GOP Rep. Pence Says “Science is Very Mixed” on Global Warming, Lies Again Twice About MIT Study on MSNBC

Thu, 2009-05-07 12:49Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

GOP Rep. Pence Says “Science is Very Mixed” on Global Warming, Lies Again Twice About MIT Study on MSNBC

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) was on a roll Tuesday with three appearances on MSNBC in which he lied twice about the cost of reducing carbon emissions and asserted that global warming is a liberal myth.

Pence told MSNBC host Chris Matthews that “I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming.”

Documenting his grasp of scientific reality, Pence went on to state that creationism is “fundamental truth.”  Matthews responded, “Did you take biology in school? … If your party wants to be credible on science, you gotta accept science. Do you?”

Pence ducked the direct question, but told Matthews that “In the mainstream media, there is a denial of the growing skepticism in the scientific community on global warming.” 

Matthews put Pence in his place, telling him that “I don’t think your party is passionately committed to science, or to fighting global warming, or to dealing with the scientific facts we live with.”

“Tell me what you really think, Chris,” Pence snapped back, telling Matthews that “This anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”

Pence continued his marathon of idiocy in two additional appearances on MSNBC Tuesday, lying both times in order to wildly exaggerate the cost of America’s transition away from dirty fuels toward clean energy.  Pence twice used the GOP’s favorite (if wholly-discredited) figure on the cost of implementing carbon reduction strategies currently under Congressional consideration. 

Pence and other GOP leaders have claimed since March that transitioning to a green economy would cost every American family up to $3,128, a blatant lie which the GOP says it came up with based on an MIT study co-authored by economist John Reilly. 

Reilly has repeatedly pressed the GOP to stop lying about his study, saying the GOP is “just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin” to explain, Reilly said.  Reilly told Climate Progress recently that “apart from the misrepresentation of the costs” by the GOP, “it is inappropriate to draw conclusions on the costs of Waxman-Markey” from a study published two years ago that doesn’t model key cost-containment provisions, such as the use of offsets.

Reilly sent multiple letters to GOP leaders explaining their error to them.  But the truth hasn’t stopped Mike Pence and the GOP from continuing to spout the $3000 lie.

Pence repeated it Tuesday on MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and again later in the day in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Neither correspondent challenged Pence for quoting the repeatedly debunked statistic.

In between his MSNBC appearances, Pence led the GOP’s staged “mock climate hearing” to attack the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act.  The mock hearing is part of the GOP’s plan for a “communications offensive over the next four weeks” to assert that the Waxman-Markey climate legislation “amounts to a national energy tax that will destroy jobs and increase costs for every single American.”

During a brief interview after the mock hearing, The Wonk Room pressed Pence to explain why he continued to lie about Reilly’s MIT study.  Pence told the Wonk Room: “I respect the work that [MIT’s Reilly] did. We took the number that he used [for the value of the cap-and-trade market] and divided it by the number of American households. What he’s doing, he’s not making a mathematical conclusion, he’s making a public policy or political conclusion.”

Yup, a politician accusing a widely respected economist of playing politics.  All in a day’s work for Rep. Mike Pence.

This month we’re giving away FREE copies Anthony Barnosky’s Heatstroke: nature in an age of global warming.

Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlog’s monthly book give-away.

 

Comments

Oh, the bogus “creationist” charge again. I watched the interview and what Pence said is that he believed that a God created the universe. There is no conflict between believing in a Creator and evolution as the two are perfectly compatible.

These people still have heart for global warming

I am a scientist myself but the day I got to know how we used technology to destroy our own world I started hating my love for the technology enhancement..

The way this pence has worked he was equally responsible. No govt even gave a dam about global warming or any scientific issue related to nature…What do they think if nature wnt survive they will live

huh!

 

How do these people not end up in an insane asylum?  Pence and his ilk have a mental illness which prevents them from understanding basic facts.  If some PR hack from the Heritage Foundation were to brainwash Pence into thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, he’d bite it hook, line, and sinker!  Makes you wonder about the mental capacity of those who vote for him, too.

Is the science you talk about only computer models?

or is the some proof somewhere that man made CO2 causes warming?

no matter how many times that assertion is repeated. The computer models are based on the science.

CO2, regardless of source, causes warming. Adding more to the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from or how it gets there, will make it warmer.  This has been known for 150 years, now, and can be shown by experiment in any high school science lab. The only thing anthropogenic about AGW is the source of the extra CO2 and how it is getting into the atmosphere, and we are quite certain that the extra CO2 is from human activity.

This is all well established science based on empirical observation and measurement. The scientific debate is long since over, and the public policy debate is reaching its climax:

CO2 will be regulated, either by legislation or by regulation.

Deal with it. Kick and scream and hold you breath all you like, it no longer matters.

Right on, Jim, but what does matter is Pence’s (and Republican’s) stance on coal, which is dirty from the mine to the power plant and beyond, and will remain so until someone can figure out how to make CCS economically and geologically feasible. Assuming this is even possible. Yet Pence has also said, “I’m all for clean air. I’m all for clean coal technology.”  Even though the two are currently mutually exclusive, leaving most intelligent observers to conclude that the man is either dissembling or witless.

Yet climate is not simply CO2. It is far more complex with numerous feedbacks, some of which we understand only poorly.

that CO2 is not the only factor that influences climate. He is also correct that there are some feedbacks that we do not yet fully understand. Perhaps there is a point to his comment?

Jim,

your original comment is just silly. Of course CO2 absorbs and increases warming. Nobody disagrees with that. The argument is to what extent and what are the forcings with extra CO2. Even though everyone agrees that CO2 causes some warming, your analogy to a science experiment in a lab is silly since what matters in a model is the parameters that are set within the model. Who can’t get a model to say what they want? Even Hansen himself said last month that the aerosol numbers used by the IPCC in AR 4 were pretty much pulled out of a hat”. As damning as that statement is, Hansen also said that “The aerosol forcings are very uncertain, and their effect on clouds even more uncertain”.

Athlete,

Climate models are based upon the best available science. They use physical science and aren’t just made to fit the observations. To say otherwise is plain dishonest.

Your comment that “Who can’t get a model to say what they want?” is self evidently a deliberate smear based upon your intentional dishonesty and is completely unrelated to the facts.

As an example: It is acknowledged that the melting of glaciers and ice sheets is not properly understood and this is why current models underestimate the rate of melting. 

However it is a fallacy to imply that because science does not know everything, that science knows nothing. It follows that lack of absolute scientific certaintly is certainly no reason for complacency. There is in fact every reason to proceed with great caution.

‘Business as usual’, is not the so-called inaction, that is like driving in dense fog along an unknown road without brakes and keeping your foot flat on the gas! Who knows, there might be a downward slope ahead! By the time problems loom out of the fog, it will probably be too late.

It is acknowledged that the melting of glaciers and ice sheets is not properly understood and this is why current models underestimate the rate of melting.

Thanks for proving my point. Here’s someone else that agrees with us:

In an observational science such as the study of climate (or cosmology or evolution), we don’t get to do controlled laboratory experiments. We only have one test subject, the planet Earth, and we are able to run only one uncontrolled experiment at a time. It would be unfortunate indeed if this experiment had to run its course before we could say anything about the likely results!

Climate models are amalgams of fundamental physics, approximations to well-known equations, and empirical estimates (known as parameterizations) of processes that either can’t be resolved (because they happen on too small a physical scale) or that are only poorly constrained from data. Twenty or so climate groups around the world are now developing and running these models. Each group makes different assumptions about what physics to include and how to formulate their parameterizations. However, their models are all limited by similar computational constraints and have developed in the same modeling tradition. Thus while they are different, they are not independent in any strict statistical sense.

Collections of the data from the different groups, called multi-model ensembles, have some interesting properties. Most notably the average of all the models is frequently closer to the observations than any individual model. But does this mean that the average of all the model projections into the future is in fact the best projection? And does the variability in the model projections truly measure the uncertainty? These are unanswerable questions.

It may help to reframe the questions in the following way: Does agreement on a particular phenomenon across multiple models with various underlying assumptions affect your opinion on whether or not it is a robust projection? The answer, almost certainly, is yes. Such agreement implies that differences in the model inputs, including approach (e.g. a spectral or grid point model), parameterizations (e.g. different estimates for how moist convective plumes interact with their environment), and computer hardware did not materially affect the outcome, which is thus a reasonable reflection of the underlying physics.

Does such agreement “prove” that a given projection will indeed come to pass? No. There are two main reasons for that. One is related to the systematic errors that are known to exist in models. A good example is the consensus of chemistry models that projected a slow decline in stratospheric ozone levels in the 1980s, but did not predict the emergence of the Antarctic ozone hole because they all lacked the equations that describe the chemistry that occurs on the surface of ice crystals in cold polar vortex conditions–an “unknown unknown” of the time. Secondly, the assumed changes in forcings in the future may not transpire. For instance, concentrations of carbon dioxide are predominantly a function of economics, technology, and population growth, and are much harder to predict than climate more than a few years out.

Model agreements (or spreads) are therefore not equivalent to probability statements. Since we cannot hope to span the full range of possible models (including all possible parameterizations) or to assess the uncertainty of physics about which we so far have no knowledge, hope that any ensemble range can ever be used as a surrogate for a full probability density function of future climate is futile.

So how should one interpret future projections from climate models? I suggest a more heuristic approach. If models agree that something (global warming and subtropical drying for instance) is relatively robust, then it is a reasonable working hypothesis that this is a true consequence of our current understanding. If the models fail to agree (as they do in projecting the frequency of El Niño) then little confidence can be placed in their projections. Additionally, if there is good theoretical and observational backup for the robust projections, then I think it is worth acting under the assumption that they are likely to occur.

Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking probability distributions for regional climate changes are mounting, and while there are a number of ways to provide them, all, in my opinion, are equally unverifiable. Therefore, while it is seductive to attempt to corner our ignorance with the seeming certainty of 95-percent confidence intervals, the comfort it gives is likely to be an illusion. Climate modeling might be better seen as a Baedeker for the future, giving some insight into what might be found, rather than a precise itinerary.-Gavin Schmidt

On the contrary, you have disproved your original claim.

You also fail to notice this statement: ‘..,For instance, concentrations of carbon dioxide are predominantly a function of economics, technology, and population growth, and are much harder to predict than climate more than a few years out…,’

[Athlete quote]

“Who can’t get a model to say what they want?”

[/Athlete quote]

Athlete can’t resist an opportinity to impugn the climatologists.

Another sign of dishonesty is Athlete’s partial quoting of Gavin Schmidt. The paragraph below precedes Athlete’s partial quote. Which unfortunately for Athlete, undermines Athlete’s claims:

’..,Models are fundamentally necessary in all sciences. They exist to synthesize knowledge, to quantify the effects of counteracting forces, and most importantly, to make predictions–the evaluation of which is at the heart of the scientific method. If those predictions prove accurate, the models–and more importantly, their underlying assumptions–become more credible…,’ 

Which reminds me of Hansen’s 1988 predictions - you know the three scenarios so dishonestly misrepresented by Patrick Michaels  in 1998. And those scenarios were derived from far more primitive climate models than used today.

So in-fact it’s the denialists who misrepresent the truth, distort and just lie about what climate models can and cannot do and what they actually say e.g. Patrick Michaels. Michaels’ testimony was described as ‘fraud, pure and simple’. 

Read more at:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/pat_michaels_fraud_pure_and_si.php



 

You also fail to notice this statement: ‘..,For instance, concentrations of carbon dioxide are predominantly a function of economics, technology, and population growth, and are much harder to predict than climate more than a few years out…,’

Reading comprehension seems to be a problem around here. Not only did I post those comments I highlighted and emphasized them in bold. Thanks for proving my point….again. Not rocket science here.

Another sign of dishonesty is Athlete’s partial quoting of Gavin Schmidt.

The words you quote have little significance. I could quote still more pages from Schmidt if you want, but much of that has little significance as well.

As for Michaels, I agree his statements were misleading but that’s not really of much relevance 11 years later. I don’t even reallly care about what Hansen’s models said 12 years ago, especially since he said the aerosol numbers are “pretty much pulled out of a hat” and that the clouds are even more uncertain than that. What is more relevant is how far off those models are today. The planet was actually cooler 20 years after Hansen’s 1988 testimony.

Also, the UAH MSU data is fatally flawed.  See the discussion below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

“Also, the UAH MSU data is fatally flawed.”

LOL.

A fitting non-response from someone who hasn’t given a constructive response or answer to anything on this blog.

LOL

http://leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/global-warming-temperature-chart1.gif

Nice chart there Stephen. Hard to argue with that “science”. Priceless.

Also, the UAH MSU data is fatally flawed.

Lol. If DeSmog promises to upgrade their server and I can find about 3 days of free time I promise I’ll give you all my “GISS isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on” links.

If it’s from the ClimateFraudit blog, forget it!  They have no idea how the climate system works.  McIntyre’s a former mining executive/consultant, not a climatologist.

No, actually some of it comes right from NOAA, like this one. I can understand though why you’re not interested in seeing more. Not only is it overwhelming but much of it is a dagger in the heart to alarmists.

I tried both a yahoo and google search for “IPCC AR4 Hansen and your quote” and the only reference that came up was from the Heartland Inststitute. Considering Heartland record of distortion by removing key words and phrases from quotes, and the source of funding I would say your quote is another attempt at swiftboating. This is particularly true since the Heartland institute reference was written by Pat Michaels, who while under oath before Congress got caught distorting Hansen’s research. If you do a search on aerosols and Hansen you come across papers, documents and quotes that say things like

The most important of the non-CO2 forcings is methane (CH4), as it causes the second largest human-made GHG climate forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric ozone (O3), which is the third largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N2O) should also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon (‘black soot’) has a high global warming potential (approx. 2000, 500 and 200 for 20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention.


Based on preliminary estimates of the Pinatubo aerosol loading, Hansen et al. (1992) made general circulation model (GCM) predictions of the impact on global climate due to the Pinatubo aerosol. The predicted decrease in the global surface air temperature by 0.5 C by the end of 1992 with recovery to normal by 1995 has proven to be remarkably accurate.

Rather than continue to repeat the distortions of those who profit from delay and who have been caugth swiftboating scientists, why don’t you try taking the time to read the actaul research being conducted to understand what is happening to our world. When you have come back so we can carry on an inteligent conversation about what  technological, scientific, social and politcal ramifications are about the observed and well documented changes that are occurring.

What is it about reading comprehension on this site? I really think it’s time to call your mommy and and apologize to her for embarrassing yourself on Mother’s Day.SmileYou go on about google and yahoo and blah, blah, blah Heartland Institute and blah, blah, blah swiftboating and blah, blah, blah 1992. DID YOU NOT NOTICE THE DOCUMENT I LINKED WAS HANSEN’S OWN PDF! One of your first clues would have been the address bar which starts www.columbia.edu/… Another clue would have been those rabbit ears around “pretty much pulled out of a hat” which indicate an exact quote. Let me help you out here a bit. The quote is on page 6.

Rather than continue to repeat the distortions of those who profit from delay and who have been caugth swiftboating scientists, why don’t you try taking the time to read the actaul research being conducted to understand what is happening to our world. When you have come back so we can carry on an inteligent conversation about what  technological, scientific, social and politcal ramifications are about the observed and well documented changes that are occurring.

Exactly, especially that “read the actual research” thing.

My heart sinks when I hear about people like Mike Pence supporting Climate Realists (Alarmists call them Deniers). With friends like this who needs enemies?

That said, those who unquestionly follow the religion of AGW are just as scientifically illiterate as Pence. It is just that they follow different Faiths.

theres no question that the human race has always been and will always be religious in nature. It’s just who we are. It’s impossible to not give religious devotion to someone or something, whether it’s self, nature or a person or a god. We are  capable of fooling ourselves into thinking we have escaped this reality, but we have not.

Phlogiston troll has nothing useful to say - as usual.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The only thing that is criminal is continuing to promulgate the false assertion that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming and that Man is to blame.

Try logging in to UAH, or MSU, or Cryosphere and tell me whay has happened to Global temperature over the last 10 years, what the current sea-ice anomaly is and how is CO2 is the primary driver of climate change?

it is not doing what it says on the Alarmist can.

To paraphase Al Gore “When CO2 goes up, temperature goes up”. This is a proven lie.

 

Try looking into the published studies which trace CO2 and temperatures over the past several hundred thousand years and you’ll see that they’re greatly linked.

Also, your last comment regarding Al Gore’s quote is completely off.  If you think CO2 and temperature are not linked, you must also believe the Earth is flat and that gravity does not exist.

Steven, you ask me to look into the literature. Unlike you, I do.

There is very good proof that changing CO2 levels does not drive climate change.

Cheeckout

Rothman, D.H., Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  99 (7):  4167-4171, (2002).

 

“The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales”

 

Monnin et al (2001). Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination. Science, 291, p.112-114.

 

“We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the δD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years”.

So if CO2 LAGS temperature change, what is the role of CO2?

Before blogging engage brain 

Two studies, fairly unrelated to the current warming period.

Before you post any more of your junk science, please consult the following resources:

http://www.ipcc.ch

http://www.realclimate.org

Also, the following module will demonstrate how and why AGW is occurring:

https://www.meted.ucar.edu/loginForm.php?urlPath=broadcastmet/climate&go_back_to=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.meted.ucar.edu%252Fbroadcastmet%252Fclimate%252F#

These resources should show you the state of the science today.

.

Is the science you talk about only computer models?

or is the some proof somewhere that man made CO2 causes warming?

 

irdinc,

There is a huge amount of evidence.

First of all there is the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere which means we have the highest CO2 concentrations for hundreds of thousands of years at least. This is a mix of atmospheric measurments and ice core measurements.

Second there is the change in the isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon. This is caused by the burning of fossil fuels which have a different isotopic ratio from atmospheric carbon.

Thirdly there are other GHGs that are traceable to human activities, land use, deforestation.

Fourthly Palaeoclimate


This is after the IPCC has established that natural factors sun, orbital etc. are most likely not responsible.

In the SPM, the IPCC  says:

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling  infuences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence [90%] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming..,

Note that the IPCC is very conservative about its statements and tends to err on the side of caution. This is as close to scientific certainty as one is likely to get for such a complex problem.

To read the SPM yourself, google IPCC SPM 

…we have the highest CO2 concentrations for hundreds of thousands of years at least.

This is highly disputable.

Second there is the change in the isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon. This is caused by the burning of fossil fuels which have a different isotopic ratio from atmospheric carbon.

This is highly disputable.

Fourthly Palaeoclimate

Palaeoclimate? The question was about man made CO2.

This is after the IPCC has established that natural factors sun, orbital etc. are most likely not responsible.

The IPCC established no such thing. The IPCC just dismissed natural factors out of hand.

Note that the IPCC is very conservative about its statements and tends to err on the side of caution. This is as close to scientific certainty as one is likely to get for such a complex problem.

The IPCC is a political entity. Here are just a few IPCC AR4 embarrassments:

How the IPCC invented a new calculus

The table that didn’t add up

False statement about Antarctic sea ice

Misleading claims about sea level rise

Incorrect calculation of an average

False claims about Antarctic ice sheet

Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet

Erroneous claims about snow cover

Erroneous claims on increased tropical cyclone activity

The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period

False statement about paleoclimate studies

Proxies that aren’t proxies

Downplaying the urban heat island effect

The UN misquotes its own report

Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide

Biased reporting of the literature

Where’s the beef

Hypothetical positive feedback

The lost continent of Antarctica

Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect

Misleading statement about ocean heat

Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda

Inconsistent statement about wind strength

Error regarding total radiative forcing

Unfair citation of criticism

Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record

No explanation for mid-century cooling

False statements about tropospheric warming

Unsubstantiated claims of human influence

Misleading temperature trends (1)

Misleading temperature trends (2)

False claim of warming since the TAR

More false statements on temperature trends

Misleading claims about hurricanes

Blah blah blah.

Were any of these links (apart from the actual IPCC one) peer-reviewed?  I certainly cannot believe that any of that claptrap could pass that test.  Also, Roy Spencer is one of the most notorious of the skeptics.  His UAH MSU stuff doesn’t pass the snuff test and little of what he says in the press makes any sense whatsoever.

You’re going to have to raise the level of your game here. Just throwing out generic say anything comments is not going to get the job done. You obviously do not understand what many of the links are about. Many of them are there just to show what a farce the IPCC peer review process is. The IPCC is closed shop and the reviewers are merely a bunch of co-authors and beer buddies. Here’s a few more that deal strictly with IPCC politics and ethics:

Prejudiced Authors, Predjudiced Findings

Climate Assessment Oligarchy - the IPCC

Recent Ignored Research Findings in Climate Science

Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies?

“No Working papers”. “No Correspondence”

How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming

IPCC Review Editors’ Comments Online

                Did IPCC Review Editor Mitchell do his job?

                Physician, Heal Thyself

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, Science and Politics

                Request to the IPCC

Politics Posing as Science: A Preliminary Assessment of the IPCC’s Latest Climate Change Report

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming

                IPCC: The Only Game in Town?

No consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance

Why the IPCC should be disbanded

                What’s Wrong with the IPCC

An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC 4AR WGI Report

ICC AR4 and the Return of Chucky - He’s Baaack!

Support for Call for Review of UN IPCC

Spinning The Climate

GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS

 

 

Steve, there is ample (and peer-reviewed) evidence that CO2 does not significantly drive Climate Change (e.g  Rothman, D.H., Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  99 (7):  4167-4171, (2002), which you choose top ignore.

CO2 hasn’t driven climate for the last 600 million years, neither has it over the last 100. The burden of proof is on you Alarmists who want to drag us back to the Dark Ages.

Personally I’m not keen on starvation, Plague and living in mud huts.

 

Sigh.  So he does not believe in global warming.  He might not believe in gravity but it still applies.  Global warming will proceed whether he believes in it or not.   He is just an idiot.  And since he is in a position of power, he is dangerous as well as delusional.