Report: Most of Hot Air Coming From Bush
More bad news for the Bush administration. They’re not big fans of the whole fancy book-learnin’ global warming evidence that just about which every single legitmate scientist has been warning us for well over a decade. Allow us to count the ways:Well, we’ve pulled out of Kyoto (one of the only polluting nations in the world to do so).
We have actually hired members of the energy industry to re-write, edit and completely falsify reports released by scientists issued through the Environmental Protection Agency.
When asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into the issue and publish its findings, embarrassingly so for Bush, they agreed that yes the phenomenon is very real, very much a threat, and very much caused in large part by humans.
When the EPA did actually issue a reversal on the issue, Bush was asked why his administration flip-flopped: “I don’t think we have,” he said. (He obviously wasn’t aware of the report, and then when someone told him he responded, “Oh, OK, well, that's got to be true.")
The Bush administration has even gone out of its way to intimidate some of the leading NASA scientists on the issue, until those scientists went public with the allegations, while Faux news has actually put together Bush cheerleading documentaries dismissing the work of Al Gore and other leading Global Warming solution advocates (you may recall that Bush used to mock Al Gore around the debates when it came to alternative fuels for the country that’s “addicted to oil.”) Woops.
But honestly – ask yourselves how you’d expect anything different from an administration that is full of oil men, energy people, a Secretary of State with an oil tanker named for her, and a president who thinks the jury is out on evolution and sex education. Yep – this administration has the scientific progressiveness and depth of a grossed-out 6th grader dissecting their first frog in biology class.
Here’s the latest in Bush’s losing war on Global Warming awareness:
A panel convened by the National Research Council reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific studies, reporting that the evidence indicates “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years.” The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”
The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them. Read on.
These top scientists however are omitting one obvious flaw in their studies. I believe it was newly minted Bush-supporter liberal Hollywood type Dennis Miller who said in all seriousness, that there is no way we could know the Earth’s temperature that far back due to the fact that we didn’t have thermometers.
By the same token, I honestly have Bush supporters at work citing the fact that it has been an unusually chilly May in Maine as their own counter to global warming evidence.
Sometimes the humor found in the line of reasoning from anti-evolutionists, anti-environmentalists, and the flat-Earthers is enough to offset the overwhelming urge to un-superglue their heads from their asses.
posted by Jeremy at 7:27 PM
23 Comments:
Its like a new diagnosis...global warming denial. These people piss me off. Sorry I haven't been around here lately, just super busy...sorry.
I posted on this too at TBR, as it is really time for us to start acting- as people, citizens. But how... (sigh)
The overall temperature of the Northern Hemisphere only rose 1 degree in the 20th century.
Your point is not invalid -I used to think the same thing anon.
1 degree is actually major increase, and I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of that a couple years ago.
Just one degree over the entire global average is incredibly significant. So signficant in fact, they're now ammending the article I posted to say we've had the warmest year in 2,000 years.
It's not comparable to saying, "oh yeterday it was 74 degrees downtown, today they're saying it will be 75."
1 degree is significant in terms of glacier recession and wildlife migration, food chain disruption, etc.
The other important factor is the trend as well as projections. If we were up one degree now and in 20 years back down 1 degree, you probably wouldn't hear as much about it. If we're up 5 degrees by the time I retire, we're in trouble.
When you get a chance, check out this article I saved from the winter entitled, "The Difference A Degree Makes." This will speak to your point.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/15/MNG3FGMHML1.DTL
studies have shown that temp goes up and down. It's natural. 1 degree is alot on the grand scheme of things, yes. But some things point to it being a natural phenomenon. Either way, whether humans are causing it is still not proven. Theories exist.
People can't properly predict what the weather is going to be like tomorrow or this afternoon, so putting so much into a "prediction" of what it's going to be in a couple years isn't a fool proof scare tactic. I remember people in th e80's were predicting by now, that th eice caps would be melted, we'd be under water, our oil would be used up and we'd be wearing masks and couldn't breath or drink the water. Believe all these scare tactics if you want.
here is an article stating the sun is causing Global Warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml
global warming is real. have you seen the studies done on poison ivy alone. It's very scary
Anon - the debate is really pretty much over. You're citing something Limbaugh jumped on a few years ago. Do you get all of your talking points from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc?
Leading scientists in the field - literally thousands of them, along with all of the academies of science and world scholars, as well as almost all first world governments ended this debate a very long time ago.
You can interject doubt into anything if you can find someone siding with the industry or find one or two out of a thousand scientists to question the mountains of data.
But really - you and Fox news and AM radio - you're all too late, and no one is even debating with you anymore.
Just like evolution. It's embarrassing to even have this discussion.
And, to address your article, the group that issued the study had this to say in a follow-up in Aug 2004 (your article is from July 2004):
"However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years.
They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."
They also have a graph that illustrates solar brightness in conjunction with temperature increases - the same group responsible for the study in that article:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
Also, the Earth's temperature in the future isn't really a prediction any more. It's a real scientific backed trend.
You don't just sound like you're in the middle these days...you're sounding more and more like a very fringe, very far right-leaning Republican.
Fuck global warming, huh? You don't need no stinking life-supporting environment.
Hello selfish humans – are you not paying attention to what this shit really means about YOUR survival? When did it stop making sense to err on the side of caution? Do you enjoy deceiving yourselves, or is it just about the extant pleasures you derive from the conflict inherent in arguing with each other? It seems to me that when you’ve become so fucking greedy and distracted that you have lost your collective drive to at least preserve your own species, well then, only one thing can be on the horizon for Homo sapiens sapiens.
By the way, denial of the truth based on whatever silly little un-reasons (that’s right, I made it up: if Melville can do it than so can I) you may have are pointless. The Earth is going to be just fine, but you’re all fucked. One more time for the slow-learners and deniers: in relative terms, the Earth will be just fine and YOU ARE ALL FUCKED (but if there are no humans around to see that the Earth is just fine, then does its fine-ness really exist?). It will continue to be fine until the sun starts to die, but hey – that’s like six billion years from now (damn, does that mean that the Earth is middle-aged? Perhaps Homo sapiens sapiens is just the Earth’s mid-life crisis! That would explain a lot…).
Here are a number of the ways (far from comprehensive) that humans are ALREADY killing each other and themselves, including the ways in which those in power are killing you all (i.e.: governments, rulers, corporations, other power elites – that means none of you numb fucks who are actually bothering to read and argue about this shit):
*War
Approximately 160 million people died in (ahem, were killed by) wars during the 20th Century
*Pollution
-Food Pollution (Pesticides, Herbicides, Genetic-fuck-witting-frankenfoods, etc)
-Chemical, Industrial and Nuclear Wastes including Industry Products and Bi-products and human-made Air, Earth and Water Pollutions (no matter what they tell you, toxic sludge is NOT good for you)
-GHGs (that's right, I wrote it - the GREEN HOUSE GASES are a bit of a problem, but not for the Earth, you bunch of dolts - the real problem is for humans, you little-minded, short-sighted cretins)
-The United States Military (#1 World Polluter and EXEMPT from enforcement of enviromental protection laws)
*Habitat Ruin/Destruction
(Or, you can’t pave the whole damn world)
And by the way, that's YOUR habitat that you are destroying (did you all forget that you live on and need this rock? Even if you don't give a shit about the elephants, whales, gorillas and goddam polar bears, who's got your back?)
*Resource Depletion
-Unsustainable and Downright Greedy Patterns of Consumption (for example, the USA has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of it’s resources - you avaricious and rapacious, fat, polluting bastards)
-Unequal Patterns of Distribution (while the USA is grossing out the rest of the world with its bloated obesity, 30,000 people are starving to death every day in the rest of the world, and most of them are children - you know, the actual people that you'll need to do the next round of reproducing your species)
-Unimpaired Population Growth
(Yeah, no matter how many of you fuckers keep dying and killing each other, you just keep on breeding and breeding beyond any notion of propriety or sustainability)
EVOLVE OR DIE OUT YOU BUNCH OF DUMBASSES
How to accomplish that? Do you even give a shit? The only person you can actually change is yourself. How many of you whine-asses out there actually engage in behavior that is part of a solution rather than just spouting off melancholy lip service or engaging in textbook modes of DENIAL? Remember those big dumb dinosaurs that were around for 100 million years? Modern Homo sapiens sapiens has only been kicking around for 50,000. And for most of that you were just wandering around, not really bothering anybody except the larger flora and fauna you were enjoying for lunch. Your technology has succeeded your capacity to control your humanity. Your destructive behaviors are not aberrant but rather normal. Continue to repudiate "truth" - your disaffirmation brings only your downfall and eventual extinction. The life forms that will inheret the Earth wish that you would hurry up and get on with it already.
Or not.
Smartest animals on the planet, my ass.
Have a nice day.
The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
Actually, the sun doesn't really get "hotter" in the way we use and conceptualize the term. There are a number of occurrences on the sun's surface that cause varying temperatures: sunspots, which appear on the surface are considered "cool" spots relative to the normative temperatures created by the hydrogen fusion process (sunspots are magnetic fields caused by movements of gases in the sun's interior, they manifest in pairs, and occur as part of an 11 year cycle); solar prominences are clouds of gas that rise from the sun’s surface and orient themselves along the magnetic lines created by the sunspot pairs, and they can erupt, spewing out masses of solar material into space (these eruptions are called coronal mass ejections); also, violent abrupt explosions directly from the sun's surface (rather than from the gas ejections along the magnetic lines of sunspots) are called solar flares, and these too are associated with sunspots and are thought to be caused by sudden magnetic changes. Solar flares are accompanied by the release of gases, electrons, visible and ultraviolet light, as well as x-rays, and when these particles reach the Earth, they are responsible for the Aurora Borealis, as well as communications and radio disturbances.
These things have always been occurring though - they are a regular or normal part of the sun’s processes, possibly having to do with the sun’s rotation, and although these occurrences can and do create additional radiation and electronic particles that shoot off into the universe at hundreds of miles per second and may very well have temporary effects on changes in localized Earth temperatures, these astronomical phenomena are calculated into the various analysis of the global warming processes by the scientists who study, record, and analyze these processes.
I suggest that what we “should” believe can actually be based on a sound understanding and critical analysis of the material research conducted again and again, rather than just accepting and repeating the rhetoric that acceptably frames the position you would prefer to hold concerning this issue. Reference to the snubbing of the Kyoto Treaty ignores the underlying power issues we have in this country that prop up political and corporate purposes/interests that were being served by doing just that, not to mention lacking a more well-developed and interdisciplinary understanding of how our government has historically viewed our deference to international law. Although I agree that China’s social and economic positions are problematic, sometimes we need to take care of our own stuff before we go pointing fingers at others to deflect attention from the trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into (just because they do it and get away with it does not excuse our own culpability). The United States is still the largest producer of pollution worldwide, which begs the other apparent questions concerning our responsibility for the worldwide health and welfare of not just the environment but also the people who live on this planet. Because we are the world hegemonic power, we have a tendency to eschew anything that might possibly clamp down on our exercise of that power to serve our own selfish and intemperate interests.
Your association of people involved in the practical science of global warming (“the global warming theme”) with the so-called “anti-capitalist movement” shows your biases, as well as your uniformed and over-generalized positionality, thereby greatly reducing any credibility you might or might not have while regurgitating rhetoric. If you cannot competently and critically analyze actual raw data as well as identify the fallacious arguments that are made to manipulate data for our own egoistic purposes, then perhaps you should consider taking a class on critical thinking about both scientific and social issues. I’m sure that your nearest college or university would be more than happy to provide you with that educational service.
Incredibly well said Racheal.
And anon - I'm looking for a 99-0 Senate vote to snub/nix Kyoto during Clinton. I'm unable to find anything...can you tell me where you saw that?
That is because anon is confused.
The United States is a signatory to the Protocol, but this signature (done during the Clinton administration) is only symbolic because the Protocol has not been ratified by the Congress nor has the U.S. withdrawn from the Protocol.
In 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was actually formally negotiated, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to pass the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (Senate Resolution 98). This resolution basically stated that the U.S. should not be bound to international treaties/protocols that would cause harm to the U.S. economy (which I consider to be ambiguously sneaky).
In November of 1998, Al Gore symbolically signed the Protocol, but the Clinton administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The current administration has stated that they will not submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification because President Bush does not support the general idea inherent in the treaty, and because he believes it would put a strain on the U.S. economy. So the Senate has never voted on Kyoto because it has never been submitted to them for ratification.
regurtitating rhetoric.hah....Generalizing.ha...
Funny stuff, not hypocritical at all.
Listen, I am not stating what I bring to the table as fact. I'm stating that your "theories" have counter points . There is a side arguing that you are not 100 factual and that your educated guess deserves to be equally weighed. I understand global warming is happening, thats not the question. I am not denying anything. I am clearly offering you a look at what some other scientist are stating. What makes them not credible ? I don't deny what your Scientists are stating, so where am I being the one who is generalizing and not informed ? I am informing myself of all that is out there. You are generalizing me by thinking I am not looking at both sides. Like I've said constatntly here, I am not claiming or standing behind any side blindly, try it for a second only to get a handle on all sides, if nothing else.
Kyoto wqas snubbed during the Clinton years, sorry but it's a fact. Double speak all you want about it, but if it was so important to everyone it would have bee nratified back then with no question.
You really need to understand something a little better anon.
The amount of scientists who claim global warming is either not real or not being catalyzed by human behavior is almost zero. Our point is that there is really not debate in the scientific community. Could you find a handful of scientists that disagree with the other 50,000? Of course you could…I could also find a handful of doctors that would state condoms to don’t help prevent the transmission of AIDS and prop them up as a competing theory. I can find 9 archeologists out of 25,000 that will state that Intelligent Design is a competing theory of evolution.
My point is you need to look at the overall picture – the data and scientists who agree with what we’re saying here isn’t just a slim majority, or even a significant majority. It’s actually a case-closed, overpowering, overwhelming majority that makes any dissent almost statistically irrelevant.
So why is it that Fox news, and Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh and Bush/Cheney would love to find the rogue, practically disbarred scientific community members, doctors, etc that represent a .000001% right wing opinion? Because they’re trying to introduce uncertainly in almost certain debates (and in some cases, 100% certain debates) that disagrees with their Right wing political agenda. They’re starting a debate where there should be almost none.
By arguing against humans contributing to Global Warming, you are doing the same thing anon. You are using the same rhetoric, and climbing into the same philosophical pool of thought as the Right wing, ape-shit, nut jobs you go out of your way to disassociate with. You keep telling me you can’t be pigeon-holed or lumped in with the far right, but you’re not making any headway with that argument if you continue to argue their bullshit, and largely discredited talking points. You are using the tactic of introducing some sort of shred of doubt, like a defense lawyer trying a hail-Mary in order to get someone who is obviously guilty off the hook.
As a result, you’re not really contributing to a discussion, you’re creating a distraction that opens the door for far-right, totally disavowed talking points that originates at the American Heritage foundation and circulates through the countless conservative mouth-pieces in the media.
You’re like Ann Coulter without the giant Adam’s Apple or annoying, coke-induced, paranoid look.
So instead of debating how best to curb global warming before it’s too late, instead of looking at solutions regarding STD’s, pregnancy, etc and how to get sex education to high school students, and instead of looking at how to pressure Congress to reduce air pollution so I don’t have to check ozone levels before I run outside after work during the week, you’re masking, distracting from, and actually denying in some cases, the actual problems.
To me, that’s not just “well, he can have is .00001% minority opinion when it comes to science,” it’s actually hurtful, and counter-productive. In that sense I’m glad you’re in an extreme right wing minority.
The only difference between you and the talking heads you say you can’t stand, is that they actually admit they’re right wing conservatives.
PS I’m still looking for a vote in the senate, 99-0 in which Kyoto was snubbed or the idea of the agreement was rejected.
Really – I’m looking for a vote in which every single Democratic Senator, and presumably Al Gore and Bill Clinton were rejecting Kyoto. This would be shocking…but then again, I might totally be wrong and will admit that I am if you can find the vote that rejected Kyoto and the ideas its represents in full.
in July 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to oppose the signing of any international protocol that would commit Western nations to reduce emissions unless developing countries had to do so as well. Thats what happened. That in turn, is shutting down Kyoto, because by definition, thats what is the end game. Follow ?
To claim that people who don't agree with you are wing-nuts because they provide evidence that is contrary to your belief is just plain wrong. They may be the minority in the field , but not by the margin in which you proclaim. By far .00001% is a very large exageration.
Just recently, Stephen Harper of Canada had 60 of the top scientists proclaim that Kyoto was not working, and it's being proven. These same scientists also believe that earths cooling and heating up is a natural process. Which it is. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not saying humans aren't contributing, I'm just weighing all options, no matter how popular you believe the options I raise are, they are still theories. They deserve credit as well. You're a little closed minded on this issue.
I'm not creating a dstraction, these other theories exist. It's called debate, and all options must be considered in order to hold one ,correct ? Sorry if you believe it's hogwash. I'm not selling the point that you are wrong. I'm just bringing all the facts to table.lable me whatever you want, it's apparent that all you can resort to once someone brings a counter point to the table is ad hominem.
It's cool. I'll continue to listen to both sides equally and you continue to take a staunch one sided close minded stance and hurling insults for some reason along the way, go for it.
Heres a piece from a MIT prof., he's a minority on this issue so I guess he is a Quack in your eyes. read it anyway
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
double-speak – n. deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language
hypocritical – adj. derivative of hypocrite (n. a person who engages in hypocrisy)
hypocrisy – the practice of claiming to have the moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense
Because my language usage skills exceed your understanding does not make it double-speak. There was nothing euphemistic, ambiguous or obscure about my language. If there is something you didn’t understand, perhaps you should use a dictionary, as I have demonstrated how that works for you above in reference to your faulty linguistic categorizations of my beliefs. I have also not demonstrated nor engaged hypocritical viewpoints, convictions or judgments. You are clearly going to have to do better than that if you really want to usurp my erudite assessments because all you have demonstrated at this point is your inability to correctly decipher my complex and savory use of vocabulary.
Your reasoning is still flat and entirely insufficient. What you do not seem to comprehend is that you are comparing the results of sound, empirical research that has been repeated again and again, comparatively achieving the same results (which is one of the things that makes empirical research sound – that it can be repeated by others researchers, thereby re-proving and/or debunking its results) to the ways in which those results have been appropriated, interpreted and subsequently politicized by various interest groups. In terms of what makes the research and the scientists credible is a valid question, and as I stated before, if you understood critical analysis of data, used informed sociological scrutiny, and had a firm grasp of quantitative and qualitative research methods, then you could see much of the faulty reasoning in your argument, which lies precisely in the lack of critical evaluation of the opinions/counter points you present.
In other words, I have taken the time to study the data generated by research, the methodology employed, and the epistemological issues presented by both the theoretical aspects of the arguments presented in conjunction with where the research, knowledge and arguments are coming from (including the biases and purposes of those who then present the information for our consumption). What you are striving for is not only redundant but is also a rather unsophisticated attempt at pointing out the shortcomings of my reasoning without actually knowing how I arrived there to begin with. Inherent in your assumption is that I have not already taken the time to evaluate all the information available before arriving at my conclusion. The scientific community is always in the process of evaluating a fluid dialogue of input and information, and to place that information on opposing sides, as you see it (you have basically dichotomized something that is not utilized that way), rather than as part of the whole in determining the probability of theoretical conclusions is a misconception that you will need to get beyond if you would actually prefer to understand the benefits and shortcomings of any theory.
I also think that it is important to note that evaluating where your information is coming from is always important, and you are very clearly stating your biases and prejudices as well as showing your tendency for over-generalization (whether you believe it or not) in your opinions when you state, “Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man [sic] than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.” I suppose those from the scientists employed by private industry, (such as at Exxon/Mobil) stating that global warming does not exist are not at all suspect? But it is a mute point anyway. You cannot just lump such large non-homogenous and indistinct groups (scientists receiving government funding) into one over-arching statement like that without it being a generalization, and if you were to even provide statistical figures to support that generalization, I would also find it necessary to point out that a either a negative or positive correlation between two occurrences must be supported by more data and analysis than just one statistical figure to be considered probable (you must also make some sort of explicit hypotheses concerning what that correlation might mean, which you did not). The reality is that although funding for research is a more complicated location for evaluating a person’s positionality than just expressing that they are working on government grants (much of the scientific community is funded by grants from a variety of sources and for a variety of purposes), you do not provide tangible proof (i.e.: facts, statistic, data, etc) for this assumption, nor do you furnish a conclusion based on any and all potential correlations from those non-existent facts. Basically, you provide nothing with which one could follow your logic from A to Z (i.e.: from hypothetical assumption to conclusion), but rather you state your opinions as if they were a reflection of some widely known truth, which also undermines your ability to provoke a cogent impression.
If what you actually want is to be taken seriously for pointing out the shortcomings of any argument, which is something I find to always be important for productive dialogue as well as arriving at conclusions about the worthiness of a theoretical approach to a problem, then you are going to have to work on your approach to information as well as the delivery of your argument. I do not actually believe that is your purpose though, because where I can fully appreciate an intellectual exchange for the purpose of challenging our minds and assumptions, you are resistant to utilitarian and dissenting criticisms of your approach.
That you believe the Kyoto Protocol was snubbed during the Clinton administration is not actually a fact. It is your opinion based on the perspective you have chosen to adopt (the one that you keep saying you have not adopted but are instead just trying illuminate the many sides of the issue), which again, does not appear to be based on any scholarly analysis of both the social and political climates and occurrences of the period. Just because the people in power do not always act in our best interest does not necessarily mean that they have done the right thing, especially when they thumb their noses at the international community – these people are not infallible, nor are they even competent most of the time, which has been demonstrated time and again over the past decade.
I think your attempt at getting the rest of us to question our assumptions and formative belief systems is misguided (and in all fairness, this would be the proper place to use the term hypocritical) because it is clear that type of reflection is something you are unable to accomplish yourself.
double-speak – n. deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language
hypocritical – adj. derivative of hypocrite (n. a person who engages in hypocrisy)
hypocrisy – the practice of claiming to have the moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense
Because my language usage skills exceed your understanding does not make it double-speak. There was nothing euphemistic, ambiguous or obscure about my language. If there is something you didn’t understand, perhaps you should use a dictionary, as I have demonstrated how that works for you above in reference to your faulty linguistic categorizations of my beliefs. I have also not demonstrated nor engaged hypocritical viewpoints, convictions or judgments. You are clearly going to have to do better than that if you really want to usurp my erudite assessments because all you have demonstrated at this point is your inability to correctly decipher my complex and savory use of vocabulary.
Your reasoning is still flat and entirely insufficient. What you do not seem to comprehend is that you are comparing the results of sound, empirical research that has been repeated again and again, comparatively achieving the same results (which is one of the things that makes empirical research sound – that it can be repeated by others researchers, thereby re-proving and/or debunking its results) to the ways in which those results have been appropriated, interpreted and subsequently politicized by various interest groups. In terms of what makes the research and the scientists credible is a valid question, and as I stated before, if you understood critical analysis of data, used informed sociological scrutiny, and had a firm grasp of quantitative and qualitative research methods, then you could see much of the faulty reasoning in your argument, which lies precisely in the lack of critical evaluation of the opinions/counter points you present.
In other words, I have taken the time to study the data generated by research, the methodology employed, and the epistemological issues presented by both the theoretical aspects of the arguments presented in conjunction with where the research, knowledge and arguments are coming from (including the biases and purposes of those who then present the information for our consumption). What you are striving for is not only redundant but is also a rather unsophisticated attempt at pointing out the shortcomings of my reasoning without actually knowing how I arrived there to begin with. Inherent in your assumption is that I have not already taken the time to evaluate all the information available before arriving at my conclusion. The scientific community is always in the process of evaluating a fluid dialogue of input and information, and to place that information on opposing sides, as you see it (you have basically dichotomized something that is not utilized that way), rather than as part of the whole in determining the probability of theoretical conclusions is a misconception that you will need to get beyond if you would actually prefer to understand the benefits and shortcomings of any theory.
I also think that it is important to note that evaluating where your information is coming from is always important, and you are very clearly stating your biases and prejudices as well as showing your tendency for over-generalization (whether you believe it or not) in your opinions when you state, “Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man [sic] than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.” I suppose those from the scientists employed by private industry, (such as at Exxon/Mobil) stating that global warming does not exist are not at all suspect? But it is a mute point anyway. You cannot just lump such large non-homogenous and indistinct groups (scientists receiving government funding) into one over-arching statement like that without it being a generalization, and if you were to even provide statistical figures to support that generalization, I would also find it necessary to point out that a either a negative or positive correlation between two occurrences must be supported by more data and analysis than just one statistical figure to be considered probable (you must also make some sort of explicit hypotheses concerning what that correlation might mean, which you did not). The reality is that although funding for research is a more complicated location for evaluating a person’s positionality than just expressing that they are working on government grants (much of the scientific community is funded by grants from a variety of sources and for a variety of purposes), you do not provide tangible proof (i.e.: facts, statistic, data, etc) for this assumption, nor do you furnish a conclusion based on any and all potential correlations from those non-existent facts. Basically, you provide nothing with which one could follow your logic from A to Z (i.e.: from hypothetical assumption to conclusion), but rather you state your opinions as if they were a reflection of some widely known truth, which also undermines your ability to provoke a cogent impression.
If what you actually want is to be taken seriously for pointing out the shortcomings of any argument, which is something I find to always be important for productive dialogue as well as arriving at conclusions about the worthiness of a theoretical approach to a problem, then you are going to have to work on your approach to information as well as the delivery of your argument. I do not actually believe that is your purpose though, because where I can fully appreciate an intellectual exchange for the purpose of challenging our minds and assumptions, you are resistant to utilitarian and dissenting criticisms of your approach.
That you believe the Kyoto Protocol was snubbed during the Clinton administration is not actually a fact. It is your opinion based on the perspective you have chosen to adopt (the one that you keep saying you have not adopted but are instead just trying illuminate the many sides of the issue), which again, does not appear to be based on any scholarly analysis of both the social and political climates and occurrences of the period. Just because the people in power do not always act in our best interest does not necessarily mean that they have done the right thing, especially when they thumb their noses at the international community – these people are not infallible, nor are they even competent most of the time, which has been demonstrated time and again over the past decade.
I think your attempt at getting the rest of us to question our assumptions and formative belief systems is misguided (and in all fairness, this would be the proper place to use the term hypocritical) because it is clear that type of reflection is something you are unable to accomplish yourself.
Nice book, truly. The mjor point you must first understand, is you are under the impression that I stand firmly on one side of this issue. I don't understand why you continue to make the claim that I am firm on anything.
I am evaluating all of the information. I am not claiming you aren't rachel. I am stating my opinion.I am not pointing out the shortcomings of your reasoning. I am in no way claiming what conclusion you have achieved is incorrect. You don't need to post a thesis on how smart you are to understand this.Jussit back and say " yes, there are scientists who believe other things, I think they are nuts, this guy doesn't, I'll get back to categorizing my Star Trek collection now ".it's that simple Rachel.
Kyoto in and of it self was not snubber, per say. But you already proved that anything like it was not ratified and voted against by the Senate. Therefore rendering Kyoto voted against, because it shares the same ideas of what was voted against, hence your double speak. I should have said, Kyoto was indirectly affected by Senate, including democrats,under Clintons term because of that vote. Yo uagre with me here."Just because the people in power do not always act in our best interest does not necessarily mean that they have done the right thing, especially when they thumb their noses at the international community – these people are not infallible, nor are they even competent most of the time, which has been demonstrated time and again over the past decade."...I would note more then a decade though, but I agree with you for the most part.
I loved your run-on-sentence hazing, very much so .You'll get praised in the highest for your back hand.Talking down to people is a great quality. While I may not be on par with your superior knowledge here, just know how off you are. You can join the crowd here at rage. You get applauded for generalizing the minority. When someone gets out of line,out come the war of words. How "progressive". Good day to you, now get back to your Erlich book and Chai Tea.
I just need to point this out quickly, because you problematized the generalizations about scientists who receive government funding - you do realize that Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is notoriously famous for receiving monies for "consulting services" from oil and coal companies, don't you? Hmmmm? And were you aware that his trip to testify in front of the Senate committee in 1991 about global warming was paid for by Western Fuels? Also, the speech he wrote entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.
Also, if you are going to post an article, please provide a link (where did the article come from?). I do actually take the time to evaluate articles, determine whether they are scholarly, deconstruct the hyperbole (which there is much of in this article, and we can start with the inflammatory language and excessive usage of "alarmist" which frame the article by providing you with the perspective that you should adhere to while reading it). Unless you have neglected to paste the citations that should accompany a scholarly article (rather than the simple tirade of a man working for emotive rather than reflective response), this looks like an opinion piece. I have read Dr. Lindzen's complaints about the peer reviewing process that is a part of validating scientific research, and although there most certainly are sociological power issues surrounding the process, peer reviewing is a conservative process that requires scientists adhere to established guidelines for ensuring that research and criticisms of research are sound. Sounds like sour grapes to me (and that is an opinion, not to be confused with actual facts).
If you are going to cite someone and their opinions and authoritative background, you may want to consider researching what informs their positionality first so you can at least appear to be attempting impartiality by informing your reader of the shortcomings and problems with the perspective (and so you can be prepared for the onslaught that will inevitably arise from your oversight). Again, you are missing the point about how to evaluate interprative material, but then you posted this article right before I had finished my critical response, so perhaps you should take the time to read my criticisms of your method. I do not think that Dr. Richard Lindzen is a quack, but I do think that his interpretive politics are informed by more than a quest for knowledge, and that is putting it politely.
The Article was from WSOJ.It is an opinion piece.
I know it's embedded in your noggin, like many people, that if you recieve money from an oil company, you must be an evil Dr. who wants to pollute the world. Like we live in some cartoon land where Captain Planet is fighting some Evil scientist who wants to pollute the Earth at all costs.
I know who the Dr. is. I do know where he stands and I do see his point. The same scientists you believe and are using as a north arrow have ties to certain political bias as well. None of this diminishes their findings. If you can refute the MIT's prof. points, do so. I am just posting an article, opinion piece, that pertains to this topic. It pertains to my point. Stop looking into this so much.
Not everyone agrees with you, and thats OK. Why can't you acknowledge that ? Why do you continue to miss my point ? am not taking a stand, so stop inferring that I am. With out getting overly redundant, I am not denying nor acknowledging the cause of Global Warming. I am merely just stating the facts, which are missing in Jeremys original blog. It's not case closed, humans are the cause get over it . Me stating this doesn't mean I am stating he's wrong either. I am pointing out that there is a scientific community who disagrees with him.They have facts to back up their theories as well.
If you are claiming that special interest groups who play a part in funding have no part in the researc hprocess, taek a look at who the scientists who you agree with get their money.
WOW!!!
Anonymous, your argument is that there is a scientific debate. There has certainly been a large (largely corporate purchased) of media blitz painting that picture, and tehre has been plenty of politics painting that picture, but it simply is not true. The number of scientists working and publishing in climatology who dispute human caused global warming is indistinguishable from ZERO. The scientific debate over human caused global warming is roughly equal to the scientific debate over whether the sun is powered by nuclear fusion or electricity. If you Google "Electric Universe" you can find a handful of people claiming that the sun is powered by electricity - but that does not amount to a genuine scientific controversy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The above link documents the NONEXISTANCE of scientific controversy over this in the professional climatological community. An analysis of 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" found 75% of them explicitly or implicity agreed with the consensus of human induced global warming, 25% that strictly dealt with eitehr pure methodology or prehistoric climatology and thus could not be taken as saying anything either way about the current climate, and ZERO papers... ZERO... that made any argument against the scientific concensus on human induced global warming. Not a single one.
ZERO out of 928 papers over the course of a decade.
There.
Is.
No.
Scientific.
Debate.
The United States National Academy of Sciences.
The Canadian National Academy of Sciences.
The French National Academy of Sciences.
The German National Academy of Sciences.
The Italian National Academy of Sciences.
The Japanese National Academy of Sciences.
The Russian National Academy of Sciences.
The United Kingdom National Academy of Sciences.
The Brazillian National Academy of Sciences.
The Chinese National Academy of Sciences.
The Indian National Academy of Sciences.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Teh Union of Concerned Scientists.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The American Meteorological Society.
The various foreign meteorological societies.
The American Geophysical Union.
The various foreign geophysical unions.
Every single one has unanimously issued statements on the fact of global warming and the overwheming evidence that human activities are at a minimum contributing to it. For each INDIVIDUAL expert you dig up disputing human induced global warming, I can pretty well name an entire NATIONAL LEVEL SCIENTIFIC BODY that has reviewed the nay-sayers arguments and found them to be wrong.
There.
Is.
No.
Scientific.
Debate.
The only debates are over how big the warning effect will be and attempting to predict how the climate will react.
The appearance of a scientific debate over this is pure PR media show and political theater. A newspaper which runs a "balanced" story on this issue and cites one expert on each side, that is as rediculous as a newspaper running a "balanced" story by citing one scientist who says the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and one scientist who claims the sun is powered by electricity. The only proper way to run that story would be with commentary that the first expert represents effectively the ENTIRE scientitic community, and that the second "expert" is one of a insignifigant handfull who are generally considered to be crackpots by the rest of the scientific community.... oh and by the way... our second "expert" just happened to be funded by the PR arm of an industry with a financial interest in creating a public perception of scientific uncertaintly.
If you still believe that there is a genuine scientific controversy here, ok fin, just locate and SHOW US this scientific controversy. Not some media oppinion peice by someone with a degree. No, try to find ANY notable scientific body that disputes the issue or even acknowledges any controversy. Or try to dig up a meaningfull number of SCIENTIFICALLY PEER REVIEWED papers arguing the issue. If there is a genuine debate going on in the community then there should easily be a dozen or more such papers in the last decade. You won't find them because they just don't exist. And note that a paper, for example talking about solar effects, that paper does not count if the author discusses it as being an effect IN ADDITION to human caused climate change. The existance of a fraction of a dregree of solar variability still leaves the majority being human induced climate change, and the fact that the human induced climate change will continue to increase.
Post a Comment
<< Home