Andrew Revkin points out that climate change coverage in the US media peaked in 2007 – indeed it has become the greatest story rarely told.  Part of the reason is the issue-attention cycle discussed in relation to the environment by Anthony Downs* in 1972.  According to this theory an event occurs triggering public interest in an environmental issue and then – even though the problem is unresolved – other issues replace it as its novelty value wears off and boredom with the concern sets in. In addition, the effects of climate change are either gradual or, if potentially immediate (hurricanes, droughts), only ambiguously linked to anthropogenic global warming.  Catastrophic outcomes are only an imperfect means of fostering public opinion to act on climate change issues particularly since climate delusionists are happy to sow the seeds of doubt about causation. Often too effects such as the breakup of sea-ice formations are geographically distant and understandable only in terms of elaborate scientific explanations.  The gradualism of many changes means that we can ‘get used to’ living in a degraded environment.  It becomes difficult to maintain climate change as a significant public concern.

In a democracy the media largely fashion public opinions which determine election outcomes.  If the media can be corrupted by self-interested corporations or if the main competition they face is from Hollywood then public policy decisions will be poor.

* Downs is a significant public policy scholar. I have a particular appreciation for his “Still Stuck in Traffic” book which is one of the best discussions of traffic congestion I have seen. In the article cited Downs applies issue-attention cycle theory to the problem of addressing traffic congestion.

As the Copenhagen meeting approaches – barely 6 weeks away – Lord Monckton is preaching that President Obama is about to sign away US liberties to the Communists by seeking to endorse an international agreement (here is the full speech).  The Communists who took over Greenpeace in its early days will impose a communist government on the world and individual countries will be unable to extricate themselves.   It is frightening nonsense but nonsense that will be spread by the IPA in Australia when it meets on 10 November to discuss the Economic Consequences of Climate Change.  The Monckton idiocy is being promoted at the Quadrant website. Why the interest? Monckton is not a scientist and his claims on climate science have been repeatedly shown to be false.

Another insidious use of the media to twist public opinion is the film ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’ which I was unfortunate enough to see today – a promo is here. Endorsed by the libertarian loonies – it is a hideous instance of the big lie. Distortion built on distortion with illogic everywhere.   It is a particularly nasty piece of propaganda.  The junk science in the movie is demolished here.

I have also now seen the John-Mashey- recommended book by James Hoggan, Climate Cover Up.  A serious work. Background material here.   Hoggan is a PR expert who set up the DeSmogBlog – worth a look.  He understands very clearly how commercial interests have set out to distort climate change debates.  On the academic side of delusionism I enjoyed this very good clip by Clive Hamilton and Andrew Glikson at the Monthly’s Slow TV.  I haven’t always been the strongest supporter of some of Clive’s work but this is very good.

The debate over the Dubner-Levitt Superfreakonomics material on climate change has bubbled along.  I tried to summarize the debate here mainly via some key hyperlinks.  Yesterday Dubner responded to the extraordinary – though to my mind justified – range of attacks on the book. I am not persuaded and neither is one of the primary aggressors, Joe Romm.   Brad Delong has a concise list of corrections and makes the suggestion that Chapter 5 of this work should be reworked.  My reading of Chapter 5 did not convince me the authors took climate change issues seriously (e.g. it’s a religion) and they repeated some standard denialist fantasies (e.g. warming has stopped).  I think the work is an instance of the corruption of US academic life – the glorification of being hip and counterintuitive – rather than being right.   It is also very unscholarly. There is interest in geo-engineering backstop technologies but to propose them as a major basis for addressing climate change requires more knowledge than this pair of clowns possess. Eric Pooley describes the book as disappointing – I think that is an understatement. Yoram Bauman writes an interesting critique which goes to the core of the difficulties here.

Finally (and on a more constructive note) Bill Becker  provided a guide to the position of the US at Copenhagen.  Barry Brook continues valuable work on the case for nuclear technology using an inputs requirement approach that suggests a lot about comparative costs – some of the most interesting stuff I saw online this week.  The comparisons relate to nuclear versus renewable.  If you want a very sober 2009 update to the essential MIT work on nuclear power I recommend their website. In 2003 an interdisciplinary MIT group published an assessment of the case for use of nuclear fuels. It has recently provided a 2009 update.  In relation to climate change the study reaches an interesting conclusion  “….compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation”.

The main factor against nuclear versus gas or coal with a CO₂ charge are the construction uncertainties which raise the cost of capital.  Even without a carbon charge nuclear wins over these technologies if capital costs are the same.  They would be the same if nuclear power generation facility construction is not site-specific but replicable.  I thought the technology was replicable because I remember the paper by Martin Zimmerman in the Bell Journal of Economics (1982) which argued that there were substantial learning-by-doing in constructing nuclear power stations.  Of course there won’t be much learning-by-doing in the US since no new nuclear power stations have been built there for yonks.

If readers have seen good climate change literature please cite in the comments.

In 2006 I discussed the fact that the same authors got it wrong in inferring that reduced crime rates were caused by the introduction of pro-abortion laws in the US which eliminated unwanted babies.  They are still producing provocative nonsense.

Update: More from Joe Romm & more.  Paul Krugman attributes the stupidity in Superfreakonomics to the myth of ‘counterintuitiveness’ - shocking people to sell yourself.  Its OK if you have that the mentality that sees life as a sales job but runs into problems when the snark has the potential to cause serious damages as it does in this case.  Of course don’t buy this stupid book.

A piece from Gavin at RealClimate on why D-L are wrong on geo-engineering.

Where’s Malcolm Gladwell?

Here’s Dubner’s response to Joe Romm.

Update: Here is Quadrant’s partisan – although less partisan than usual – review of the debate. The last paragraph is accurate.

I have noticed too other pieces of nonsense in the press.  Robert Gottleibsen’s piece in Business Spectator was probably the silliest. Gottleibsen sees the introduction of an ETS in Australia as bankrupting heavily-indebted brown coal power stations and lead to brownouts.  The claim is exaggerated. Electrical power for most customers is a non-internationally traded power source so having power stations compelled to charge carbon levies would mean that increased prices could be passed onto customers whose demands are relatively inelastic. Yes we will pay more for electricity. The objective is to get us to economise on carbon-based secondary energy. Talk of brownouts will appeal only to hysterics. The hysterics are raving now over at Catallaxy. 

It might be that this asinine piece from Terry McCrann in The Australia beats Gottleibsen for silliness.  Ominously to McCrann  an ETS “will be the beginning of the end of Australia as we know it” and “Anyone who votes for the ETS next week — or indeed any week — is betraying both common sense and their basic duty to the national interest and every Australian”.

The Senate vote is important and those with views opposing the ETS have the right to represent their viewpoints.  The tone of alarmism and the repetition of arguments that have been repeatedly rejected on the basis of sustained arguments without even reference to the opposing views however does make me wonder.  There is a viciousness and social irresponsibility to this concerted campaign that ultimately stems from (i) the rejection of the accepted science on climate change and (ii) from the rejection of the well-understood principle that tradeable emissions permits enable a sought level of cleanup to be achieved at minimum cost.

There are details of the ETS I oppose – I would seek firm 25% CO2E cuts by 2020 unconditionally and I would only hand out transitional free permits to those firms in the tradeable goods sector of the economy for whom energy costs comprise more than 5% of total costs.  I would also favour more comprehensive border tax measures on imports of any country that does not by 2025 mitigate its emissions comparably to Australia.  In 10 years all countries – developing and developed must be cutting their emissions not only restricting their growth. 

In addition, we need to think broadly about policy by encouraging innovative carbon-free supply options, developing a nuclear engineering capacity, providing foreign assistance and technology transfer packages.  We need a comprehensive energy policy package not only an ETS.   But I would, of course, unconditionally support the current proposals in lieu of no ETS at all.

The analysis repeatedly states that warming has not occurred for the last decade – this is a misleading claim that has been repeatedly refuted.  The analysis is also heavy on verbiage and in stating the obvious – ‘climate is dynamic’, ’climate has always changed’ etc. which have no bearing at all on the case for AGW.

Pick a standard text on climate change – one of my favourites is by Sir John Houghton, Global Warming – The Complete Briefing -  and not only are the facts different but the facts are written as science.  There are no attempts to hector or ridicule.  Houghton did Chair important Working Groups for the IPCC – the allegedly villanous group that Plimer identifies – but he is also professor of atmospheric physics at Oxford and a leading figure in world meteorology.  He has 50 years of publication in the area of meteorology and climate science. There was no commotion when his book was published.

As I noted earlier, Plimer doesn’t seem to have any refereed papers in climate science.  The conspiracy to suppress the truth must indeed be strong if a man with such striking views has been unable to get any of them published in refereed publications.

So I would not recommend to students or members of the public that they purchase the Plimer book. But others go further than this. I have no reason to disagree with them. A review of Plimer’s book by a Professor of Astrophysics at UNSW, Michael Ashley argues:

‘Plimer probably didn’t expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn’t help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”. This paper argues that the sun isn’t composed of 98% hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken’.

There is more commentary on this at Deltoid.  It is not wrong to challenge orthodoxy anywhere but the work of Plimer is unscientific and both irresponsible and dangerous – he has provided a social diservice.  The extensive publicity he has received has had an entirely undeserved impact. 

Forget Plimer, read the science.