On Tuesday, NewsBusters exposed the New York Times for using the death of a highly-regarded American scientist, Dr. Robert Jastrow, to advance global warming alarmism.
In response to my e-mail message concerning the matter, Dr. Albert Arking, the former colleague of Jastrow's quoted in the piece, stated, "The NY Times article came out of a long conversation (initiated by the writer, John Schwartz), and it may not have conveyed my thoughts precisely."
What follows is Arking's full answer to my query concerning this Times article, with emphasis added to highlight important points for the reader:
The NY Times article came out of a long conversation (initiated by the writer, John Schwartz), and it may not have conveyed my thoughts precisely. But it did, I believe, convey Jastrow's strong sense of responsibility to the public. He often said that since the public supports science, we owe them the time and effort to make the science understandable.
That specific quote you mentioned""I tried to dissuade him on some issues," Dr. Arking said, recalling that Dr. Jastrow responded: "Yeah, you're probably right, but this is the way we have to put it. We have to convince people that this is not the catastrophe that people were making it out to be.""refers to several discussions over the years with Jastrow on global warming.
Reread Schwartz's references to these conversations between Arking and Jastrow. Doesn't he strongly imply they occurred quite recently, and may have represented a change of heart by Jastrow:
Dr. Arking, a climate scientist at John Hopkins University who continued to visit his old mentor on a regular basis until two days before his death, recalled arguing the issue with Dr. Jastrow, finding him less and less willing to make any concessions in their discussions.
"I tried to dissuade him on some issues," Dr. Arking said, recalling that Dr. Jastrow responded: "Yeah, you're probably right, but this is the way we have to put it. We have to convince people that this is not the catastrophe that people were making it out to be."
Yet, according to Arking, that quote "refers to several discussions over the years with Jastrow on global warming." In fact, some of these happened two decades ago:
When he was writing the first Marshall Institue [sic] report around 1990 ("Perspectives on Climate ..." or similar title) I did try to dissuade him on two things: (1) using frequency analysis of past temperature change to project future temperatures, and (2) stating that with the new computers coming out in the next five years we should be able to more precisely predict future climate. He admitted my main points---(1) that unless one knows the physics behind the frequency analysis, future projection is meaningless, and (2) that our limitations in forecasting climate change was not computing power, but our limited understanding of the physics. In the end, I had some influence in his toning down those parts of the report, but not eliminating them. (For example, the report suggested that the sun was now brighter than ususal [sic], having brought us out of "the little ice age" of several centuries ago, and was likely to decrease in future decades.) He often pointed out that the public was being fed nonsense by alarmists, and he needed to balance the record.
Once again, was this what was presented in the Times piece, or, instead, was it implied that these discussions were fairly recent, and that Arking had been trying to dissuade Jastrow from being skeptical about man's role in global warming?
Rather than making potentially erroneous intimations, maybe Schwartz should have informed readers how Arking really feels about this subject if indeed it was going to be raised:
My own views at the time (expressed in an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times in 1991 and in a Senate Committee hearing chaired by Al Gore) was that increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) would contribute to climate warming, but other factors (e.g., solar variability) are also at play. Furthermore, our understanding of feedbacks was too limited to let us predict changes in response to external forcing by anything better than a factor of 3.
Since then, of course, global temperatures have continued to go up, and research has provided some insight into the relative roles of solar and GHG forcing. I had given Jastrow copies of recent papers that tried to estimate how much of past temperature change can be attributed to solar variations and how much to GHG. I tried to convince him that if the earth can respond to solar variations, then basic physics requires that it also respond to GHG variations---one controls input energy, the other output. Dr. Jastrow never considered GHG to be a predominant factor, past or present, but he did agree that GHG would contribute to warming, pointing to it as possibly beneficial if solar luminosity should decrease, as it most likely did at times in the past.
I do have strong views about our use of fossil fuels, but not because of the scary scenarios that people like Al Gore publicize. (Most of that stuff---e.g., half of Florida disappearing, etc.---is plain nonsense, and he never mentions that more people die from cold than heat, that we could save more polar bears by restricting hunting than by stopping global warming, etc.) We should cut down on fossil fuels because it makes us and the rest of the world dependent on hostile countries, and it is a likely a source of funding for terrorism. Furthermore, fossil fuels, especially crude oil, will continue to rise in price because reserves are finite and demand for energy is increasing. However, the best way to lessen dependence on fossil fuels in the long run---and it is the long run that counts, because global warming is a gradual process---is to develop new technology, not by forcing the American public to pay other countries to burn the fuel for them. The Kyoto plan would take away dollars from devloped [sic] countries that could otherwise be used to fund new technology. Some policy decisions that are made in haste---e.g., subsidizing and mandating use of ethanol---can have bad consequences for the economy, and could actually add to GHG emissions, the opposite of the intended effect.
Sadly, these opinions weren't included in the Times piece, nor were these:
To summarize, I believe the global warming we have experienced in the last few decades is real, and most likely due to increasing GHG, but I am skeptical about outlandish claims that have little or no scientific basis. (Ocean levels rose about 8 inches in the last century, and are likely to rise about 12 inches in the present century, but that is small commpared [sic] to the 5-10 feet rise and fall of tides that occurs daily; adding 12 inches to dikes over a century is not difficult.) But I believe it important for our economy and security to develop new technology---both new sources of energy and new techniques for distributing and using energy more efficiently.
Interesting points all, wouldn't you agree?
What readers should take from this is not just how poorly Arking's sentiments concerning this matter were conveyed by the Times, but also how thoughtful and non-alarmist he is with regard to global warming.
Let's understand that he is probably a skeptical believer inasmuch as he sees GHGs - which include carbon dioxide, but BY NO MEANS exclusively! - as "likely" impacting planetary temperatures, but is "skeptical about outlandish claims that have little or no scientific basis."
In the end, if media representatives were honest and impartial concerning this issue, Americans might find that many scientists around the world either share Arking's reasoned views concerning global warming, or some reasonable facsimile thereof.
Furthermore, if such was regularly conveyed by press members instead of the inflammatory hyperbole we're constantly bombarded with, maybe our politicians could have a more rational debate about this issue, and discuss legislation more in keeping with the scientific realities of the matter as opposed to unwarranted alarmism.
Or is that asking too much?
