FYI, the Sierra Club up until the late ’60s was majority Republican. That’s not true now, of course, but there are a lot more Republicans than you might imagine. Since the Club is officially non-partisan, a party affiliation statistic is not collected, but I can assure you based on numbers that I’ve seen from the SF Bay Area (a known hotbed of Dems and Greens) that there are more than 10% Republicans here, to say nothing of a fair number of decline to states. Remember that the Club has a huge membership compared to those other organizations, and that of the active membership many more are involved in “activities” (hiking, e.g.) than in politics or activism. I’m sure you’re right that ED and Greenpeace are a different story, though. That said, of course your conflation of Democrats with “left” is absurd, although it’s fair to say of the Greens (a very small minority in the Club at least).

Regarding the consensus, that would be the oft-cited scientific consensus. But you knew that.

Heh, heh, heh! Good one!

What percentage of the combined U.S. membership of the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, Greenpeace are Democrats or Greens, vs Republicans or Libertarians? I would be shocked if it’s less than 80 percent Democrats and Greens, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the combined U.S. membership was more than 90 percent Democrats and Greens.

“Of course, the greedy/short-sighted world-view of the fossil fools naturally led them to conclude that the AGW “consensus” must be some kind of left-wing conspiracy…”

What “consensus” are you referring to?

Minor quibble: The fossil fuel lobby’s think tank and astroturf campaign has gone to great lengths to portray the environmental movement as “left.” Apparently they’ve succeeded, at least with you. It’s not even faintly true, by the way.

My bare-bones analysis: The *environmental* movement did not, after all, invent global warming or the IPCC, and hasn’t needed to resort to fake science simply because we have been willing to go with the research and conclusions that the scientific community provided. Of course, the greedy/short-sighted world-view of the fossil fools naturally led them to conclude that the AGW “consensus” must be some kind of left-wing conspiracy since it leads to conclusions that constrain the expression of that world-view. The fact that these constraints are broadly consistent with positions environmentalists were already advocating (e.g., clean air) made it seem even more like a conspiracy.

Q: How many climate scientists are members of environmental organizations? A: Way more than 57.

All I was getting at is I go heatisonline which provides almost nothing but links to mainstream newssites, and a book with the following description:

“In Boiling Point, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan argues that, unchecked, climate change will swamp every other issue facing us today. (expected policy hyperbole) Indeed, what began as an initial response of many institutions-denial and delay-has now grown into a crime against humanity. (over-the-top policy hyperbole) Gelbspan’s previous book, The Heat Is On, exposed the financing of climate-change skeptics by the oil and coal companies. (true) In Boiling Point, he reveals exactly how the fossil fuel industry is directing the Bush administration’s energy and climate policies -payback for helping Bush get elected. (true) Even more surprisingly, Gelbspan points a finger at both the media and environmental activists for unwittingly worsening the crisis. (definitely true) Finally, he offers a concrete plan for averting a full-blown climate catastrophe. (now I’m getting worried) According to Gelbspan, a proper approach to climate change could solve many other problems in our social, political, and economic lives. (okay, that wasn’t so bad…) It would dramatically reduce our reliance on oil, and with it our exposure to instability in the Middle East. (Okay, I’m relaxing a little… it’s still policy…) It would create millions of jobs and raise living standards in poor countries whose populations are affected by climate-driven disease epidemics and whose borders are overrun by environmental refugees. (Huh? Now you’ve lost me…)”

And then I go to TechCentralStation and read this:

“CO2 is an aerial fertilizer benefiting the biosphere, particularly in areas of limited rainfall.”

And then I read about their studies that wetlands cause pollution, or about the fake Oregon Petition which falsely claimed to have been signed by thousands of scientists supporting a paper on letterhead to make it look like peer reviewed research, and then I see yet another study funded by the American Petroleum Institute meant to show Benzene is safe.

Which is worse? Both distort facts to push their cause. But I guess what concerns me the most is this producing of fake research which the right is trying to put on an equal footing with peer reviewed research to provide “balance” to science they don’t like, and the creation of their own “scientific journals” that specialize in publishing ideological science to bamboozle the media.

Perhaps the left is also funding fake research and creating their own journals (I know there are some journals that publish research on ESP and UFOs). If you know of any, send me the links. I’d be interested in looking them over.

Greenpeace in Victoria, Australia recently broke into a coal fired power station to highlight the fact that it was contributing to global warming. Unfortunately for them the day they did it there was snowfall over much of the low lying country side around it an event which had not been seen for decades. Yet they still claimed that this was the result of climate change (note they did not say AGW). So the conclusion is that global warming causes snow??? Incidently few days later Victoria had temperatures in the low 20c’s this is not unusual but the weather men still felt they needed to point out that it was not unusual and shouln’t be seen as being linked to global warming. So we had some snowy days and some warmer days and pretty much an average winter.

Thanks. Just a few more comments on this.

Worldwatch is trying to have it both ways by saying that global warming can’t be connected to any one weather event (true enough) but then descibing a whole series of damaging weather events on a page about global climate change.

Ross Gelbspan, principal of the other site, is pretty well known for asserting links between weather diasters and climate change. Greenpeace has done that often as well.

The point here is that the misuse of climate science seems to be an issue across the political spectrum and across different sorts of organizations.

Worldwatch states that it is impossible to connect individual weather occurrences to GW. This gets back to my previous question about whether you’re saying GW does not predict chaotic weather, or is like claiming a hot summer is evidence of an overall warming trend. Sounds like your issue is the former.

Glancing at the third one, it consists of links in to articles in the BBC, AP and the Guardian, not their own research. Do you object to the articles by these mainstream press outlets, or do you object to something else on the site?

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/Extreme_Weather/Economic_Impacts.asp
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2003/09/15/
http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm

I do wonder if the focus of climate scientists on Satellite data and Hockey Sticks is a reaction to the attacks by conservative think tanks. The bad science you show above is in some ways more disturbing, since it may point to a bias in the scientific community itself, but it is not think tank driven. It is occuring in peer reviewed journals where people like you can submit papers for peer review in contradiction of those claims. It is the scientific process at work.

In other words, the left is not getting involved in the scientific community, but waiting for consensus to emerge for the most part, which is the role you suggest they should play. They are doing a better job of confining their critiques to what we know, whereas conservative think tanks are trying to influence scientific conclusions. Again, these are generalizations, and some of it might simply have to do with the conservative lock on power. The left has in the past, and may again in the future, do the same to the same degree.

You expressed some surprise that this post didn’t spark more debate, but I think that is a result of the very dynamic I’m talking about. I certainly come off as a partisan zealot, but I’m a zealot for the scientific process. If science says climate change doesn’t cause hurricanes, I’m willing to accept that, and I’m willing to stand back and let the process work until a consensus emerges. I have no particular ideological need for hurricanes to be caused by GW, nor do I have any particular need to believe the Earth is warming. What I do want is a functioning scientific system that can determine these things, and for politics as much as possible to be based on different ideas of how to deal with these facts as they emerge rather than making up our own facts to suit us.