"'Don't discuss polar bears": Bush Admin.'s Memo to Scientists

Remove all ads!

From IPCC fourth assessment Workgroup I summary. Not the odds I would bet on.

 

That global warming is most probably man-made is only denied in basically one country in opposition to the global scientific consensus. I wouldn't look to Mars getting warmer for comic relief. I think an answer is IMO much closer. Odds are that conservative Americans are not so infinitely more clever and perceptive than the rest of the world that they alone get it right.

The US opinionmakers on the issue are unable to produce peer revied scientific research underlining their case. Well, that's the way scientific discussions are led. It's not by accident that the AEI offers 10.000 $ for every scientist to produce a piece, any piece, that sais global warming is not man made. It's unsurpising that they don't find any scientist of repute taking that offer. The global warming dispute in the US is purely political, and IMO the conservative opiniomakers have succeeded to establish (un)reasonable doubt on the issue in their respective target group.

Of course there are trends in science, and there is bias, but as I said, the regional occurence of this particular view is limited regionally and there limited to one ideological habitat. The faith in Saddam having WMD was and still is similarily localised. Same for denial of evolution.

Because I think that Americans are also not infinitely dumber than the rest of the world, the answer most probably lies in their public discourse or lack thereof about the respective issues. With the discussions about WMD, evolution and now global warming in mind -- they way such discussions are held have increasingly become a he-said, she-said go-nowhere. Well, for an ideologue a draw is victory because the other side doesn't win. American's aren't stupid, American conservatives aren't stupid. A good number is just pretty gullible and incurious if they identify with the guy telling the tale. Such views once formed and periodically peer-confirmed by opinionmakers and politicians are persistent

 

Here is a cute little paragraph from a daily economic newsletter that I get at work. I am not saying that I agree with what this guy says but it shows the conservative POV pretty well. I normally delete the letters after I read them but if I had some from the last couple week I could add his arguments about the temperature being colder now than it was back a few hundred years ago as well as his mocking comments about the fact that the same scientists who are sure about global warming now were absolutely certain about global cooling back in the 70s. If you actually look at the scientists' predictions from the 70s they do look pretty silly now which does give the conservatives some "cry wolf" ammo.

 

The Washington Times' article closes with an interesting line neither TGS nor you bothered to read:

It's not mono-causal. It's the sun, and dominantly, human input as well. And probably there are other reasons as well we don't yet fully understand -- but that doesn't let mankind off the hook for it's contribution.
The conservative US stance simply denies that human imput is probably the dominant contribution to the phenomenon with 'not all the science is in'. Nowhere the position of denial has gained as much public hold and political weight as in the US. That's what I mean.

 

I was starting to worry that I was the only one being attacked for having a dissenting opinion

They may have to investigate Morgoroth now

To clarify some of the confusion. I do give credence that mankind does have an effect on the environment. I do not beleive that mankind is without blame for global warming and a slew of other concerns. I just do not believe that everything is our fault and that we should cripple our industries and economies for no other reason than the hysterical bleating of sheep. I do not follow lock-step with this "new religion" of "Man is to blame for everything."

@Tal, I'm sorry that you see it that way. If there is one thing I staunchly believe in, it is that every opinion is valid.

 

Well, point taken.

And I didn't mean to portray them as crackpots. I concede that they are honest and sincere when they state their view. Convinced of their view they are unwilling to change their view as they are convinced it is true, which also is very natural reaction.

But they are also most certainly wrong.

What I find maddening is the overwhelming feeling of deja-vu, after the creationism debate for instance: The jury's still out. We still don't know. So what if the overwhelming amount of evidence points one way? As long as there is even a smidgen of doubt, we will never have anything more than a theory. Gravity? Pure hypothesis.

With that mindset we'll never reach the mythical goal of 100% certainty that would mandate action on climate change, or convince creationists, which I think is the whole idea.

 

To close my argument: I think you have to separate the believers from those who are feeding them their steady diet of disinformation.

The lobbying department couldn't care less about scientific consensus. It's simply way cheaper to pay a handful of lobbyists a couple of million dollars and make campaign donations, than to divert billions in precious dividends away from the shareholders to investment in emission reduction measures Even if they only succeed in stalling measures for a decade or two that's a lot of dividend in shareholder accounts. And if they believe it themselves, the better, it's easier writing talking points if you don't neet to giggle all the time.

And for the target groups the issue can be splendidly sold as an attempt by 'leftist activists' (Booh!) to sell their radical tree-hugging, car-hating environmentalist agenda with 'junk-science', probably with the avid help of them sleazy trial lawyers, or some other traditional GOP theme

[ March 13, 2007, 22:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Related to the issue, as background reading:

The Republican War on Science
'Swift Boating' Science
Deadly Ignorance

 

@Tal

I do believe it and I do not think it is confusing at all. Anything that can be debated has two sides and neither should be considered right or wrong, afterall discussing politics isn't math.

As to my being a fan of the GOP, I have to admit the majority of the time I do vote for their candidates as they more closely match my libertarian views than the Democratic party.

However, there are plenty of issues that I take vast exception to the GOP with, which actually caused me to vote for Kerry in the previous election.

I do not like the following positions.

1. I am very pro choice
2. While I believe in the death penalty, I do not believe the proper safeguards are in place.
3. I do not believe we should award citizenship to illegal aliens (on this one I disagree with both parties for different reasons)
4. I may despise many of the ACLU's positions, but I totally agree with their fight to protect the seperation of church and state.
5. I am opposed to censorship. If an adult wants to look at naked people they should be allowed to.
6. I support stem cell research

If I could only trust the Democrats with taxes, the economy, defense, spending, and welfare they would get a lot more of my votes. Considering that the GOP has been spending like a drunken sailor the past 6 years that one is a push for both parties.

 

Partially correct; the summary of the new report is already available, and most definitely does express a great deal of certainty.

Well, not certainty per se; 'very likely', 'highly probable,' and so on. But that's no different than, say, gravity.

Point being, while the report ain't out, the summary probably ain't too far off.

 

I haven't got the expertise to discuss global warming thoroughly, but what I'd like to stress in every global climate discussion is the weather patterns going haywire and the possible reasons to why it is happening. The main factor affecting weather patterns is very likely global warming, but there is one other very significant factor of which there is little knowledge as of yet. Increased precipitation might be explained by increased evaporation caused by the rise in global temperature, but although it is a viable explanation it still doesn't take enough of one certain other factor into account.

Deforestation. On a massive scale not seen before in the course of human history.

Forests contain water. Huge amounts. Not only as a part of their biomass, but they condense moisture as well. It rains over the forests because of how they affect the local atmosphere. This works especially in highlands. Cut down the trees and local weather patterns change. But what else happens when the forests are no longer there to conatin the water? What happens when all the water contained by the cut down forests escapes into the atmosphere? Increased precipitation in other areas at least, flooding and a rise of the sea level, not to mention the possible effects on aircurrents. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and at least twice as strong as carbon dioxide.

It's all jolly well and good to talk about carbon dioxide emissions, but it also draws the attention from deforestation. These things have coincided: rise of the global temperature, rise of the CO2 emissions and deforestation. I'd like to say that deforestation might have even greater impact on global warming than CO2 emissions, but even if it doesn't it is a major factor and yet it does not gain the attention it would deserve.

We know that forests are a "global thermostat". We know that water vapor is a major greenhouse which the forests contain and much more efficiently than they contain CO2. We know this. Yet everyone's persistently talking mainly, if not only, about CO2 emissions. Forests as CO2 "sinks"? To quote Barms here: Bollocks. There's even research conflicting this paradigm. But it is absolutely certain that forests are extremely important in how they regulate water circulation on the ground and in the atmosphere locally, but also on a global scale.

Makes you almost wonder if the talk about CO2 emissions is a ruse to keep the eyes away from something more alarming, because in every discourse the things that aren't talked about might be the ones that are really important. Dependency on oil and coal is one thing, but human civilization and economy if not human survival are and have always been dependent on forests and what they provide. And even if there wouldn't be global warming at all, deforestation by itself is a major problem that needs a lot of attention.

This is my Thanks for hearing me out.

 

"To clarify some of the confusion. I do give credence that mankind does have an effect on the environment. I do not beleive that mankind is without blame for global warming and a slew of other concerns. I just do not believe that everything is our fault and that we should cripple our industries and economies for no other reason than the hysterical bleating of sheep. I do not follow lock-step with this "new religion" of "Man is to blame for everything."

I don't think many people would argue that it's all "our fault". However, if man is a significant factor, and if we can make a change (without completely messing our economies, by the way, few countries would support that) then it may be a responsible and ethical thing to do. Even if it were mostly natural, that doesn't mean that we should just roll with it. So far, the US has been one of the very few countries where the leaders have decided that they don't want even the small changes than the Kyoto protocol involves. Given the rest of the world hasn't gone into a complete depression yet, I can't help but think that what Kyoto entails won't be so devastating for neither industry nor economy. The movie, imo, basically makes the claim that the people - including, but not limited, to the US, and the governments should do more about it. Saying that it's not so because some of the scientific arguments aren't very good is imo ducking the issue. Sure some points will be weak. It's a movie for the mass audience, not a scientific review. It's supposed to raise awareness and call for change, not be used as a university-level textbook.

Iku-turso is right to point that GW and carbon dioxide are not the only things that matter in today's environment, of course. We need to take all of this seriously, and not cry wolf every time any business complains that it could do better if the whole thing wasn't so regulated. Yes, businesses have legitimate interests, but theirs aren't the only legitimate interests.

[ March 14, 2007, 11:55: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

I've been catching up with my old boss at the UNFCCC this morning and he told me, that at the last conference on climate change he attended, the US delegate said, quote: 'The American way of life is non negotiable.'

Increasing fuel efficiency, enforcing building standards and insulation to eliminate the need for air condition in hot areas, higher fuel and electricity taxation to force the citizens and industry to get serious about getting efficient, and forcing them to invest in new technology which will in return be good for the economy, while giving them tax benefits if they do - with the line above all that's off the table.