Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources Site No Longer Says Humans Cause Climate Change (theverge.com)

The website of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been updated with new language and no longer says that humans and greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Instead, the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities." The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree that human-made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, and that global warming is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Prior to the revision, the site said "human activities that increase heat-trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause." The Verge reports: DNR spokesperson Jim Dick told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in an email that the "updated page reflects our position on this topic that we have communicated for years, that our agency regularly must respond to a variety of environmental and human stressors from drought, flooding, wind events to changing demographics." This does not address the question of why the new language implies that we do not know what causes climate change. This is the latest anti-environment move from Wisconsin's government, which has de-emphasized global warming since Republican Gov. Scott Walker took office in 2011. So far, Wisconsin is the only state that appears to be revising its website, but more states could follow suit now that it's clear climate science will be attacked under President-elect Donald Trump.

Comments

Execution

[Kunedog]

We know how to deal with their kind around here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Misleading Summary

[hackwrench]

I did not read the article, but the website does not say that the causes of "global warming" are being debated, just unspecified changes, of which global warming is only a portion. I doubt I need to point out also that global warming and climate change are not the same thing, but there you go.

Re:Typo

[mmell]

So you're saying this was taken straight from the POTUS-erect's Twitter feed?

Good enough for me! Sounds like good, trustworthy science.

Just the same old Republican strategy

[Patent Lover]

If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes fact.

Re:Just the same old Republican strategy

[Ryanrule]

its a hitler quote. but you knew that, you read his book!

Re:Just the same old Republican strategy

[Ryanrule]

some sort of utopian ideal. gross.

Re:Just the same old Republican strategy

[Swave An deBwoner]

If only there were a way to determine what that web page looked like a couple of months ago, say, before the recent election. If only there were an Internet archive, dare I say a "wayback machine" ...

http://web.archive.org/web/20161030222446/http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/greatlakes/climatechange.html

Re:Just the same old Republican strategy

[hey!]

In fact from the mid 40s to around around 1980 there actually was a slight decrease in measured temperature at surface stations around the globe, although not to early 20th C levels. This was due to the rise of SO2 above many of the temperature stations, which reduced sunlight reaching the surface. You probably aren't old enough to remember, but this is what cities often looked like in the 60s.

So in the mid 60s the future direction of climate was still somewhat open. On one hand increasing CO2 (by then measurable) was warming the Earth; on the other natural variations in the Earth's orbit and increased SO2 would have a cooling effect. The question was which effect would prevail. By the mid 70s the vast majority of papers concluded that the balance would tip toward warming, successfully predicting the warming seen after 1980 before it actually happened. Of course public understanding of the current state of science is usually a decade or more out of date. In the case of AGW, almost nobody outside of Earth Sciences was aware of the newly emerged consensus until An Incovenient Truth came out -- which left people feeling blindsided. But you can go back in Google Scholar and watch that consensus emerge some thirty years earlier. I was aware of it in the 80s because I'd married a geophysicist.

As for peak oil that's a much tougher nut to crack because it depends on predictions of future oil recovery technologies and the discovery of future energy reserves. If technology hadn't improved since the 1970s we'd surely be looking at much more expensive petroleum. Economists have never predicted we'll "run out of oil", by the way, because that's not how markets work. What will happen is oil will someday become too expensive to use to power things like cars. We're still headed there eventually, but nobody can say exactly when.

Re:Just the same old Republican strategy

[brit74]

Here's a video on the subject of 1970s "global cooling" for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Studies of the scientific literature in the 1970s reveal 7 papers suggesting global cooling (but not an ice age). They also found 44 papers suggesting global warming.

If you don't watch the video, then it proves that you are deliberately remaining ignorant on the subject. And if you're going to remain deliberately ignorant on the subject, then you should stop talking about it.

One you read what the facts really are, you realize just how much climate deniers are lying about the facts. Why would they do that? Because the right-wing media hates democrats, and the oil companies are giving them a global warming conspiracy story to legitimize their hatred. Why would oil companies do that? Because there's trillions of dollars of oil reserves still in the ground, and if people keep pumping it, they're going to be very, very rich - like trillions of dollars rich.

Journalism

[CanadianMacFan]

This is what happens when the news tries to show balanced coverage on a topic where there is so much scientific consensus on a topic. The broadcaster brings in a scientist who is an expert in the field to explain why they believe climate change is happening and they start to go on about probability which sounds like they really aren't that sure about it at all. In reality with the numbers they are reaching the scientists would most likely bet their homes on it. Yet in the "interest of balance" the broadcaster brings on the skeptic who works in a different field and talks in absolutes. So the viewer thinks that the issue is really much more like 50/50 and it's even worse because only the skeptic is convinced in their work.

If the news were to show you what the climate science was really like then you would rarely see a denier debating a scientist. Same thing for the vaccinations.

And if you think the scientists aren't trying to disprove climate change you can think again. They would all love to find out that man-made climate change was wrong because it would be an easy Nobel Prize for showing what it was.

Re:Journalism

[ClickOnThis]

This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.

But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.

The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.

Re:Journalism

[Waffle Iron]

The question that interests me is what certainty threshold do we require before we hurt oil and related businesses? Can we make these companies lose billions of dollars based on a probability of 99%? If it turns out we're in the 1% where man-made climate change was wrong, will they get compensated?

On the flip side, if the worst case climate predictions with only 1% probability come to pass (such as most of Florida under water, along with every coastal city on the planet), it will cost humankind quadrillions of dollars in damages and/or remediation attempts. Which end of this spectrum do you think is more worrisome?

Re:Journalism

[Gadget_Guy]

Where will their next grant come from, and for what research, if they disprove one of biggest crises in the last few decades?

The grant would come from the same place that they had before. What evidence do you have that their funding would stop? You have none; it's just your assumption.

As long as the science is done properly and doesn't collapse under scrutiny, the fame (and the fact that the scientists would have to have opened up a whole new aspect to climate science) would undoubtedly ensure their funding for quite some time. Universities and research groups don't judge a scientist's work by what their conclusions say. They judge their worth by the number of citations they receive. It's a poor practice really, but it would mean that such a highly controversial and ground-breaking finding would be used as a basis for a lot of new research; first to replicate the findings and then to study it further to find out how it relates to all the other research that has been done.

If climate change is disproved, it will be a huge boon to the scientists.

Scientific method doesn't required finding the One True Source for a phenomena when one disproves a prior hypothesis for the cause

Then who do they give Nobel prizes to, if not those who have made revolutionary discoveries? Sure, they don't just take the word of one person, but they also don't forget who came up with it first.

Re:Journalism

[Oligonicella]

Anyone who believes that scientists receiving grants are working altruistically is essentially taking a worshipful attitude. Scientists are just people with every foible the rest have.

Re:Journalism

[Obfuscant]

The grant would come from the same place that they had before.

Of course not. A funding agency doesn't keep funding research into areas that don't need it. If global climate change was disproved, then why would any agency spend its limited budget on funding more research into how to solve it? They are hesitant to keep funding research that hasn't met the goals when there is still a lot left to learn; why would they fund things that they are told aren't a problem?

What evidence do you have that their funding would stop? You have none; it's just your assumption.

Twenty five years working in academic research funded by federal and private grants, seeing what does get funded, what doesn't get funded, and what loses funding. Talking with program managers who have the responsibility to make sure the limited budget their programs have gets distributed to important research.

They judge their worth by the number of citations they receive.

Funding agencies don't have the money to fund researched based on the citation count. They fund research based on what needs to be solved.

If climate change is disproved, it will be a huge boon to the scientists.

To every scientist except those studying ways to solve global climate change. The money going to fund that crisis will be diverted to more important research.

Then who do they give Nobel prizes to, if not those who have made revolutionary discoveries?

They used to give Nobel prizes to people who have made scientific discoveries. Saying "X doesn't cause Y" is not sufficient. There are lots of X's that don't cause Y. Saying "I have found the true cause of global climate change" would merit one, but simply disproving AGW isn't finding the true cause.

Does it really matter?

[Opportunist]

People have made up their mind and no amount of evidence could sway them, so why bother?

Reality or facts don't really matter anymore, do they? People won't believe anything that doesn't fit their personal reality bubble anyway, so why bother trying to convince them? Evidence doesn't matter anymore, especially in areas that are hard to understand in the first place and people are quite unwilling to learn.

I stopped trying and caring a long ago. I have no kids. I am old enough that any climate change will only hit big time after I'm long dead. Trash this planet any way you like, I don't give a shit anymore. If you can't be assed to care about your planet, why should I, and why should I try to make you care?

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

variables that affect climate

[js290]

If there's one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the output of the Sun. If there's a second variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the kinematics of the Earth about the Sun. Neither should be considered constant. The real hoax was that climate is constant, predictable, and controllable. The real debate should be whether civilization is prepared for a unpredictable, Climate change alarmists are doubling down on more command and control.

Re:variables that affect climate

[PopeRatzo]

Climate change alarmists are doubling down on more command and control.

Reading this article, I don't see that it's "climate change alarmists" that are scrubbing references to AGW from public documents.

It kind of sounds like the climate deniers are the ones trying to exercise command and control.

In Florida, the GOP government went so far as to ban the term "climate change".

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Close

[PatientZero]

Five-Step Program to Greatness

1. Trump references the Wisconson website and takes credit for fixing climate change in a 3 am tweet.
2. Kellyanne Conway goes on Sunday talk shows to deny climate change exists.
3. Trump doubles down and claims the Clintons created the problem with all that darned economic growth in the 90s.
4. Putin publicly thanks Trump and Exxon for helping him annex climate change.
5. America is somehow great again.

Re: Just because there is no evicence..

[cfalcon]

> Science is a democracy

Science is most assuredly not a democracy. Leaders may be determined by geography, tradition, and popularity, but truth is not determined in such a way.

Re:Typo

[quenda]

The website has not changed. It has always said that.
We have always been at war with the Mujahideen, and allies of Glorious Comrade Putin.

So Very Sick

[JimSadler]

It is beyond my capacity to grasp that anyone can be such a coward or married to an idiotic philosophy that they simply can not face truth. We are, right now, in huge trouble due to the global warming that has already occurred and we know full well that it is going to get much worse. Our weather is destroying our ability to raise crops and livestock, our oceans are almost lifeless and we are being contaminated with all kinds of poisons that wreck health and rob people of their lives. Many of these nay sayers can accept the fact that termites have a big influence on environment and that algae also is a big player, yet somehow they fail to be able to face off against the fact that humans are having massive impacts on every facet of nature including temperatures in our air and in our waters. People fear that they, or their lifestyle, will be lessened, displaced or eliminated. Somehow that fear causes them to become a mob of brain dead fools. That in turn assures that their lives and lifestyles will fall even faster and deeper.

Re:Forget Trump

[hackwrench]

Forget Trump. Well not exactly. He't not really that much better or worse than any of our regular crop of office-seekers. They are all actually shrouded in a cloud of mystery, Trump included. In fact, I take exception to the concept of "conflict of interest". I also take exception to the notion that a republic is in any way clearly any better than the results to be had at the hands of a direct democracy. We need to be doing far more studying of the situation we are in than we have been. We are still fearful of shadows, to the extent that we are more fearful of them then actual problems.

Re: Just because there is no evicence..

[ClickOnThis]

> Science is a democracy

Science is most assuredly not a democracy. Leaders may be determined by geography, tradition, and popularity, but truth is not determined in such a way.

This. Science is a meritocracy. To complete your point, truth in science is determined by observation.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Namarrgon]

Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:

  - House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"

  - Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

  - International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"

  - Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"

  - United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."

  - Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"

- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[angel'o'sphere]

Apparently some climatologists are convinced that exaggeration and alarmism are justified to push the public into action. But by eroding their own credibility,
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".

That is why we get more concerned voices lately because the "scientific community" does not longer want to downplay it.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[whodunit]

A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Calydor]

Stop and think for a moment.

You have already reached your conclusion, and you will only accept a change to that conclusion (if even then) should someone with a vested interest in YOUR OWN CONCLUSION says it isn't so.

Science isn't about Truth.

[hey!]

It's about the best available evidence.

People clearly misunderstand this because they keep saying things like "Scientists used to believe X, but now they believe Y," as proof that scientists don't have the capital-T Truth. And they're right. They're just missing the point. The problem with Truth is that it's inaccessible. Unless you're God, you're missing big parts of it. Mortals don't have the Truth, we only have evidence, and not all the evidence there is.

So you have to decide what is the best basis for making decisions that affect society as a whole, the one that appeals to your gut feelings about the Truth, or the one supported by the best evidence we have so far. Sure evidence based policy means you have to change your mind sometimes; but not knowing everything isn't the moral equivalent of knowing nothing.

As for "consensus", well, that's not what people think it is either. It's not a declaration of truth, it's a general agreement as to where the burden of proof lies. If you want to claim that humans hunted T. Rex you're going to need very strong evidence to back that up. Someone who claims T. Rex was extinct before humans doesn't need to back that up at all. It's discrimiantion, but it's fair and reasonable discrimination. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it only matters what he can prove. That's why it's a bad idea to go shopping for a scientist who believes what you want to be true: chances are you'll find one. Science used this way has no probative value. Of course you can argue against the scientific consensus as a basis for public policy if you want, but to show that that is rational you'll need to provide justification for why your preferred scientist is right, and that means seriously studying the field so you can mount the same kind of technical critique of evidence that a professional in the field could. Otherwise you're just scientist shopping.

The opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts working in the field may not be God's-own-Truth, but it's the best starting place for policy. It has at least the benefit that it can't tell you whatever you want to hear.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[meerling]

The models reflect the historical climate accurately.
So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
They use all that data to build and test the models.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[VernonNemitz]

This is more of an addendum to the just-above msg, than a reply.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Re:Cold on the 'Sconsin unemployment line

[coastwalker]

You confuse knitted yogurt uneducated environmentalist activists with climatologists. The science says CO2 is driving climate change but says nothing about how to achieve a reduction in emissions. Sure the knitted yogurt brigade want us to live short brutish lives in caves to achieve this. Most scientifically literate people prefer the direction we have actually taken with a mix of better building insulation, electric cars, cheaper renewable energy sources, safe nuclear power, telecommuting, even fracking if it is regulated to prevent environmental damage - which it is not in America (Don't you think it is time to fix your corrupt politics to look after the voters instead of donor corporations?)

Live in an unheated cave? Or kill millions of brown people through sea level rise in places like Bangladesh? Fuck that, I think we have smarter things to do than either of these options.

Eppure si muove

[jandersen]

We can deny the reality of, well, reality as much as we like, but it is still reality. Climate change is real, and humans being the cause is real, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

BTW: The subject line is the motto of Galileo Academy of Science and Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Academy_of_Science_and_Technology) - according this is what Galileo said on the way out, after having been ordered to deny that Earth moves around the Sun: "And yet it moves".

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W

You know what is the dream of any scientist? Have their name immortalized in History next to Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Euler, Curie, Mendeleev, etc.

You know how to do it? You prove the scientific consensus is wrong. If scientists could prove the current theories on climate change are wrong, they'll be all over it.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[phantomfive]

You don't have to 'trust' academics. You can read the reports yourself, look at the emails themselves, and determine whether the reports make sense, or whether the misconduct actually seems bad. To me, threatening to 'change peer review' to keep out papers you don't like is prima facie bad.

Blind trust is academics (or anyone) is foolish.

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[GrumpySteen]

If you'd bothered looking at any of those links, you'd have seen that half of them are to statements by government organizations that are filled with politicians and bureaucrats which are about as far from academics as you can get.

Re: Just because there is no evicence..

[serviscope_minor]

All it can mean is a lot of people got it wrong.

You bare right, techincally, while not really being right in practice. It is indeed possible that 97% of scientists got it wrong. However, if the vast majority agree and you aren't a scientist studying the topic (i.e. going on emotions, gut feel, politics and ideologies) or at least some kind of expert, then you position is even less scientific than assuming the vast majority are almost certainly correct.

Just deny reality

[MoarSauce123]

Is it really that simple? Just ignore facts and deny reality and all problems go away? Maybe the ignorant Republicans are on to something...

Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Layzej]

The first IPCC report did not downplay anything...

It looks like the projections from the first IPCC report were pretty darn good. Of course, this was published in 2013. A lot has happened since then that may make the projections look a little on the low side.

Re:Not tech news?

[Layzej]

Science news is of interest to nerds. When politicians start misrepresenting science that is also of interest.

Re:Typo

[JackieBrown]

Keep in mind that there are millions of Americans who believe it doesn't matter because of rapture.

That's quite a large claim to make - which probably explains your down-mod. I did a search for this.

Can you provide a link showing that the reasons millions of Americans don't believe in global warming is due to the rapture?

Scientists are not the ubermensch

[dfenstrate]

This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.

But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.

The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.

Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.

So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'

Common Sense suggests Climate Change is real

[foxalopex]

I've read about the science from reputable sources and I have somewhat of a science background myself but even if I didn't believe in that, my own common sense suggests that it's more than likely that climate change is real. Why would I think that? We're burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels everyday that nature has locked away in our planet for millions of years. Fossil Fuels in nature isn't remotely being produced at the same rate, our entire human species hasn't even remotely been around that long and somehow out of some miracle releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere by some miracle isn't have some effect? It's like saying oh well I'll just cut down the whole forest, it grows back right, no loss? The amount of energy Fossil Fuels release is incredible, I'm sure you've heard or thought of the expression you can't move mountains. Well the truth is we can and we do, thanks to this "cheap" energy, our mining equipment can actually move mountains. The problem is nothing is truly "cheap", there's always a cost even if we can't directly see it.

I also dislike the folks who panic and say the world is ending. The world isn't going to end with climate change but it's going to get expensive and uncomfortable for us. For my city it already has, they've had to spend millions for upgrading the storm sewer system to deal with a massive increase in nasty downpours in the last few years to hopefully prevent flooding and while yes I'm sure we've had this sort of flash flooding before, I've lived here long enough to notice that it seems to be an increasing trend. No amount of no it's not happening is going to save folks from being flooded. It's ended up putting the city in debt but no one thinks of it that way. All folks argue about is how taxes are going up.

Consensus

[Tenebrousedge]

I believe that it's safe to say that consensus is how we evaluate all competing models of reality.

Re: Typo

[LinuxLuver]

Yeah. That delusional religiosity in America about the rapture is the mirror image of the jihadi 72 virgins delusion. They are both, functionally, insane.