United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible
Source:
LA Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw ... imate-20110105,0,6481221.story
Published: Jan 5, 2011
Author: LA Times
Post Date: 2011-01-05 13:39:00 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 13089
Comments: 32
Reporting from Cambridge, Mass. — According to the conventional wisdom that liberals accept climate change and conservatives don't, Kerry Emanuel is an oxymoron. Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan. Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. "There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence," Emanuel said. "I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered." As a politically conservative climatologist who accepts the broad scientific consensus on global warming, Emanuel occupies a position shared by only a few scientists. In much the same role that marriage and abortion played in previous election cycles, denial of climate change has now become a litmus test for the right. The vast majority of Republicans elected to Congress during the midterm election doubt climate science, and senior congressional conservatives — Republican and Democrat — have vowed to fight Obama administration efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. That's why scientists such as Emanuel rattle the political pigeonholes. Some are speaking out, using their expertise and conservative credentials to challenge what many researchers consider widespread distortions about climate change. Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics. A physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website skepticalscience.com, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers' arguments. Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation. Emanuel waded into the fray early last year. He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing a friend and colleague for dismissing the evidence of climate change and clinging "to the agenda of denial." Then Emanuel added his name to the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a website run by scientists to provide accurate information from top researchers in climate-related fields. "I've always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact," said Emanuel, 55. "The people who call themselves conservative these days aren't conservative by my definition. I think they're quite radical." Paradoxically, over the last 40 years, it was conservative Republican administrations that pushed through the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the signing of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act. But today, most conservatives have lined up against scientists — and transformed what started out as a technical issue into one dominated by ideology and sometimes religion. "Kerry is a self-avowed conservative," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist who called Emanuel "a leading light" in the field. "But that has no bearing on his view that human-caused climate change is a reality — that, after all, is a scientific issue, not a political issue," he said. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 6% of scientists called themselves Republicans, compared with 55% who identified themselves as Democrats. A separate October 2009 Pew survey showed a marked decline from 18 months earlier in the number of people who accept global warming, with only a third of Republican respondents saying they saw solid evidence of climate change, the lowest percentage among any partisan group. "Conservatives tend to gravitate to skepticism because conservatives are inherently suspicious of an expanding government taking more and more of their money and liberty," wrote James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank in Chicago. "On the other hand, liberals tend to gravitate to alarmism because they have little fear of an expansive government and tend to welcome government replacing private individuals or corporations as key drivers of the global economy," he said. Emanuel dislikes applying the word "skeptic" to those who deny climate change. He says all scientists are skeptical; that's the nature of the field. His own innate skepticism meant that it took him longer than his colleagues to be persuaded of climate change, Emanuel said. He remembers thinking it ridiculous when a noted climatologist told Congress in 1988 that he was all but certain that the climate was changing. Yet, as analyses of climate data advanced through the 1990s and Emanuel found a relationship between hurricanes and climate change in his own work, he came to see a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Climate change deniers, including many in Congress, contend that because the science is not "settled," the government should not act to curtail greenhouse gases. "Scientists are being asked to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is an imminent danger before we as a society do anything," Emanuel said. "The parallel to that is saying, 'You won't buy property insurance unless I can prove to you that your house will catch on fire right now.' " Although more scientists are pushing back against climate change denial, Emanuel is not convinced it can help, given the corporate interests and the weight of the GOP arrayed against them. All of this is making him reconsider his political loyalties: For the first time in his life, he voted for a Democrat, Barack Obama, in 2008. "I am a rare example of a Republican scientist, but I am seriously thinking about changing affiliation owing to the Republicans' increasingly anti-science stance," he wrote in an e-mail. "The best way to elevate the number of Republican scientists is to get Republican politicians to stop beating up on science and scientists."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: go65 (#0)
LMAO! What a ridiculous thing to say. The climate is constantly changing. Little children learn this probably before they can speak about it. All this childish babble about "climate change" is truly a harbinger of an outbreak of some mass mental malady.
So when a Republican is diagnosed with cancer they don't do anything because "the body is always changing" Right?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
LOL!! What a ridiculous non sequitur!
no more ridiculous then saying "the climate is always changing" to dismiss global warming.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
He's a socialist. He doesn't use common-sense, facts or logic. His FAITH in big government to solve all problems, is without limit. You might as well be talking to the wall... His philosophy is succinctly stated by Agent Smith, in The Matrix: "Humans beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet...and we are the cure."
In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of their experience but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier. For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition. Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has a major oceanographic program to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal. Perhaps, the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so. http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/global-warming-greentech.html
And positioning oneself as a skeptic, even if means making up data (e.g. Fred Singer) gets you fame and fortune on Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. That's why I prefer to stick with the data. Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
That's why I prefer to stick with the manipulation of data.
i'm not much for grand conspiracy theories, sorry.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Just as an FYI: Wunsch wrote the following letter - dated march 11, 2007: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response I'd strongly urge you to find better sources of information.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
What conspiracy? It's a mere preservation of self interests.
I guess you missed that key point. Of course, he's going to protect his self interests, science notwithstanding. He's also on record as sying this: -- I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the climate wars because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise... I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality
I agree. Thanks for posting. There is a lot of debate over the impact of global warming, but about 90-97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is indeed warming as a result of human activities, including Carl Wunsch.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus Call it the global warming crackup, an unfolding process of contradictory claims about glaciers, weather, and scientists asserting a consensus when none exists. Global warming alarmists can't make up their minds because the entire basis for their energy rationing project has collapsed into a mess of errors, exaggerations, and deceit. Let me explain. The Obama administration said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the "gold standard" for climate science, yet now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator won't defend it. The IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now the IPCC has retracted several false claims concerning, among other things, rain forests shrinking, crops dying, and sea levels rising. We've been told weather is not to be confused with climate, except when you have heat waves or blizzards. We've been told cap-and-trade would create thousands of green jobs, yet the Congressional Budget Office, Department of Energy, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and others say it would mean a net loss of jobs. We are told that increasing levels of CO2 will increase temperature, yet the key scientist in the climategate scandal says there's been "no statistically significant warming" in the past 15 years—all while CO2 levels have increased. We've been told that there is an "indisputable consensus" that human-caused global warming is happening and pushing the planet to certain disaster. Yet that same scientist—Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, the foremost such center—now says that the vast majority of climate scientists don't agree on what the data are telling us. What's going on here? When thousands of E-mails were released from the Climatic Research Unit in November, we finally were able to pull back the veil of the so-called climate consensus. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have released a minority staff report that uses these E-mails to show that the world's leading climate scientists apparently discussed manipulating data to fit preconceived conclusions and pressuring journal editors not to publish scientific work contrary to their own. This would violate fundamental ethical principles guiding scientific (and taxpayer-funded) research and, our report points out, may violate federal laws. The E-mail controversy has been airily dismissed by the Obama administration as nothing more than scientists "lacking interpersonal skills." One Democratic senator called it a "little E-mail squabble." The evidence proves otherwise. At the center of the controversy were the same scientists who wrote and edited the IPCC's reports—the reports alarmists claim form the climate science "consensus." Moreover, those reports provide the critical basis for cap-and-trade legislation and the EPA's endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases. Yet climategate shows what I've asserted all along: The basis for those disastrous policies is flawed and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, that's not what EPA is doing. It wants $43.5 million in new funding to regulate greenhouse gases. This is seed money for the most economically destructive regulatory initiative in this nation's history. Back in 2005, I gave a speech urging reforms at the IPCC, trying to get the United Nations body to produce reliable, objective science. But the IPCC ignored my recommendations. And now, after several embarrassing gaffes—for example, stating falsely that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035—the calls for reform are deafening. My minority report shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus—except agreement there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It's time for the administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act—a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes, and economic decline. <
"Global warming"? Where have you been? The latest climate hysteria is talk of a new ice age.
I really think those who exhibit such "FAITH" do so out of irrational fear of not having someone take care of them. The thought of having to take care of themselves terrifies them. They will go along with any lunacy in an attempt to abate their fear.
It won't be much longer until the government collapses, and fools such as him get what they deserve: a slow and painful exit.
In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of their experience but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. I haven't heard that one yet, but there was a recent study showing drastic changes to the Laborador current over the last few decades: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTLiYHMTvCUgc976bcTsbW_dJxpg? docId=CNG.88503c7d39403d2c80d23e83925d2832.501
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
You are right, there is wide divergence as to the rate of, and impact of, global warming. But 97% of climate scientists do agree that the planet is warming, and that human activity is to blame. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
btw, with respect to "Climategate" Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Scientists-Shatter-the-Myth-Scientific-Consensus-Global-Warming.htm
The memos definitely indicated cult thinking rather than any true scientific research. There is no doubt they have cherry picked data to support a conclusion.
Six myths about "deniers" by Bill DiPuccio March 15, 2010 Global warming “deniers”: myth-conceptions abound They’ve been compared to “flat earthers” and even “Holocaust deniers”. And, as the recent “Climategate” email scandal reveals, they have been blacklisted in certain professional circles. Scientists who disagree with the current consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are dismissed by some colleagues and politicians as ignorant and irrelevant. Though there are certainly cranks out there who lend credence to this stereotype, not everyone who rejects the idea that global warming is a planetary crisis brought about by burning fossil fuels deserves to be vilified. There are numerous myths surrounding those who are wrongly labeled “deniers”. Most of them can be distilled into six basic accusations: 1. “Deniers” believe the climate has not warmed. No one questions that there has been a slight, but unmistakable increase in global temperature since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the early nineteenth century. Global average surface temperature has risen approximately 0.9°C since 1850. But not all scientists attribute this change to the human addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the air. Those who oppose the prevailing view on AGW point out that since temperatures began to increase well before CO2 levels were considered significant (c. 1940), a considerable part of this warming is due to natural variations in the climate. Such variations in the past have brought about abrupt climate changes with large swings in temperature. Numerous articles have appeared in scientific journals over the last several years documenting a warm bias in official temperature measurements. This bias, which may account for up to half of the reported warming, is due largely to changes in land cover—especially the geographic expansion of cities which creates “urban heat islands.” An ongoing survey of over 1000 climate reporting stations in the United States, shows that 69% are poorly sited resulting in errors of 2°C to 5°C or more (www.surfacestations.org). Surface data has also been impaired from station dropout. Over two-thirds of the world’s stations were dropped from the climate network around 1990. Most of them were colder, high latitude and rural stations. 2. “Deniers” are not real scientists. Some of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, physicists, astronomers, and geologists disagree with the current consensus on anthropogenic global warming. These include Richard Lindzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Roger Pielke Sr. (University of Colorado), Roy Spencer and John Christy (University of Alabama), Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), Robert Carter (James Cook University, Australia), Fred Singer (University of Virginia), Will Happer (Princeton University), and Nils-Axel Mörner (Stockholm University). In addition to these, there are hundreds of credentialed scientists at universities around the world who reject the hypothesis that CO2 induced warming dominates changes in earth’s climate system. Though science is not based on authority, the inclusion of such high profile scientists should raise red flags when advocates claim that the “science is settled.” 3. “Deniers” are a tiny minority of scientists. “Nay-sayers” are overshadowed by a vast majority of learned scientific bodies that support the consensus. But most scientific organizations, such as the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the National Academies of Science, do not poll their members. Decisions and position statements are made by a small group of officials at the top of the organization. This has created sharp unrest within some professional societies. The American Meteorological Society is a case in point. A recent survey of AMS broadcast meteorologists revealed that 50% of the respondents disagreed, and only 24% agreed, with the statement that, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” When asked if, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet,” only 19% agreed, while 62% disagreed (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Oct. 2009). As the number of those who oppose the consensus grows, it appears that the “deniers” are not a tiny minority as is often claimed. 4. “Deniers” are anti-environmental shills of Big Oil. Only a small number of scientists who challenge the current consensus have direct ties to the fossil fuel industry. Most are funded by university departments, governments, or private institutions. Many receive no funding at all. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence can unseat the deeply held belief among some, that opposition to the AGW hypothesis is part of a conspiracy funded by big oil. The underlying fear is that any scientific research subsidized by big corporate money will be compromised. But the blade cuts both ways. Climate research among those who espouse the prevailing view is supported by billions of dollars from government grants and green industries that have a vested interest in global warming. Why should research conducted or funded by environmental organizations and green energy be regarded as more reliable? Whether science is bought and sold by deep pockets, or made subservient to a political or philosophical ideology, the result is the same: Truth is compromised. 5. “Deniers” think CO2 is irrelevant. The issue is not whether CO2 is irrelevant, but, rather, how relevant is it? The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintains that CO2 induced warming dominates the climate system. They project that increasing emissions will result in a 2°C to 6°C rise in global average temperature by the year 2100. This has been widely misunderstood by the public to mean that energy absorbed and reradiated by atmospheric CO2 is the direct cause of the warming. In reality, the IPCC claims that CO2, acting alone, will result in only a 1.2°C rise in temperature. The rest depends on whether the climate amplifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) CO2 forcing. This is where the real dispute lies. Climate “sensitivity” is based on numerous interactions that are poorly understood. Scientists who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions are not contesting the fact that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming (.3°C according to more conservative estimates). They disagree with the science behind the water vapor feedback mechanisms that are said to amplify this warming on a global scale. The complex and chaotic processes underlying these mechanisms, especially as they relate to cloud formation and precipitation, exceed the limits of our knowledge. As a result, climate feedback is not simply the product of numerical calculations (“straightforward physics”) as is often supposed, but depends extensively on large scale estimates (parameterizations) by computer modelers. “Deniers” demand empirical proof and are quick to point out that the water vapor feedback hypothesis is poorly supported by hard evidence, and even contradicted by the absence of warming in both the oceans and the atmosphere over the last several years. In fact, some scientists (Lindzen, Spencer, etc.) theorize that water vapor and cloud cover act like a thermostat (negative feedback) to maintain the earth’s temperature in approximate equilibrium. 6. “Deniers” believe humans have no impact on climate. Scientists who challenge the status quo point out that we live in regional and local climates with vast differences in temperature and precipitation—differences that far outweigh changing global averages. Given these differences, the idea of “average global temperature” seems rather meaningless. More importantly, the human impact on climate is far greater at regional and local scales than it is on a global scale. These impacts include land use and land cover changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) and aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, reactive nitrogen, dust). Any one of these modifications can significantly alter temperature, evaporation, cloud cover, precipitation, and wind over a region—and perhaps beyond. Though the global surface area of agricultural land alone is greater than the size of South America, the IPCC has largely ignored the influence of land cover and aerosols on regional climates. Moreover, climate models have shown no skill in projecting regional climate changes decades in advance. But a wave of new research is forcing scientists to reevaluate the impact of these factors. Some have already concluded that the effect of CO2 has been overstated while regional changes in land use and aerosol pollution have been grossly underestimated. One recent study of U.S. climate has concluded that land use changes alone may account for 50% of the warming since 1950 (Environmental Science and Technology, December, 2009). “Deniers” vs. the “Consensus” Though “deniers” unanimously agree that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change, they represent a diversity of scientific viewpoints on issues of climate change, green energy, and the environment—perhaps a greater diversity than scientists who are in lock-step with the consensus. The Climategate scandal has exposed a concerted effort on the part of some IPCC scientists to enforce this consensus by denying access to crucial data and marginalizing anyone who questions the scientific basis of their conclusions. Stealthy tactics like this undermine scientific progress which depends on a robust exchange of information and ideas. Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. So it is ironic that those who have challenged the prevailing orthodoxy are regarded as outcasts. Fortunately, science is not settled by popular vote or authority, but by empirical evidence. History has not always vindicated the majority view or justified the assumed authority of “official science.” Consequently, it may be the “deniers”, rather than their opponents, who have the last word on global warming.
Again, if all you've got is "it's all a conspiracy" you've got nothing.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
they represent a small minority. Sorry. Oh, and Bill DiPuccio wrote in 2009 that global warming wasn't happening based on very short term evaluation of ocean temperatures, using a new system that was still being calibrated. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/ Reality: Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
It's hysterical that you can still get people to debate with you over a dead issue.
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
not everyone's mind is closed.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
not everyone's mind is so open their brains fall out.
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Scientists-Shatter-the-Myth-Scientific-Consensus-Global-Warming.htm
See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/ Who cares? Can you refute anything that was in the actual article?
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.) None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations-- What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming. "The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half- truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization." The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer- reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda." Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine As I continue to tell you, you really need to find better sources of information.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
true, in some cases brains already have fallen out (or weren't there in the first place). :-)
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible
#2. To: eskimo (#1)
LMAO! What a ridiculous thing to say. The climate is constantly changing. Little children learn this probably before they can speak about it. All this childish babble about "climate change" is truly a harbinger of an outbreak of some mass mental malady.
#3. To: go65 (#2)
#4. To: eskimo (#3)
LOL!! What a ridiculous non sequitur!
#5. To: eskimo (#3)
-- George Orwell, 1984 --
#6. To: go65 (#0)
Why can't you moonbats see this for the political shell game that it is?
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has a major oceanographic program to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal. Perhaps, the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.
#8. To: go65 (#7)
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
That's why I prefer to stick with the manipulation of data.
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature and ocean modelin
Oceanographer Carl Wunsch "complained he had been misled" with regard to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." He claimed that his interview "had been edited to look as though he was dismissing human-caused climate change."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-is-downright- dirty/2007/06/01/1180205508019.html
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
#11. To: go65 (#9)
i'm not much for grand conspiracy theories, sorry.
#12. To: go65 (#10)
but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has a major oceanographic program to worry about.
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#12)
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.
I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality
#14. To: go65 (#13)
90-97% of climate scientists agree that the planet is indeed warming as a result of human activities
#15. To: go65 (#4)
no more ridiculous then saying "the climate is always changing" to dismiss global warming.
#16. To: Capitalist Eric (#5)
His FAITH in big government to solve all problems, is without limit.
#17. To: eskimo (#16)
I really think those who exhibit such "FAITH" do so out of irrational fear of not having someone take care of them. The thought of having to take care of themselves terrifies them.
-- George Orwell, 1984 --
#18. To: eskimo (#15)
"Global warming"? Where have you been? The latest climate hysteria is talk of a new ice age.
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#14)
Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#14)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Climategate
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
Summary
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
#21. To: go65 (#19)
#22. To: go65 (#20)
(Edited)
#23. To: go65 (#20)
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#22)
The memos definitely indicated cult thinking rather than any true scientific research. There is no doubt they have cherry picked data to support a conclusion.
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
(Edited)
Though “deniers” unanimously agree that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change, they represent a diversity of scientific viewpoints on issues of climate change, green energy, and the environment—perhaps a greater diversity than scientists who are in lock-step with the consensus.
#26. To: go65 (#25)
blah blah blah no really!!! The sky is falling!!!!!!!
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#27. To: Wood_Chopper (#26)
It's hysterical that you can still get people to debate with you over a dead issue.
#28. To: go65 (#27)
not everyone's mind is closed.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#29. To: go65 (#25)
they represent a small minority
#30. To: go65 (#25)
Oh, and Bill DiPuccio wrote in 2009 that global warming wasn't happening based on very short term evaluation of ocean temperatures, using a new system that was still being calibrated.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#29)
(Edited)
Case Study: The Oregon Petition
More: "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet: As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
#32. To: Wood_Chopper (#28)
not everyone's mind is so open their brains fall out.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]