Slashdot Mirror
Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House
Jeff K writes "Facts and science collide with tribal loyalties, the Washington Post reports: 'Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.'"
Is this really a shocker? Bush has had a policy of denying global warming is a result of humans, the fact he is giving the NOAA extra money for research rather than prevention is quite interesting, global warming is something that is happening.
I remember years ago when the offical stance was there is no such thing as global warming, this has evolved to, there is no proof of global warming, to okay it exists but it isn't our fault, somehow I get the feeling the intention now is to attempt to prove it isn't caused by the biggest donators to the Bush administration.
When the whitehouse and the pentagon started to open up and declassify documents all those years ago, it was a good thing it felt like finally they are opening up, now things are going back to feeling more like the cold war, a policy of secrecy, spying (although internally now rather than on a foreign element), lies, and gagging the people with important information.
So as you feel your skin cancer forming and watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
"Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy."
Of course, the cost of doing nothing is much lower in the long run.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
It doesn't appear that US citizens even care about global warming. Maybe work on this first, or is the Federal goverment responsible for public morals?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.'"
You only have to read a slashdot story on Climate Change (and the amount of time posters call it "global warming" to know that the vast majority of people all over the world are not getting the full story on climate change.
I'm more worried about the current administration's failure to legislate forced change to energy (particularly oil & gas) consumption, then I am about the American public's lack of awareness of the facts.
My pics.
"There has been a change in how we're expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He added that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated -- I see that."
I think I like this Pieter Tans guy. I think there needs to be more scientists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people like him, who don't allow their convictions to be challenged by the administration.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
... the RIAA and MPAA got the White House to hide the fact that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates ...
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Come on guys, your scientific research is all flawed. There is no such thing as global warming! You need to go back, and do some more studies.
Why do you keep saying that the clima....*GLUB* *GLUB* *WHOOSH* *FLUSH* *GURGLE* *BUBBLE* *pop*
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Not to draw TOO many parallels, but remember when Galileo et al gave scientific findings that the governing powers didn't like? One of the causes, I feel from experiences with research, for the acceleration of scientific discovery is the change from a few centuries ago when science was done at the behest of the wealthy/powerful for status. As science was removed from the political, innovation and creativity flourished. This seems a bad sign of a growing politicization of scientific research, which is what kept things so slow for so long.
Bush is evil, yes, yes, but stop blaming him for Global Warming.
You want the truth? This is *my* fault. In fact, just yesterday I noticed the bathroom light was on, and I figured "oh well, not worth getting up" and left it on.
Anyone under the age of 30, intelligent enough to use a computer, who intentionally reproduced despite the COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD STATE OF AFFAIRS, should be very, very ashamed of themselves. Anyone attempting to "play dumb" or "blame politics", doubly so.
Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
Sure, the situation would be much better if climate research would be financed by private companies like, say, oil companies?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I thought that this was a dupe, but then I realized it's the same tactics, different agency. Just our lovely administration "staying the course" on being "good stewards" of the environment.
In all fairness, nobody talks about how government orgs like the EPA allocate funds for climate reasearch with heavy biases in favor of research that tends to promote the necissity of a larger EPA. But then when it goes the other way around, people scream bloody murder.
Get the government money out of the freakin cliamte research studies to begin with, and they might actually become credible.
This story has a "both sides of the coin" situation to me, and one HUGE reason why I absolutely despise government financing and control of research. To say the Bush Administration is the problem is to ignore the reality of government -- it is seemingly all powerful, very corrupt, very easily manipulated if you have the cash, and never thinking about its citizens as individuals, just as voting groups.
Clinton was no better, no matter what the Progressives might say. This is the reason guys like this run for office -- to change the climate of thinking in the US and in the World. When it comes to public opinion, you may win on occasion when the big guys pick your side, you may lose on occasion. But when it comes to reality, you'll always lose -- the politicians will never do things the way you want them to, and they usually have hidden reasons for doing what they do.
If this doesn't help prove the case for withdrawing federal funding of research (and arts and dozens of other areas) to better allow researchers to publicize evidence for their beliefs, I can't think of what will.
There is no federal mandate for financing science or art or anythink of the sort, and the reason for it was so that the science and the art wouldn't be corrupted by opinion or political control.
Really, politics aside, all I hear about lately is Global Warming. Ever since Gore had his big push when The Day After Tomorrow came out, it seems like its all i ever hear anymore. Time and Newsweek just gave Global Warming their covers recently... I just don't see how theres information out there that isn't getting to me. At least information i could understand, I don't need up to the minute global-current charts.
You mean like new Orleans?
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
In effect, a non-issue. Most of you already know you shouldn't go to the media and make comments about the job your boss is doing, or make comments about what they should do instead.
No, it *is* an issue. My tax dollars are at work funding government scientists. What's the fucking point of paying these scientists to do research if they can't talk about the results of their work with the public? We have a long tradition of federally-funded scientists being generally insulated from politics, because in the past both major parties have recognized the value of unbiased scientific research.
The Bush Administration has been muzzling the results of government-sponsored research for several years now, and this is a very troubling development. Representative democracies (yes, even republics, for those of you who will latch onto the semantics) need some areas of government to be devoid of partisanship.
If you're wondering about Hansen's reference to Nazi Germany and the USSR, read Hitler's Scientists to see how science can be co-opted for political ends.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Some time after the fall of the Soviet Union, I had the pleasure of travelling on a Yugoslavian passenger ship. One of the crew was the designated Political Officer - strangest thing - he was just there to make sure the crew didn't say the wrong thing to the western tourists. He was really nice bloke, and well able to throw back a pint but it just seemed a little strange.
Obviously, this is just an 'interesting' travel anecdote - and has nothing to with anything here.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
The pollution in question is carbon dioxide. One litre of petrol will produce the same amount of carbon dioxide when burned, regardless of the engine in which the burning takes place. Hence, as far as global warming is concerned, the fuel-efficiency of your vehicle is all-important.
Of course, there are other pollutants in car exhausts, against which measures the new-but-inefficient car may perform better, but that's a separate issue.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The new Harper government in Ottawa has cut funding to groups studying climate change. That has to be as chilling as gagging scientists.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
The scientists have 65536 Pentium 4 processors working on the problem right now, each consuming 400W of power, all to model the earth and it's atmosphere in an effort to fortell the climate changes that are underway.
10 40Ton Air conditioners are cooling the computer room where all this computing is going on. Safely venting the heat to the cool night sky.
It won't be long before we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that global warming is happening.
We just need a few more coal powered power plants brought online to level the power grid as we work to bring on stage 2 of our processor array.
That will actually model the grass on the Minnesota plains so we can judge their cooling effect... etc etc.
Thank goodness for computers and Science.
It's easy to fault Bush and to make him sound like a two year old. Oftentimes, it just requires you to copy and paste something he said.
But I would like to point out that there is a good article regarding this matter and it happens to take a look at it without political bias (if you believe that's possible).
Essentially what I'm asking you is, "Would a Democratic president be doing anything differently?" That's hard to decide--both sides are all talk and no action on this subject.
My work here is dung.
> don't want them to field questions on public policy
When public policy is related to science, talking about science is talking about public policy.
The current White House policy is to deny castrophic global climate change; therefore scientists are forbidden to tell the truth about the science of global climate change.
It is simply wrong to tell scientists to lie about their findings.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
R ICA.html [ornl.gov]
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - TIME, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
But NOW (I understand) they're sure?
Let's just point out:
"From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, North America experienced colder and generally more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase slightly moister than the present began, and conditions at least as warm as the present lasted until about 115,000 years ago. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate with a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by cold and aridity in many areas around 11,000 14C years ago."
(Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAME
Does the temperature seem to be moving up lately? Yep.
Beyond that, it seems to be a huge guessing game: are humans responsible for the current warming? (personally, I think we probably contribute significantly to it)
Is warming a catastrophe? Even IF you buy into the Cassandras, for every "coral reef is gonna die because the water's too warm!" it's hard to believe that there's not a corresponding expansion (northward) of coral-reef-able zones. For every acre of expanded desert, there's another acre of former-tundra that now has a growing season.
And don't even get me STARTED on "cities will flood" crap. Duh? For ANY city in any location, over a long enough span of time, the odds of it surviving unscathed are ultimately zero. Nobody built the big cities (generally starting as a cluster of wooden huts around a river or nice bay) with an eye toward their long term survivability - NOBODY. To presume at this point that we need to exert every effort to somehow FREEZE Earth's dynamic climate to accomodate habitation choices made 000's of years ago?
That's just stupid.
-Styopa
Some marketing professionals have stated that the reason people in the U.S. don't care about global warming is because of how it's presented: global is good, warming is good, how can 'global warming' be so bad? They should call it what it is: 'atmosphere cancer', 'oxygen rot' or 'Earth decay'.
White House Effect: The phenomenon whereby government agencies trap climate control funding, caused by the presence in the atmosphere of Republican FUD that allows donator-friendly information to pass through but absorbs evidence radiated back from concerned scientists. (original definition)
Energy: time to change the picture.
The deliberate intrasigience of the feddies is not the last word. Technology to combat catastrophic climate change is the next big economic opportunity. The only question is whether we make it here and sell it there, or vice versa.
As long as our political leadership are tied to old-fashioned energy sources, they have no incentive to develop & implement the new technologies that will replace the old ... it's a classic "Innovator's Dilemma".
And it has an "Innovator's Dilemma" solution: outsiders develop small, nimble technologies, some of which fail, some of which succeed; eventually they eat the dinosaurs (...sorta like the desktop PC in the era of the mainframe.) You, yourself, can probably figure out a few clever ways to create or implent a green tech in your own city. Give it a try! [A few suggestions here]
What is better than making an honest buck while thumbing your nose at the anti-scientists!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"So as you feel your skin cancer forming and watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so."
And global warming is linked to an incidence of skin cancer... how?
I think you're referring to the ozone hole.
That was the LAST Impending Global Catastrophe. Keep up with the times.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The thing is, the people want both religion and politics to be abou truth. We all have a primal need for our 'team' (ie: tribe) to be correct. We all want to believe our side is the Good Guys. The problem, as people become better educated, it becomes harder and harder for any but the most ignorant and gullible to buy into centuries-old superstitious nonsense of religion or the greed-saddled crap spewed out by politics.
If we ever have political leadership that genuinely prioritizes truth as their policy, that is when we will see a resurgence in interest from the populous. Until then, people are too bored with the gigantic quagmire of lies to care whether something is coming from one rich white guys' camp or the other.
A-Bomb
No. I fully expect all presidential administrations to keep a tight leash on what gets reported as "official" government science.
Bush has had a policy of denying global warming is a result of humans
It can reasonably be disputed based on our current evidence. We have established correlation, but not causation.
the fact he is giving the NOAA extra money for research rather than prevention is quite interesting
Yes, it means he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do - fund more research and gather more data. You can disagree that this is necessary (I don't happen to - more data is always good).
global warming is something that is happening.
I don't recall the White House denying this.
I remember years ago when the offical stance was there is no such thing as global warming
Under which President? Bush has never as President (to my recollection) insisted that global warming does not exist at all.
this has evolved to, there is no proof of global warming
Well, there wasn't any proof for quite some time. Just speculation and incomplete data.
to okay it exists but it isn't our fault
Again, this isn't the official White House line. The official line is, "we don't know for sure and I want to be sure before I sign economically crippling policies to screw up everybody's lifestyle." That seems sensible to me.
somehow I get the feeling the intention now is to attempt to prove it isn't caused by the biggest donators to the Bush administration.
Such as? Bush isn't running for election again, even if the Democrats are still running against him. Why would he still pander to lobbyists?
When the whitehouse and the pentagon started to open up and declassify documents all those years ago, it was a good thing it felt like finally they are opening up
Well, a war can tighten up the flow of information.
now things are going back to feeling more like the cold war, a policy of secrecy, spying (although internally now rather than on a foreign element)
Spying internally? So wiretapping people who are suspected of having conversations with foreign Al Qaeda operatives is NOT spying on a foreign element?
lies
Such as?
and gagging the people with important information.
This does bug me, but since this administration can't seem to keep a lid on its leaks, it doesn't seem to be a real problem.
So as you feel your skin cancer forming and watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
He could end up being right. He probably won't. We'll find out eventually!
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
As an American, I'd like to add (anecdotal) evidence that many Americans are just as sensitive to this topic as our European counterparts. I apologize if I ramble a lot, but I hope somebody at least finds it an interesting read. I work in the IT department at the American subsidiary of a European-based corporation. Almost every aspect of my job involves working directly with people in Germany, Singapore and the UK via conference calls. Even my interactions with the personnel in the local office are usually over the phone. With the exception of front-end loading on project startups, there is absolutely NO reason why I need to be in the office. Because of the ridiculously overinflated housing market, I could only avoid living in a trailer by buying a house 35 miles from the office where I work. This means that I drive 70 miles a day, every day of the week. The car I drive is one of the more fuel-efficient non-hybrid models that gets over 30 miles per gallon. Although I could do better with a hybrid or diesel, the cost of maintenance on both those types of vehicles leaves me slightly biased against them. And, since I'm a parent, the ultra-fuel-efficient two-seater vehicles are not practical for me. Recently, my company sold part of the land on our local campus, and we are now renting two of the buildings that sit on the land we sold from the company we sold to. I have suggested numerous times to my management that at least two thirds of the workforce could just as easily work from home. I have offered to pay my own bills for internet and telecomm access, only charging back international calls to the company (at a lower rate than they currently pay). I have offered to sign a waiver of liability so that there are no insurance issues associated with my working from a home office. I have demonstrated that I get more done in the same amount of time in the quieter environment of my home office, and I have carefully explained that I would probably start working earlier and finish later because I don't have two hours of driving a day. I have patiently explained that if those whose jobs permitted were allowed to work from home, we would be able to stop leasing the two buildings on the land we sold and easily fit everybody into the remaining buildings with a few "virtual cubes" available for when people need to come to the office. My American management is completely in support of this idea. However, the transplants from our corporate headquarters in Europe absolutely cannot stand the thought of not being able to watch people work. I have even used the "Global Warming" argument (out of frustration), and they refuse to relent. Now, just imagine what would happen if 25% of the work force in the US started working out of home offices. They would reduce their daily driving to vitually zero. Imagine the impact to greenhouse gases this would have.
So, what's my summary? I think the companies we work for could very easily contribute to improving the environment if they would just think out of the box a bit. For some reason, they refuse to do so. I also think that our European counterparts are just as blind to potential solutions as we are, but just in different ways.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
You mention CO (Carbon Monoxide), but the original poster is talkiing about CO2 (carbon dioxide), which may or may not be a typo by you. Your statement is correct as applied to CO, but as the OP says, this is not the issue. The issue is CO2, and If CO2 production from combustion goes down, the percentage of other nasty pollutants goes up. Pure C02 and H20 is the ideal exhaust of a 'clean' internal combustion engine, and the purpose of a catalytic converter.
The academia usually doesn't get censored very often in the West. During Chairman Mao's rule, Chinese professors were criticised for being "anti-revolutionaries." Smart people who know shit and know what's going on are liable to expose the administration's lie.
> the Kyoto treaty that just happens to be rigged to do disproportionate harm to America
Umm.. like America is doing disproportionate harm to everyone else (and itself) right now? Seems fair to me.
This is something that is affecting us all and beyond. Can the rest of the world not sanction the US on these issues?
They are attempting to undermine the very basis of rational thought just because it doesn't align with what they think the Bible says. This is NOT new -- Luther himself called reason "Satan's whore." There is a long and rich tradition of anti-intellectualism in this movement, and the denial of global warming (and then the backup position, that humans aren't involved) goes hand-in-hand with Intelligent Design. Also involved here is the fact that most evengelicals (who make up the vast bulk of the ID movement) believe that Jesus is coming back during their lifetime--i.e. end-times are nigh. If you literally believe that you and yours will be raptured to Jesus in the next few decades, then don't you think that might just influence your views on the necessity of environmental activism? So flinging about the label of religious nutjob, while entertaining, is not by any means gratuitious.
ID and "skepticism" over global warming are both integral parts of the same movement. This linkage is not figurative or polemical--we're talking about two fronts being fought by the same army. So bringing up ID in this context is nothing at all like calling someone a Nazi just because you don't like them.
Yes, moderators land hard on ID proponents, just as they would if someone said "I don't buy it that germs cause disease," or, "I don't believe in continental drift--it's just a theory." The astounding arrogance and willful ignorance of ID proponents deserves to be modded down. Would you be for "teaching the controversy" to placate a group that wanted to displace the germ theory in favor of the idea that demonic possession causes illness? No, eventually you'd get snippy and start humiliating them in public, because it's just a stupid position to take.
I tried to illustrate the absurdity of the people who jump all over the Bush administration for global warming. Granted the person I responded to did it in an admittedly level headed way. But, I would not be lying if I said I have seen people go into seething rages when global warming and Bush are mentioned in the same sentence
It's like seeing a tobacco executive in the 80's deny smoking causes cancer when, in the previous 15 years, you've had a number of family members who smoked heavily then die of lung cancer.
He's lying. He knows he's lying through his teeth and so do you. And yet many people believe him because they're in denial of their smoking habit.
And, as you see his smug face on TV denying a smoking-cancer connection, you vividly remember your relatives as they were in pain and wasting away in a hospital bed. Wouldn't that piss you off too?
That's why some people get angry about Bush and Cheney when the latter deny man's influence on global warming or, until recently, global warming itself. They are lying to protect their self-interest and those of their oil-industry executive buddies who make big campaign donations. They know they are lying and they don't care how bad the results are.
It's beyond hypocritical. It's evil.
Scientific American Did a great article recently on how the Bush Administration has been censoring scientific reports to fit thier particular agenda. It seems an oilman doesn't want oilmen to look like bad people. Who would have guessed? LINK TO ARTICLE
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
The thick multi-year ice essential to polar bears has been shrinking 8 to 10 percent per decade, and already, an area of sea ice roughly equal to twice the size of Texas has melted away. Some studies forecast an ice-free Arctic in summer as early as 2050, spelling certain doom for polar bears.
The effects of global warming on polar bears can already be seen in the western Hudson Bay, where there has been a 14 percent decline in the Hudson Bay polar bear population over the past 10 years, and polar bears weigh about 15 percent less than they did 30 years ago.
Polar bears in the United States are also showing the effects of global warming. A recent report by the U.S. Minerals Management service revealed that polar bear drownings, once a rare event in Alaska, are now taking place with greater frequency due to the bears being forced to swim longer distances. Indeed, a new record was established in September of 2005 for the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite monitoring began in the late 1970s.
However, we can help protect our last remaining polar bears by listing them as an endangered species. Please click on the following links to send a message to:
Supervisor Scott Schliebe
Polar Bear Project Leader
Marine Mammals Management Office
http://ga3.org/campaign/polar_bears
http://www.savebiogems.org/polar/takeaction.asp
-avi
The thick multi-year ice essential to polar bears has been shrinking 8 to 10 percent per decade, and already, an area of sea ice roughly equal to twice the size of Texas has melted away. Some studies forecast an ice-free Arctic in summer as early as 2050, spelling certain doom for polar bears.
The effects of global warming on polar bears can already be seen in the western Hudson Bay, where there has been a 14 percent decline in the Hudson Bay polar bear population over the past 10 years, and polar bears weigh about 15 percent less than they did 30 years ago.
Polar bears in the United States are also showing the effects of global warming. A recent report by the U.S. Minerals Management service revealed that polar bear drownings, once a rare event in Alaska, are now taking place with greater frequency due to the bears being forced to swim longer distances. Indeed, a new record was established in September of 2005 for the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite monitoring began in the late 1970s.
However, we can help protect our last remaining polar bears by listing them as an endangered species. Please click on the following links to send a message to:
Supervisor Scott Schliebe
Polar Bear Project Leader
Marine Mammals Management Office
http://ga3.org/campaign/polar_bears
http://www.savebiogems.org/polar/takeaction.asp
-avi
What makes you think he's any better? McCain voted for every one of Bush's failed policies, stood shoulder to shoulder with him in 2004 and has his share of lobbyists on his staff payroll doing his part for the K Street Project. Oh, he stood up against Bush on torture. Woohooo, that was a pretty safe departure. He didn't stand up and slam the administration's response to hurricane Katrina, didn't start yapping about campaign finance reform until the Repubs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And didn't take a stand on the war in Iraq until the political wind started to shift. He voted for the Credit Card Company give back labeled bankruptcy reform, the Drug Company Medicare Benefit Plan and all of the spending in the 8 TRILLION dollar deficit. That's $90,000 for every family in America.
I say he's just as corrupt as the rest of them and you're one of the people who supported them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
How about being on the side of humanity and it's continued survival on the planet?
false
from sci.environment today:
these can't even predict the weather beyond four days with any reasonable accuracy
Irrelevant. Waves are not predictable but tides are.
we find engineering solutions to the problem, hm?
yes please. Nukes, I think.
we can sure as hell figure out how to build carbon dioxide sinks and somehow get this out of the atmosphere. If engineering is the problem, engineering can sure as hell find a solution.
Not much surer than hell, though. The scales are daunting, and by the nature of the problem we can't solve it by applying more energy. People are working on it, but the solutions so far all turn out to be either non-functional or more expensive than just finding ways to cope with less energy. I'm sure if you have any specific ideas you can find some funding to develop it, though. Don't let me discourage you in this regard. We NEED such a solution. It's just not sure there is one.
mt
But even in the presence of PSCs you need stratospheric chlorine levels above a threshold value before substantial ozone depletion takes place. That's there wasn't any ozone hole before 1980 despite plentiful PSCs over Antarctica. By the time anyone thinks we'll have enough cooling for significant PSC levels over the Arctic, CFC concentrations will have fallen well below the threshold for ozone hole formation, so it's very difficult to imagine a polar ozone hole even in the presence of very strong global warming.