but they were "disappeared" as soon as they were posted, so I forwarded a copy of my comments by email directly to Chip, which I copy below (with minor edits):

Chip, I couldn`t resist trying to comment on your post at MR, and
checking to see if Rob still has his blog set up to automatically
exclude all of my comments. Unfortunately, he still seems to be
convinced that a principled and libertarian approach (or his clients`
needs) requires maintaining his echo chamber by excluding me.

To check the sophistication of his method, I have for the first time
just tried commenting anonymously (I have until stayed away and simply
hoped Rob would change his mind), and to my surprise the comment went
through - though it is "awaiting moderation". [update: this post has now received immoderate , "echo chamber" moderation]

I thought I would give you a head`s up on my pending comment, which I
do not expect to see published - but who knows? Strange things
sometimes happen, such as Rob quoting with approval a link to a
comment that I have made:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/26/fun-with-partisanship-and-self-deception-the-climate-follies-and-rob-bradley.aspx.

My comment is below; I will wait until tomorrow before cross-posting
at my own blog.

Sincerely,

Tom

[comment left at MasterResource]
"It is too early to tell whether Lindzen and Choi’s findings will
prove to be the end-all be-all in this debate."

But it`s not too early for you, for others who act as paid mouthpieces
for fossil fuel and others who wish to avoid policy action, to trumpet
this as yet unpublished paper all over the intertubes, is it Chip?

By the way, continuing studies on the "sensitivity" of temperatures to
GHG increases should not lead us to ignore either the problem of ocean
acidification from our accelerating CO2 build-up or the very exquisite
sensitivity of the Earth`s climate and ecosystems to the 0.6 C average
temp increase that we have experience over the past 50 years
(remaining stuck at a peak for the past 10). The Arctic and temperate
zone glaciers continue to rapidly thaw, and other changes affecting
ecosystems and human livelihoods are still underway.

I note I have seen very preliminary remarks by James
Annan here, and by

Gavin Schmidt here.

"a waste of time and effort"

More directly, don`t you mean that such efforts would cost your clients money?

Sure, there are reasonable grounds to dispute practically any use of
government (though I note that Exxon and Margo Thorning of the ACCF
are both expressly advocating carbon taxes), but let`s not pretend to not

notice that those speaking most loudly in support of our radical, ongoing
planet-wide "experiment" on the affect of GHG emissions and albedo
changes are precisely the investors and firms (and their mouthpieces)
who benefit from the status quo (leaving all of these activities
unpriced), while it`s the world`s populations more generally who end
up with all of the risks.

This climate experiment and those paid to provide it cover are hardly
a "conservative" or "libertarian" enterprise.

I note that Bob Murphy is no climate expert, but simply posting blindly about something that he thinks cuts in the direct he wants; in a similar vein, Knappenberger also evidently is puffing the importance of a scientific article that is hot off the presses, but can`t be troubled to link to any articles providing additional context. (A recent blog post and comments by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit also point out the difficulties in reaching conclusions from the new research.)

I also note, as I have previously, that not only Chip but Bob as well - when he has on his "economist for IER" (which is a coal and public utility front group that was de-funded last year by Exxon) hat - are, at least in part, being compensated to undercut climate change policy.

In this context, we all are prone to note evidence that fits into our existing world view, while discounting contrary information, such "confirmation bias" is readily apparent in the internet and radio coverage of this piece. While climate change and climate policy are certainly hot topics, it doesn`t seem to me that the so-called "skeptics" are at all taking this new study skeptically, but are instead eagerly lapping it up, assume it is good news, are are loudly trumpeting it. Now who`s fooling whom? Many "skeptics" look just like the "alarmist" "global warming cult" "believers" whom they abhor.

Unfortunately, while it`s impossible to know what Rob and Chip are actually thinking and why, it`s clear that a dangerous mix of self-deception, confirmation bias and rent-seeking permeates the tribal conflicts that we are seeing in current over the use of government, not the least in the case of climate change, which is a difficult scientific and policy issue.

Duelling climate policy parables: in the face of RealClimate`s "tragedy of the commons", MasterResource`s Emperor has no clothes

TokyoTom — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:25:00 GMT

I`ve done a bit of blogging over the past few weeks regarding the "The tragedy of climate commons" post by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and ensuing discussion at the RealClimate website. Schmidt wrote the post in response to the implied suggestion...(read more)

Rent-seekers at the Core: Rob Bradley is anxious to defend his role at Enron, but is uninterested in balance, open debate or correcting his own misstatements about EXXON`s support for carbon taxes

TokyoTom — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:34:00 GMT

...(read more)

Strange but true: in the context of climate & fisheries, enviros discuss property rights, cooperation and the tragedy of the commons

TokyoTom — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:28:00 GMT

Here , in the belly of the Beast - the " RealClimate" blog by climate scientists. Anybody wanna chip in? So far, comments by yours truly are as follows: 134. TokyoTom Says: 8 May 2009 at 11:56 AM Gavin, thanks for a thoughtful post that I hope...(read more)

[Update] Rot at the Core: Rob Bradley at "free market" MasterResource blog shows his true colors as a rent-seeker for fossil fuels

TokyoTom — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:27:00 GMT

[Update: I`ve added more background on Exxon, "Malthusians" and productive engagement.] How has Rob Bradley showed his hand? By shutting down reasoned (if challenging) debate at his blog, in the face of comments that were certainly more "free...(read more)

Chris Horner/CEI: Confused or alarmist on Kuznets, China and climate?

TokyoTom — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:52:00 GMT

The right-wing Business & Media Institute has published a rather confused piece by Chris Horner , senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute , in which Horner, while noting China's progress along the environmental Kuznets curve (as...(read more)

Pat Michaels - scientist AND paid advocate. Correspondence with Chip Knappenberger

TokyoTom — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:35:00 GMT

In an earlier blog post - " WHY Pat Michaels says "The Antarctic Ain't Cooperating " - I raised questions about the objectives and role of Pat Michaels in the political debate about climate change and climate change-related policy,...(read more)