Slashdot Mirror
Congress Hears From Muzzled Scientists
BendingSpoons writes "More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies have been pressured to remove the phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' from various documents. The documents include press releases and, more importantly, communications with Congress. Evidence of this sort of political interference has been largely anecdotal to date, but is now detailed in a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings on this issue Tuesday; the hearing began by Committee members, including most Republicans, stating that global warming is happening and greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are largely to blame. The OGR hearings presage a landmark moment in climate change research: the release of the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC report, drafted by 1,250 scientists and reviewed by an additional 2,500 scientists, is expected to state that 'there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change' — up from the 2001 report's 66% chance. It probably won't make for comfortable bedtime reading; 'The future is bleak', said scientists."
Hah, what do climatologists know about global warming... Oh wait
``This isn't a smoking gun; This is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.''
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
A genuinely free-market Republican administration would surely want the truth about climate change to be readily available so that the markets could respond appropriately and make capital and resources available for the inevitable re-shaping of society, rather than be associated by similarity of behaviour with the guys in funny skirts who inadvertently helped the Protestants take over the world.
Pining for the fjords
What's not working as designed, is that politicians are not taking seriously (or worse) scientists.
We haven't heard enough from "the sky is falling" crowd.
... why won't these loudmouths just shut up already?
Yeah, that stupid "'sky is falling' crowd." Such idiots! Also the "'pi is irrational' crowd," the "'Earth goes around the Sun' crowd," the "'infectious disease is caused by microbes' crowd," the "'current species evolved from previous species' crowd"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Dear Lara,
On second thought, Earth is a little....eh.
I'll keep looking.
Love,
Jor-El
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Give me the Aristotle, Pasteur or Darwin of Climatology who can present irrefutable proof
Pssst!.... don't tell anyone but none of them ever had irrefutable proof. They simply made observations, thoerized on the cause, found problems with the thoeries, refined those thoeries, etc, etc, etc.
I don't think science is what you seem to think it is.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
The Earth is a huge steady state system and it has corrected itself EVERY time in the past.
The first part of your claim is not only false, it is contradicted by the second part of your claim. "Steady state" systems do not need to undergo "corrections". Dynamically stable systems do.
The Earth is a huge dynamically stable system, and it has corrected itself EVERY time in the past. That is a true statement, but an uncomfortable one, because the Earth's dynamically stable climate undergoes excursions that are quite significant relative to the stability required for human civilization to thrive.
Even local events like the Younger Dryas can ruin your whole millenia. Global events like ice ages, or the mode switching to a hot, dry climate for a few hundred or a thousand years that we see in some ice core data, can make things very uncomfortable indeed.
Scientists are concerned about global climate change not because we are worried about the "end of all life on Earth" or some equally algorean kookery, but because we know with certainty that the Earth's climate maintains a dynamic equilibrium that will happily accomodate excursions that would make a mess of our lives and our descendent's lives, and we know with certainty that we are giving that dynamically stable system a nice wack with a hammer by increasing effective insolation by a percent or so over the past two hundred years.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
...but it's one that is widely addressed. Solar intensity is certainly variable. It's also easily measurable. So here's the question: given how much more energy we're getting from the sun, are we as warm as we expect to be? The answer is currently no. We're warmer than we can account for by solar intensity alone.
Responsible scientists are not simply talking about warming. They're talking about climate change that is both more complex than simply "it's warmer" and they're talking very specifically about change that they can't account for when they take everything else they know about into account. Natural greenhouse emissions (methane, CO2), solar intensity, how long you leave your XBox 360 on, etc... if it's warmer than we expect from all of those things, then we've got issues.
That's been debunked pretty thoroughly, see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192.
Firstly of course, we have several satellites monitoring the Sun constantly, and its activity has been declining in recent years, as it goes towards the minimum of its well-known 11-year cycle (the article is from 2005, I guess it's probably reached by now).
As for the Mars ice cap, see the article; it gives many reasons why it is wrong to consider this 3-year regional change to be an indication of global warming on Mars. It's not special. The article concludes:
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I think it's the Christian leaning most conservatives have.
They believe the earth and everything on it is here for them to use. Burning lots of fossil fuels is their god-given right. The fact that there might actually be repercussions to this might (just maybe) indicate that they cannot, infact, use all of earths resources however they please.
This unfortunately is the kind of logic that makes rational argument about environmental policy nearly impossible:
A believes fact X justifies policy P.
B believes policy P is wrong.
B therefore denies fact X.
What is wrong with this picture?
I don't deny for a moment that there are still a lot of watermellons in the green movement, but the above argument is simply a logical fallacy of the kind commited by people who care more about their politics than the facts.
True greens recognize that imposing coercive limits on human behaviour is unsustainable. And we also recognize that markets are one of the most effective tools for changing human behaviour and gaining large efficiencies (which so long as they don't depend on contaminating or otherwise abusing the commons are also environmental efficiencies.)
It is only when greens shed their lefty image and non-greens start making arguments based on fact rather than politics that the debate will get anywhere.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
- "(a) Al Gore believes in global warming. (b) Al Gore is a liberal. Thus global warming is a liberal conspiracy"
- "Today it's cold where I live, hence global warming is a fraud"
- "There's a non-zero chance that humanity isn't causing global warming, so we shouldn't worry"
- "I like warm weather, so I don't care"
- "Climatologists are just fishing for more grants, which they want to steal out of my pockets"
- "They can't predict the weather next week, so they sure as hell can't predict how it will be 50 years from now"
- "The Apocalypse will happen before, or is related to global warming, so everything is alright"
The scary thing is that most of the conservatives I know are otherwise quite science-literate and often accept the science communities consensus views. I'd say it's very healthy to be sceptical, but on this issue there's much more to it. Something I can't explain.How dare you cloud the issue with your obvious attempt to bring facts and real science to the table?
How dare you take a position that Greeny Socialists with a smattering of science are opposed to?
How dare you attack scientists who have been given grant money by biased organizations to prove its man-caused?
You have offended me with your opposing view point and you must be shouted down and prevented from presenting again. We will take whatever certification you have, away. And, we will march in high numbers, and you know the saying:
We have the numbers, so we are right. Because it's popular to say its man-caused, you know its right. Because a bunch of obvious unbiased greenies and socialist say its right, it must be right. We poop on your science and replace it with our hysteria cloaked in scientific terms.
HOW DARE YOU!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I read the other replies to your post and I find it funny that 3 out of the 4 were people that have no idea why people might not like the Green agenda, but they sure do have an axe to grind with their preconceived notions of the Republican party.
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies. Examples include Paul Erhlich, Rachel Carlson, Al Gore (with much support by the scientific community.) and whoever that guy was who predicted the worst hurricane season in 50 yrs for 2006.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner. Usually, it consists of a list of demands that (coincidentally?) line up with socialists and communists. See: the Kyoto protocol. It attempts to impose an aggressively progressive tax code on emissions, and consumption. If we don't like progressive taxes already, what makes you think that we'd like that sort of 'productivity punishment' applied to our country?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back. In Oklahoma, your chances of those panels paying for themselves are very probably slim. Gets worse as you go north. For the American SouthWest, they are probably a good investment.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds. (Maybe the birds will figure out that the windmill farm isn't such a great place to hang out.) Ted Kennedy opposed a windmill farm off of Martha's Vineyard as it would've obstructed their view.
So, if the environmentalists got together and started presenting tenable solutions to our problems, then they might get more reception. For me, I understand that there's global warming, might be anthropogenic, might not... (not's seem to be getting slimmer) but until someone proposes a real idea on how to deal... we'll just deal in the way we always have. Adapt.
Note: One of our saving graces could've been nuclear power, but the greenies shot that down too. Sucks that South Africa is using american developed technology in a pebble bed reactor. Look at the CA power crisis, while part of it was caused by collusion on the part of energy traders, it was enabled by CA's stance on building new plants. In fact, the newest power plant to provide CA with power was just built in NV. NIMBY-ism has killed several things that could make the world a more efficient place, but finding a backyard to put "it" in is rather difficult.
You seem to be too stupid to understand the notion of consequences, so here's how it goes down: global warming == grave national threat. Think about it -- the feds can combat terrorism, and all terrorists can do is (at best) murder people and destroy infrastructure. Global climate change can utterly impoverish America and make it a supplicant nation, dependent on others for basic food-stuffs while half the population lives in shantytowns after having to abandon their flooded hometowns, and 10% of the workforce is unable to work because they have drug-resistant malaria.
I'd say that any president who DOESN'T make global climate change their business is not just stupid and incompetent, they're also a traitor. Frankly, it's kind of surprising that you would hold your president to a lower standard of accountability that you would a hobo or, say, a dead raccoon.
At first, I thought, hey, maybe you're just misguided. Maybe you are. However, here's the problem with that theory. You've taken the time to get a lot of different links together and post them here. That suggests that you're capable of doing decent searches. Therefore, you should already know what's wrong with your claims. Now, just to answer your objections (so you don't claim I'm "avoiding" the "facts"):
(1) Um, yeah. Change that to the world is (appears to be? really?) getting warmer, and this agrees with the basic science done during the 60's prior to sophisticated computer models, and during a slowing down (and slight retreat) of global warming due to increased particulates in the atmosphere.(2) True, temperature measures are better now than they have been in the past. Current temperature measures (over the last 100+ years) allow us to correlate temperatures with other proxies. These give us not only ways of estimating temperatures from prior eras, but also to get an idea of how much error we should expect in such estimates.
(3) Interesting theory. Of course, no one credible is postulating this theory. Why do you think that is? Also, you're explaining the warming after the fact. See #1.
(4) Gee, what could cause Jupiter to get warmer over multiple years? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Jupiter orbits the sun once every 12 years? Of course, it's actually a little more complicated than that. However, I suggest you leave the explanations to people who actually know what they're talking about.
(5) Of course, Mars annual cycle is closer to ours. And we've been observing it for a very short time. Nevertheless, your questions about that have also been addressed.
(6) Yes, livestock (those being raised by us, specifically) are largely responsible for increases in methane, and we should reduce our dependence on them as well. Methane also is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The only positive is that methane has a shorter "shelf life", in that it gets reabsorbed into nature much quicker than carbon dioxide. What's with this shell game, anyway? Are you trying to say that you shouldn't blame humans for CO2 increasing global temperatures because we're also responsible for methane increasing global temperatures?
(7) And, no it is not possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. We've ruled that out. It's like if someone were shot (and died immediately afterwards) and you said, hey, other people have died from natural causes, and other people have been shot and lived. Why is everyone assuming the bullet killed the guy?
(8) Oh, and let's not do anything because China won't? Please. That's tired. Yes, China needs to also get their act together. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get our act together.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
An ideal democracy would have a couple more links:
Scientists study, and publish their findings.
The media impartially reports the findings based on the quality and the importance of the report.
The public considers the findings reported by the media, and elect, impeach, recall, vote in referendums and plebiscites, etc. as necessary.
When necessary, elected officials legislate directly on behalf of their constituents to solve the problem.
Industry accepts the legislation gracefully.
Here's how I think it actually works:
Scientists are pressured by the government and the corporations to change their findings; most report them anyway.
The media gives equal weight to minority positions on the issue because they want to pretend to be 'fair and balanced', and because they might be owned by a corporation that also has interests in the energy industry. If not, they certainly get lots of advertising revenue from said industry.
The public, mostly unaware of the problem, don't think they can really do anything anyway.
Politicians avoid the issue out of fear of losing campaign financing from oil corporations.
Corporations put ads on TV that give people the impression that they care about the issue, and should be trusted to do the right thing.
Don't listen to the parent; I don't care about his personal observations and flawed reasoning. Does he really think scientists haven't considered solar influences?
"On behalf of all scientists: Thank you BoRegardless (721219)! We thought it was CO2 but we never stopped to think it was the sun! I guess we should get our noses out of the office and read Slashdot more!"
Doesn't it strike you as amazingly arrogant to think that you have, in a single post on slashdot, shown thousands of climatologists, who have dedicated their academic lives to researching the climate, to have wasted their time?
Don't listen to my opinions on climatology, I know fuck all about the climate.
Don't listen to politicians; they listen to us.
Listen to the scientists. To those reading please add one thing to your todo list for today: Print off and read the IPCC's 2001 summary report. It's only 34 pages long, has lots of illuminating graphs, it's very readable and clear, and most importantly it is based on peer reviewed scientific evidence that is readily available.
The document above is a summary of summaries for policy makers, if you want to get into more detail:
-
See here for a summary of the scientific basis for global warming.
-
See here for a summary of the predicted outcomes of global warming (eg sea levels, global temperature).
- And see here for a summary of the expected impacts on humanity (eg droughts, migration) and mitigation.
All of these summaries have respective, exhaustive scientific documents behind them, but they do a good job of summarizing the reasoning and evidence.Personally I'm looking forward to seeing refined conclusions and increased certainty in estimated from the data accumulated over the last 5-6 years. I thank the scientists which the parent belittled for collecting and summarizing this data.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
People modded it down because it at least seems to be deliberate misinformation. Deliberate because the amount of effort that appears to go into it suggests someone who could have taken the time to answer the very questions he raised. This is one of the typical strategies of global warming deniers. Try to spread doubt amongst those who aren't capable of understanding the science. You'll notice that his post followed the typical formula to a T.
The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Let me tell a fact.
Climate change is not due to us, its due to Sun getting hotter.
Its proved and the ultimate truth.
Happy now?
So what does it change?
Does it change that the earth is getting warmer? No
Does it change that sea levels will rise? No
Does it change that polar ice caps will melt disrupting global weather patterns? No
Does it change this can lead to drastic impact on world food production? No
Your attitude is like - Diseases are not man made, so don't take antibiotics.
If it was calculated that an asteroid will strike earth after 10 years and cause mass extinction, would you want everyone to sit on it because its not man made?
Grow up. The problem is the concern part. Who caused it will will decide later. So if there is something Humans can do to offset nature, its better to do it before its too late. Nature being the cause won't change the fact that the global climate change is not good for us.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Really? First of all, I had no idea that Nazis were global warming deniers or accused others of it. Are you trying to Godwin the thread? Secondly, I use the phrase precisely. There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference. You're the one who's being irrational by dragging in the holocause. Seriously, what are you thinking?
Depends on one's motivation. I've suggested that the Schwarzschild solution to GR might be wrong, but I wasn't doing it in an attempt to spread FUD. Is it wrong to moderate someone as a troll when you suspect their only motivation is to spread misinformation?
No, he proposed that several different events might be responsible, did enough research to cite sources, yet mysteriously didn't do enough research to know what was wrong with his sources.
Again with the Nazis? I'm not the one trying to Godwin the thread. How is that last point "shouting down" or "silencing people"? If I was trying to silence him, then why did I address every single last one of his points (see my response to him, where I also linked from solid resources)? (Seriously, where the heck are you dragging up this Nazi stuff from? Do you have a fetish or something?)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
Never been to NYC, I guess. Millions of people every day use mass transit. A large percentage of city dwellers have no car. Every American metropolis has some mass trasport. As roads become too crowded they are forced to provide more mass transit for immediately practical purposes. Your argument is simply false.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
Electric cars have less parts and are less complex. On a large scale and as technology progresses we will use far less energy to produce them. Your argument ignores progress over time.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
See China. Not everyone needs to bike or walk, but easily half of the population can as they live in dense areas. You assume this argument is black and white. But if just the SUV drivers in metropolitan areas switched to bikes we'd have less traffic and save a lot of energy.
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back.
First, protecting the environment isn't about making your money back. It's about having a habitable planet for our kids. Second, you ignore technological progress over time. Every year solar is getting more efficient.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds.
You're way behind on this one. The largest, slowest moving turbines do not kill any birds. Problem solved.
By your logic we shouldn't have telephones because it's a lot of work to put up the wires. And we shouldn't have electricity because the up-front cost to build the initial generators is so high. All of your points are narrow. They ignore the big picture, ignore some very important details, assume everything is all-or-nothing, and ignore technological progress.
You set a great example as a Republican.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'd like to see some valid counter-points of your own that disprove the grandparent post.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
we'd still be debating whether or not to go into Afghanistan.
The problem with most of these scientists is they haven't figured out how to lie to the American public as effectively as the politicians. When politicians figure out a hundred different ways to take away our essential liberties with patriotic sounding names, emploring us to think about the children and defend our families from The Terrorists (TM), that's A-OK -- and please don't think I'm dividing this down party lines, there's politicians from all parties that are happy to cement their power base. When the scientific community suggests that we really ought to do something about the shit we're pumping into the atmosphere, suddenly everyone's flashing their Junior Climatologist merit badge and telling them why it ain't so.
News flash: real scientists don't deal in absolutes. They provide estimated probabilities and sensible suggestions. Becoming more eco-friendly is not going to turn us into a pinko communo-socialist hippy state any more than, say, allowing the president to expand the scope of government is going to turn us into a dictatorship. We're ostensibly on the same team here.