Spin Cycle

Spin Cycle: Green Tax Credits Supplant Clean Power Plan to Meet Our Paris Commitment

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

The Obama Administration is involved in an all-out effort to soften the severity of blow that the U.S Supreme Court dealt the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) last week.*

In the day following the Court’s ruling, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz referred to the Supreme Court’s stay as a “temporary procedural determination” and then added that “[i]t is our estimation that the inclusion of [the extensions of the renewable energy tax credits] is going to have more impact over the short term [on greenhouse gas emissions]than the Clean Power Plan.”

We covered Schultz’s first statement in our Spin Cycle from last week, giving it our top award of five Spinnies.

Here we examine the second part of his statement, that the extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) and the production tax credit (PTC) on solar and wind power, approved by Congress last December “is going to have more impact over the short term than the Clean Power Plan.”

On its face, we must admit this is true. Primarily because, under the CPP, the states aren’t required to begin cutting power plant emissions until 2022—far outside what we would consider “over the short term.” So, by the letter of the (now stayed) law, the CPP wouldn’t have to result in any greenhouse gas reductions prior to 2022. Schultz statement lacks the proper context. Walking (instead of driving) to lunch one time next week would also produce “more impact over the short term [on greenhouse gas emissions]than the Clean Power Plan” (stayed or not).

Spin Cycle: White House Spins SCOTUS Stay on Climate Plan

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

—-

As one of us has already noted, on Monday evening the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to put President Obama’s Clean Power Plan on ice—where it will remain until the justices get a chance to rule on the regulatory package themselves or until a new President sidelines it. The White House, whistling past a graveyard of unrecyclable solar panels (thanks to all the arsenic in them), blew up the vorticity of its spin cycle into relativistic speeds, calling it a “bump in the road” and a “temporary procedural issue.”

Over in the UK, Lisa Nandy, the shadow energy and climate minister knows why: “There is such strong support within the US for Obama’s efforts on climate change that I think this ruling will prove to be only a very temporary issue.”

Au contraire! According to a Yougov poll late last month, a grand total of 9 per cent of Americans think global warming is the most important issue confronting us. In only one country was there less support:  Saudi Arabia.

All of this ignores some facts on the ground. This is the biggest intervention by the Supremes in ongoing litigation since they stopped the partial Florida recount in December 2000 in the case that became Bush v. Gore. They only do stuff like this when there’s a lot at stake, irreparable harm will be done by not intervening, and at least five justices believe it more likely than not that the challenge will succeed.

Spin Cycle: EPA Deflates Climate Impacts, Inflates Significance

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

Well, well, well. The EPA has finally gone and done it. They have actually calculated the climate change impacts projected to result of one of their climate change regulations—in this case, the proposed rules for the efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles.

What they found was hardly surprising—the climate impacts from the proposed regulations will be vanishingly small.

The EPA calculates that the amount of global temperature rise averted by the end of the 21st century from the proposed regulations to be… wait, this is too good to paraphrase. From the EPA:

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.

Did you catch that? According to the EPA’s own calculations, their regulation mandating the fuel economy of medium and light duty trucks avoids somewhere between twenty-six ten-thousandths and sixty-five ten-housandths of a degree of future global warming. In other words, it is a useless measure when it comes to influencing the future course of global temperature. If the EPA wants to regulate the fuel efficiency of trucks, it needs to justify it for reasons that don’t relate to climate change.

Spin Cycle: EPA’s Clean Power Plan

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

The first paragraph of EPA’s 1500+ page Clean Power Plan, released on August 3, says this:

These final emission guidelines…will lead to significant carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reductions from the utility power sector that will help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change.

This isn’t simply an exaggeration, a misstatement or a sophomoric rhetorical flourish.  It is simply not true.

The operative claim is that EPA’s  plan “will help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change.” 

It will do no such thing.  The EPA’s own policy analysis model, called MAGICC*, tells us how much global warming will be prevented by the new plan:  0.019°C by the year 2100 (based on procedures similar to those we detailed here).  That’s the amount of temperature change a person will experience in about every second of life. It is simply impossible to detect this change in any global temperature history.

Spin Cycle: Is Climate Change Already Taking Lives in New England?

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with fewer cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

The headline from a CBS News story read “Study: Climate change may be costing lives in the U.S.” The tone is in perfect keeping with the White House wanting the media to focus on the (negative) health impacts from climate change to help drive home the “moral imperative” of administration’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

There is one key problem: the findings from the “study” do nothing to shed light on whether “climate change” is taking lives in New England (the region that the study focused on) or anywhere else in the United States. In fact, taking the literature as a whole (including the results of the new study), the more appropriate headline would have been “Studies: Climate change may be saving lives in the U.S.”

The new study in question appears in the journal Nature Climate Change written by a research team headed by Liuhua Shi from the Harvard School of Public Health. Shi and colleagues examined how temperature and temperature variability during the summer and winter seasons impacts the annual mortality of Medicare recipients (i.e., a population aged 65+) residing in New England.

In general, Shi and colleagues found that warmer summers slightly increased mortality while warmer winters slightly lowered it. They also found that more variable temperature (in either winter or summer) led to increases in overall mortality.

Aside from the very real possibility that the statistical significance of these findings was inflated by the mythological design (over inflation of the number of independent data points), the most obvious flaw is that the study didn’t look for any trends in their results. This means, of course, that they aren’t very applicable when it comes to trying to ascertain future behavior (under climate change or not).

Spin Cycle: Whither the Hiatus

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

Today’s press buzz is about a new paper appearing in this week’s Science magazine which concludes that the “hiatus” in global warming is but a byproduct of bad data. The paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” was authored by a research team led by Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, Dr. Thomas Karl. Aside from missing the larger point—that the relevant question is not whether the earth is warming, but why it’s warming so much slower than the computer model projections—the paper’s conclusions have been well-run through the spin cycle.

The spin was largely conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), publisher of Science magazine, through its embargo campaign and the courting of major science writers in the media before the article had been made available to the general public (and other scientists). Given the obvious weaknesses in the new paper (see below and here, for starters), there seems the potential for more trouble at Science—something that Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt is up to her eyeballs with already.

One major problem with the new Karl and colleagues paper is that the headline-making finding turns out not even to be statistically significant at the standard scientific level—that is, having a less than 1-in-20 chance of being due to chance (unexplained processes) alone.

Instead, the results are reported as being “statistically significant” if they have less than a 1-in-10 chance of being caused by randomness.

More and more we are seeing lax statistical testing being applied in high profile papers (see here and here for recent examples). This tendency is extremely worrisome, as at the same time, the validity of large portions of the scientific literature is being questioned on the basis of (flawed) methodological design and poor application and interpretation of statistics. An illuminating example of how easily poor statistics can make it into the scientific literature and produce a huge influence on the media was given last week in the backstory of a made-up paper claiming eating chocolate could enhance weight loss efforts.

But, as the Karl et al. paper (as well as the other recent papers linked above) shows, some climate scientists are pushing forward with less than robust results anyway.

Why? Here’s a possible clue.

Recall an op-ed in the New York Times a few months back by Naomi Oreskes titled “Playing Dumb on Climate Change.” In it, Oreskes, a science historian (and author of the conspiratorial Merchants of Doubt) argued that since climate change was such an urgent problem, we shouldn’t have to apply the same 1-in-20 set of rigorous statistics to the result—it is slowing down the push for action. Climate scientists, Oreskes argued, were being too conservative in face of a well-known threat and therefore, “lowering the burden of proof” should be acceptable.

The Spin Cycle: Accelerating Sea Level Rise

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

A popular media story of the week was that sea level rise was accelerating and that this was worse than we thought. The stories were based on a new paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change by an author team led by the University of Tasmania’s Christopher Watson.

Watson and colleagues re-examined the satellite-based observations of sea level rise (available since the early 1990s) using a new methodology that supposedly better accounts for changes in the orbital altitude of the satellites—obviously a key factor when assessing sea levels by determining the height difference between the ocean’s surface and the satellites, the basic idea behind altimetry-based sea level measurements.

So far so good.

Their research produced two major findings, 1) their new adjusted measurements produced a lower rate of sea level rise than the old measurements (for the period 1993 to mid-2014), but 2) the rate of sea level rise was accelerating.

It was the latter that got all of the press.

But, it turns out, that in neither case, were the findings statistically significant at even the most basic levels used in scientific studies. Generally speaking, scientists report a findings as being “significant” if there is a less than 1-in-20 chance that the same result could have been produced by random (i.e., unexplained) processes. In some fields, the bar is set even higher (like 1 in 3.5 million). We can’t think of any scientific field that accepts a lower than a 1-in-20 threshold (although occasional individual papers do try to get away with applying a slightly lower standard).

Subscribe to RSS - Spin Cycle