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

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

[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.

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: we saw that the science was falsified by the C

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue.

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

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: 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."

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

[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: 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.

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.