Feb 08 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « Gamma rays from monster stars || Buzz Aldrin on the Al Murray show »
Can it be? The White House lying about science?
Ask Chris Mooney. He caught them red-handed, lying about the President’s stance on global warming.
It’s this simple, folks: the White House lies about science. Every time? Maybe not, but having spent time in Vegas I can tell you it’s the the way to bet. Over and over again, we see them manipulating the truth (i.e. lying) whenever some scientific evidence (fact) comes out that goes against whatever policy (insanity) they are promoting (shilling).
In science, a basic premise is "Assume a statement is false and investigate". This works well when dealing with the natural world, so you can make sure you’re not fooling yourself. It’s time — way, way past time– for everyone to apply this to all aspects of life.
Especially anything this Administration says. It really is that simple.
Some of my more feverent anti-Bush friends have been commenting lately on how much more mellow the president has seemed since his party lost control of Congress. Maybe if they read this story, they will realize it’s all just pandering to make the president seem like he is trying to change.
Politicians lie! News at 11!
Seriously — I like your blog a lot, but this anti-Republican crap is really annoying. Just because I, you know, accept scientific evidence about the natural world, I’m supposed to accept unnecessary government interference in my life, pacifism and ignoring the threat of terrorism, overly-sensitive political correctness, and everything else that goes along with being a Democrat? (Yes I’m exaggerating and stereotyping here, but so are you in your anti-Republican posts.)
What do you expect from leaders who get their marching orders from ancient prophesies? Science is damned inconvenient, not just Al Gore. Policy first, build up your case from whatever you can grab or distort. Suppress dissent.
I think the white furred leader caste from ‘The Mote in God’s Eye’ had a similar way of doing things. And historical kings here on Earth. With a little help from like leadership in Iran, perhaps we are well on the way to our own series of ‘cycles’.
Planetary bombardment, anyone (a.k.a. No Child Left Behind)?
I wish I could believe that this is surprising or shocking. In deference to “none” who feels that this is a political issue, I can only offer a link to a section from the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists - http://ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html. This is good reading to anyone who wishes to chronicle our descent into the abyss.
It looks like the period at the end of the sentence goobered the previous link - it should be:
http://ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html
None -> So you are saying that the bush administration has reduced the threat of terrorism and governmental influence? ’cause to me it looks like he has sacrificed the rights of the citizen in the name of fighting terrorism, but only really managed to hollow out the constitution like a pumpkin.
I’m all for small government, but I don’t think Bush is. Not to mention that the guy is the intellectual equivalent of a monkey. And not one of those cleaver monkeys that can do sign language and problem solving, but one of those little annoying ones that wear bellhop uniforms and steal fruit in Indiana Jones movies.
We can concentrate on the ‘ignoring science’ aspect of this particular subject (as I’m sure most skeptics will certainly do) but I believe the truly important issue here is truth, or lack thereof. We have, over the last six years, caught this administration in lie after lie after lie. Time and again they (the Bush administration) look America ‘in the eye’ and tell us blatant untruths. Folks like Chris Mooney, Phil Plait, Penn Jillette and (many, many) others seem to point out new examples of this behavior each and every day and yet no one holds them (Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc) accountable.
I often wonder how these folks who allegedly hold ‘christian values’ in such high regard can justify this behavior. If my children behaved this way, I’d consider myself a failure as a parent and would have to turn them in myself.
None,
Phil doesn’t say “Republican” once in this post. Unless you conflate the Bush Administration White House with all Republicans and then conflate all Republicans to be lying, anti-science shills for industry, then there is no way this post is even remotely anti-Republican. It’s an anti-anti-science post. Phil has said time and again this is a science (and occasionally otherstuff blog) and this is pertinent information in educating the public about what is going on with science in the U.S. and the world today.
This Bush administration has been caught red-handed stiffling science, intimidating scientists, and lying about known scientific findings and their stance on those findings. Phil and others have documented these facts pretty thoroughly. Now, if you want to claim that ALL Republicans are, in fact, in the thrall of the Bush Administration, that Bush and his administration are “THE Republicans” (capitalization intended), or it is simply the official Republican stance to be anti-science and all Republicans are therefore anti-science; then claiming that attacking the lies, deciept, and deceptions of those anti-science supporters could be considered anti-Republican…. but, I think such a position would say more about your thought processes and views of the Republican party than the BA’s.
It might be fair to raise the question: are we beating a dead horse here? The Bush Administration is anti-science. OK. We get it. How is this different from any other politician?
How about the flurry of “lights in the sky” sightings lately? Need some debunking there. The media is still reporting the previous event in Arizona as mysterious, even though it was proven to be military flares.
I don’t think Phil is exaggerating here. I think most of us might feel a bit of a defensive instinct kick in when our group is criticized. I criticize the republicans a lot, and I think I usually have a pretty good reason for it. I also know, being from Minnesota, where our republican Senator, Norm Coleman, and republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty, don’t always agree with the Bush administration, that not all republican are such mindless followers.
It concerns me a lot, and I mean a lot, that people in power would intentionally lie (yes, lie), and distort facts to get us to go along with them. I’ve said: let the scientists do the science, and the “experts” do their jobs, and if you disagree- give us your best reason, and we’ll decide whether or not to buy it. It’s clear, in the case of Bush’s defiance of the Iraq study group’s recommendation, and his ignoring of the vast majority of scientists on climate change, that he disagrees. Without the “political capitol” he used to have, people just aren’t buying it any more. The sad part, really, isn’t that he disagrees, but that he isn’t even digging up real scientific data to back up his position, but is resorting to this sort of crap.
Nobody is claiming that the democrats are saints or indeed any politician. It is just that this administration has made it an explicit strategy to play down science (mostly liberal) and to play for the christian vote. They needed to make science look bad to scare the christian moderates into voting for them. It worked. If the next election is won by a Democrate he will get the same scrutiny hopefully.
Rich, et al. None is showing what I originally called the Rules of Conservative Correctness (before changing to Neoconservative - having read REAL Conservative books such as Conscience of a Conservative). It’s Rule 14, Take Everything Personally.
These were developed in the early days of Neocons - about the mid 90’s - when I watched various ‘debates’ on BBSes, and examined the techniques they were using.
This particular one came when I was watching one flame session where the ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ were calling each other Bigots. I posted To:ALL the definition of the term bigot. I was immediately flamed, saved the comments, then posted the whole ‘debate’, and noted that it was ONLY the Neocons who attacked me, since the ‘liberals’ knew it was a general post.
J/P=?
“It might be fair to raise the question: are we beating a dead horse here?”
Frankly I think that this horse is very much alive, and if we don’t keep beating it, it will get away.
Yes Bush is Anti-Science, but if we just roll over and take it, thinking that there is nothing we can do anyway, he will contine to ravage the environment, the economy and the Constitution.
Yes, this is a science blog, so Phil slams Bush everytime he sticks his foot in his mouth over science issues. Would you rather he didn’t?
“Oops, Bush just said he is so anti global warming that he is going to nuke Kyoto (the city, not the policy). Oh, well, not much we can do about it.”
“That darn Bush, he is now anti Gravity, and is locking up every scientist who belives in it. That wacky guy, but what can we do?”
Give ‘em hell, Phil!!!
Phil, the politics here is rather tiresome. Sure it’s fun to score points at some politician you don’t like, but the blog you posted a link to makes a rather weak case for “lying” as opposed to “speaking quickly and approximately during a single interview”.
Please, just keep the personal froth away from the science. Even when you perceive some sort of insult, you can rise above it. Please.
Bear in mind Phil has gone on record REPEATEDLY that he will criticize any politician who is blatantly anti-science, regardless of that politician’s party affiliations. Also, the Bush administration is currently in power… what’s the point of slamming politicians that aren’t in power, other than to bring them up as a precedent for things that occurred and may have set the stage for what’s going on now? We can’t go back and change the past, but we can try to do something about the present, and possibly try to prevent bad things from happening in the future by taking action NOW.
That idea transcends politics, parties, and individuals, but can & should be applied to ANY individual who’s in a position to influence policy decisions. That’s why it gets brought up here, especially when it affects science policies.
“Assume a statement is false and investigate”.
This has not occurred when it comes to global warming. If anyone presents contrary evidence (such as the fact that the Vikings weren’t being ironic when they named Greenland), they are shouted down.
Frank: nope. I won’t. This site is about attacking antiscience, and politics is too big and too important an arena for it.
Folks, how many times do I have to say this? This site is about many things, not just one. I will say things that will inevitably tick off some people no matter what I say, so I’m going to say the things that need to be said, and I’m not going to worry if someone gets offended, or someone misreads totally what I am saying as an anti-Republican bashing (how many times am I going to have to debunk that?), or if someone is tired of the politics. If you’re tired of the political bashing here, then go out and help fix things so we don’t have to bash it anymore.
Still and all, this blog — my blog — is about science, and that means it’s about people who attack science. That’s one of the many things I do, and it’s one of the many things I will continue to do, because it’s one of the most important things I do, and one of the most important things I can do.
I cannot make it any clearer than that.
> Still and all, this blog — my blog — is about science, and that means it’s about people who attack science.
Fair enough, but please apply the same skeptical rigour at such accusations as you would at a drier scientific topic.
Well, damn, Phil. I was going to leave a little comment saying:
“So Phil is not allowed to have an opinion on his own blog. Interesting. You know there is a difference between stating your opinion in debate form and basically telling someone to shut up in so many words. Bill O’Reilly, anyone?”
…but you beat me to it.
Well, despite my ‘dissappeared’ post, I’m glad to see the blog entry on the very same thing. I fired off a post in the suppression of climate science blog after seeing an incredulous press conference where the Energy Secretary and a couple people heading other departments like the EPA were discussing the world’s climate change scientific consensus announcement. The Energy Secretary must have said Bush was pro-science 20 times. (rule #6 repeat, repeat repeat) He announced how Bush knew global warming was real (that part is possible) all along but was just waiting for better science. This pro-science Bush had supposedly invested millions (of our tax dollars) in the best climate model research computers in the world and it had finally paid off. They even claimed people who denied the pro-science Bush were “trying to re-write history.” (Rule #1, attack first. Makes the opponent’s attack look like the contrived one.)
I ranted my thoughts as my mouth dropped and stayed in that shocked reaction for quite a while. The post was frank, of course, and calling this contradictory to the evidence I invited Republican supporters such as “none”
none Says:
… this anti-Republican crap is really annoying. [snip] I’m exaggerating and stereotyping here, but so are you in your anti-Republican posts.
to show me the evidence I was wrong.
The spam filter or other mod. action blocked the post as it was gone the next day. So I repeat the invitation, if this is just gratuitous Bush bashing, show me the evidence. Point out where Phil’s blog entries present unsupported conclusions when discussing the anti-science actions of Bush and the Republican leadership.
Republicans are breaking rank, by the way, suggesting not all of them stand behind the actions of this administration. It’s about time they spoke up.
Quiet_Desperation Says:
It might be fair to raise the question: are we beating a dead horse here? The Bush Administration is anti-science. OK. We get it. How is this different from any other politician?
In scope and in consequences.
And it isn’t just the anti-science stuff here. Spin is one thing. Complete disregard for truth, making claims that are so blatantly false they insult the American people is a dangerous precedent and shouldn’t be ignored. People hear what they want to hear even if it is completely false. Someone has to call attention to it or it seeps into the public consciousness and undermines attempts to improve critical thinking skills and to build trust in evidence and the scientific process.
John Paradox Says:
‘None’ is showing what I originally called the Rules of Conservative Correctness (before changing to Neoconservative - having read REAL Conservative books such as Conscience of a Conservative). It’s Rule 14, Take Everything Personally.
These were developed in the early days of Neocons - about the mid 90’s - when I watched various ‘debates’ on BBSes, and examined the techniques they were using.
And the press conference and Tony Snow’s snow job is rule #2. Take whatever your critics can use against you and claim, even if blatantly false, that you are the opposite. Make the claim first, not as a reply or in defense of criticism.
Rule #1 is attack your opponent with the attack they could use against you. These 2 rules were the basis of portraying Kerry as a deserter and Bush as the war hero. The Swift Boat lies and attack on the messenger, Dan Rather, came from this rule book.
Expect a campaign portraying the Democrats as the anti-science party in the very near future.
Frank Ch. Eigler Says:
Fair enough, but please apply the same skeptical rigour at such accusations as you would at a drier scientific topic.
And your observations which support that hasn’t been done are???????
The key here is to remember the influence of political philosopher Leo Strauss, the father of neoconservatism, on this administration. Yes, every administration distorts the truth and lies, but it’s usually through craven cowardice. With this administration, which is run by neoconservatives, lying is a noble and necessary pursuit. Why? Because Strauss and the neocons are fundamentally anti-democratic Platonists.
If you recall your Philosophy 101, Plato believed the masses were not capable of handling the “void” of meaning in human existence. He claimed that lies and myths were necessary to keep society held together. In the case of global warming, the need for the lies is obvious. Science is secondary to the greater political project of creating reality for the elites, by the elites, in the image of those worthy of handling the truth.
Of course, you and I see how short-sighted such a position is when it comes to science. But neocons are very much the truest of true believers. They do not necessarily believe their lies, but they believe IN their lies. As long as they control government, science (and reality itself) is at risk. Phil understands this, and it’s to his credit that he continues to fight the Straussian agenda.
“Assume a statement is false and investigateâ€.
This has not occurred when it comes to global warming. If anyone presents contrary evidence (such as the fact that the Vikings weren’t being ironic when they named Greenland), they are shouted down.
Do you really think that’s the way the scientific community has studied global warming? That really would be remarkable. Discussions in the public forum are a little different, of course.
Statements made by the preponderance of experts in a solid field (history, the sciences, etc.), though not those in more opinion-dominated areas such as political science, need to be given a certain amount of weight by us laypeople. It’s entirely reasonable to accept that the Holocaust happened, or that smoking is unhealthy, or that germs cause diseases, on the basis that the experts in those fields have overwhelmingly come to those conclusions. OTOH, it’s also entirely reasonable to investigate those questions yourself to see if the conclusions are right. But, if you want to counter the conclusions of experts, you’ll have to provide good, solid evidence that they’re wrong. Your evidence will be subject to scrutiny as well, and it will be evaluated–if there are reasons to believe it’s suspect (such as that there are conflicts of interest involved–for instance, a few years ago when all the studies that showed smoking was harmless were funded by the tobacco companies, and the other studies showed it is), your claims won’t be accepted. You can always try again, of course.
But back to the point: what I’m trying to say is that the weight of evidence from the independent, international scientific community seems to be that global warming is happening–while much of the evidence against it seems to be tainted by conflict of interest. It may be that global warming isn’t happening or is being seriously overhyped, but assuming it’s a real issue is the reasonable assumption at this point. I personally would be really happy, and relieved, if it were found that global warming isn’t actually happening–but solid evidence needs to produced to convince me of that.
Phil said: “If you’re tired of the political bashing here, then go out and help fix things so we don’t have to bash it anymore.”
Well, I’d like to clarify that I have no problem with Phil’s Bush posts. I hate Bush and his anti-science BS. Go Phil!
I was just wondering if there’s a point anymore?
For example, what exactly am I supposed to go out and do to “fix things?” I design satcom equipment. Who’s going to listen to me on stem cells or global warming?
Bush’s polls are about as low as they can conceivably get given recognition of ideological barriers. There’s probably a 30% to 35% support base where it would take the philosophical equivalent of an asteroid strike to break through the stubborn synapses. It’s a diminishing return.
Pretty much everyone who is going to is counting down the days to the next election.
skeptigirl said: “People hear what they want to hear even if it is completely false.”
And it’s been that way since, well, since there were words for people to hear. If you have some new methodology to share about how to blast through people’s mental meme-armor, then please share. I have a couple hopeless cases in my circle of acquaintances that have fought me to a draw.
We can’t count on the school system to teach critical thinking. That’s so broken it’s not funny anymore, and all the politicians can come up with is tossing more dollars into the money pit.
At one time life itself (the School O’ Hard Knocks, baby!) might teach some amount of wisdom, but in this culture of “You are not responsible for any mistake you make” that’s all gone to vapor.
So maybe we need to focus on what can be done rather than this weeks business as usual report from Pennsylvania Avenue.
I think, for me, it’s just a feeling of hopelessness. There seems to be nothing in thiw world that isn’t infected with utter idiocy, and I get sort of apathetic and wonder if there’s a point? Or should I just keep my head down, sock away the overtime, and reture early to a cabin in the woods somewhere.
Quiet_D,
If I had more comfort in the rigors of scientific thought I would teach a community class at the local library, open it up to the public. Go door to door and drop off fliers to my neighborhoods and nearby neighborhoods.
Pick a specific topic and research the hell out of it and be ready to answer tough questions and be ready to say, “I don’t know but I’ll try and find out.”
I believe that most people out there are suspicious of science because of the way science is portrayed in the media which is THE only way many of them even see a story on science.
If people were to meet someone who explains what it is and is not and discusses a topic face to face, and is willing to answer questions, this might be more effective than bemoaning current existence on a webblog. No offense to those who are bemoaning our current existence.
Also, has anyone here called up a church, or temple or synagogue and offered to teach a group of people or explain about global warming or evolution or whatever topic you have some expertise in? Not an accusation but a suggestion that the people who worship a god, who are voting for someone who doesn’t appear to understand or want to understand the science of things, may be willing to listen to someone who goes to them to explain it?
The above may sound Pollyannah-ish but…If you have I’d love to hear about it.
Of course Quiet_D, the scientist would say there IS no point, in the end, 10 trillion years from now, it all succumbs to entropy.
How ’bout we apply some science and assume Chris Mooney’s “…statement is false and investigate”, as the BA suggests?
Chris asserts, among other things, that a recent White House letter concerning Bush’s record on climate change “…provides a skewed and misleading quotation from Bush’s 2001 speech on global warming, so as to suggest it endorses the scientific consensus.” The quote in question is:
“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” - June 11, 2001
Chris says that “…the “increase” being referred to here is clearly the increase in greenhouse gase concentrations, not the increase in temperature. Read in full what Bush actually said, and you’ll quickly see how deceptive the White House is being, by literally misquoting the president himself”
The context from the speech is:
“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
Yet, the Academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.”
I believe Chris is right that the increase referred to is CO2 and not temperature, however the 2nd paragraph lays out the logical case for AGW, without stating the (obvious) conclusion.
1. Greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth.
2. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially.
3. The increase in concentration is largely due to human activity.
4. Unstated conclusion - human activity is warming the earth.
While the quote is not precise, I believe it sums up the intent of the paragraph quite nicely.
The president goes on to discuss some of the uncertainties in the science in the last two paragraphs above (which are discussed in the NAS Report). Sounds like a reasonable summary of the consensus at the time to me.
Then he says:
“The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.
There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they’re created. And there are problems with both approaches.”
and
“Our country, the United States is the world’s largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world’s economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story — that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.
This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.
Kyoto also failed to address two major pollutants that have an impact on warming: black soot and tropospheric ozone. Both are proven health hazards. Reducing both would not only address climate change, but also dramatically improve people’s health.
Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it’s not sound public policy.”
You may not agree with his policy choices, but I don’t think you can say denied or ignored the issue. Links to the speech are at Mr. Mooney’s site. You should read the whole speech. Methinks this is much ado about nothing.
p.s. sorry for the length.
Ed Minchau: “This has not occurred when it comes to global warming. If anyone presents contrary evidence (such as the fact that the Vikings weren’t being ironic when they named Greenland), they are shouted down.”
You might be interested in reading this article. I wouldn’t quite call this “shouting down” legitimate arguments.
Quiet_Desperation says: I think, for me, it’s just a feeling of hopelessness. There seems to be nothing in thiw world that isn’t infected with utter idiocy, and I get sort of apathetic and wonder if there’s a point? Or should I just keep my head down, sock away the overtime, and reture early to a cabin in the woods somewhere.
My response (to anyone) is, fight the good fight! And there’s two aspects to approaching that.
The first is, don’t expect to see immediate results. Getting someone to change to critical thought takes time, and lots of little bits chipping away. Say your piece, calmly and matter-of-factly, and let it go. Point out the error in logic, the contradiction, or the less-than-ideal behavior, confidently and clearly. You’re planting a seed.
The second is, don’t attack; inform. Phil’s good at communicating the delight and wonder in science, and so is Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and of course Carl Sagan. Their approach isn’t so much to define sides or argue, but to show just how freaking cool this is. Science and critical thought are often perceived as everything from stuffy and lifeless to agenda-driven cults - any ‘offensive’ approach will add to these concepts. Instead show, wherever possible, the positive aspect of things, an alternate approach that isn’t about partisanship.
Not gonna say this is always easy to do, and don’t look at me as an example, but…
As Bob outlined above, Bush’s approach to the Kyoto included the basic message of “They’re not doing it, so we’re not gonna do it” (And yes, there were other factors as well, but this is clearly his first message). We are the nation in the world most capable of implementing controls over emissions, and able to do it without economic harm - the income levels of most US corporations, especially between executive level and laborer, indicate a lot of superfluous income. This is what you point out. Pandering to Big Business vs. setting an example on global responsibility - what does the moral person choose?
And while perhaps the Kyoto Protocol wasn’t the most practical approach to doing it, there’s nothing stopping anyone from suggesting alterations to Kyoto, is there?
So no one can prove that global warming is anthropogenic? Who cares? Put a ceiling on it now before we advance it to the point where it is proven. It sure isn’t going to get better with increases.
There might even be some Democrat votes to be gathered on the way
Just my 2 pfennigs.
{Rich} Phil doesn’t say “Republican†once in this post…. there is no way this post is even remotely anti-Republican. It’s an anti-anti-science post…. {/Rich}
Hear, hear!
In reply to “none”:
Staunchly maintained, stubbornly defended ignorance (the only true stupidity, IMO) knows no party affiliation. Just look at old-school Southern segregationist Democrats like Jesse Hell, Sperm Thurmonkey, and George Wall-to-Wall-Ass. Or the aptly-named Know-Nothing Party.
OTOH, neither do intelligence and good sense. Such Republican names as Henry Cabot Lodge, Nelson Rockefeller, Margaret Chase Smith, and Jacob Javits come to mind. Class acts with independent minds, all of ‘em. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who hit the nail right on the head when he coined the phrase “military-industrial complex.” (How’s that for a former Supreme Allied Commander and then-current Commander-in-Chief, warning the nation about a world threat involving our own military? 50 years ago, yet!) Gerald Ford, whose low-key style may well have been the best thing that could possibly have happened to the Presidency in the wake of the Nixon debacle (possibly excepting the part where he let his former boss off the hook). And some funny-looking guy - what was his name, Abe? - from somewhere out west……..
Personally, I’m a flaming liberal bordering on socialist. (Blame it on my faith; this pesky thing keeps coming up about caring for “the least of these.” OK, I’ve just outed myself as a person of both faith and science. So sue me.) But that doesn’t mean I buy into the all-or-nothing, my-party-right-or-wrong-and-it’s-never-wrong business, or that I don’t know a political class act when I see one, regardless of party label.
Or its opposite either. G-Dub-the-Shrub and his stubbornly ignorant, borderline paranoid gang are definitely the opposite, and would still be so even if they called themselves Democrats, Whigs, Tories, Free-Soilers, Bull Moose, or even Rhinoceri (which they resemble alarmingly at times).
At least they’re consistent.
They decided someone “over there” was a “threat” to us, and chose to construe a horrible thing a small group of someones from “over there” did over here as “war” (as opposed to the crime of a few twisted minds that it really was, to be roundly condemned as such by every decent person and nation in the world), and to go after someone “over there” even if it was the wrong someone - and worse, knowing for a fact that at least one of them was the wrong someone, and never mind if we piss off more twisted minds in the process and make the world less, not more, safe as a result.
In a similar manner, they decided some science is a “threat” to our awl-Amurrican religion (God and Country, and not necessarily in that order, but they’re usually so mooshed together that “order” is irrelevant), so let’s go after science in general, even the parts of it that are doing demonstrable good, or even showing promise, for the world.
Bad religion, bad politics, bad science. Gaak. Or should I say “Quack”? It certainly walks/talks/acts like that particular duck.
Quite an ironic turnaround from the very Republican Eisenhower years, during which education, and science education in particular, became a priority in the interest of national strength and defense, and public funding of scientific research started taking off. (Most of us probably associate that with Kennedy, but to a great extent he was riding his predecessor’s wave as it crested.) In a sense, the Republicans gaveth, and now other Republicans are trying like hell to taketh away.
{Phil} In science, a basic premise is “Assume a statement is false and investigate”. {/Phil}
This one definitely belongs on the “Basic Concepts in Science” list that’s taking shape over at Evolving Thoughts (http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/02/basic_concepts_in_science_a_li.php). IMO, one of the things any such list needs most desperately is a “Basic Concepts of DOING Science” section, some place we can send people who haven’t much of a clue as to the mechanics of how scientists, and science itself, work. The general public will never have a snowball’s chance on a warmer planet of understanding what science is saying without at least having a vague idea what science IS (and isn’t).
[Steps down from soapbox and walks back into the crowd so the next person can have his/her say.]
Well said! Why do so many Bush apologists think “Yeah, but the other side did it too,” is a defense? Btw, I have no party affiliation; stupid is stupid, no matter what the label. Party loyalty is destroying this country.
One reason the “science” of climate change is not universally accepted is that its prominent promoters, like Al Gore, are not obviously qualified in terms of scientific training and are all too obviously promoting a political agenda to increase the power of government and restrict individual liberty. The strategy of “no honest person can disagree with us, therefore anyone who disagrees is lying” seems to be paramount in Phil’s original post as well as many of the comments. The science challenge is complex - not simply to document climate change, or even to assess the impact of human activity on climate, but to predict the impact of changes in human activity on future climate change. It is not lying to say that the science is not settled; it is certainly not lying to say that any prescribed solution (CAFE standards, carbon taxes, global nuclear war, whatever) might not have the expected impact on climate change and will certainly have unintended consequences. Whether it is better to take the risk of of those consequences in the hope of some benefit in terms of climate change is a valid policy issue; calling anyone who opposes a particular policy a liar, an idiot, or worse does more damage to the speaker’s credibility than to the target of their name-calling.
The claim “the science is settled” refers to the certainty we have that global warming is a) real and b) heavily anthropogenically influenced. This is to counter claims from certain organizations and individuals who are attempting to cast undue doubt on these facts. Few scientists are claiming that the future effects of global warming are certain. In fact, most scientists are saying much more research needs to be done before satisfactory conclusions can be drawn, which is why these low funding issues mentioned on this site are relevant to this topic.
As for the politics of dealing with global warming, it’d be great if the private sector would deal with mitigation and adaptation so that the government doesn’t have to get involved. Unfortunately, if that doesn’t happen, that doesn’t leave us with too many non-government options. You dig? Corporations have at least shown a hint of initiative, but they need to show a lot more in the near future.
Chris Mooney is calling the President a liar because on the one hand he has acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem, and on the other hand Bush has stated there is a debate over whether global warming is “manmade or naturally causedâ€.
So where’s the lie? Both statements are true, and not contradictory.
A) Yes, humans are contributing to global warming. (Still debating how much)
And,
B) Yes, there is debate whether or not humans are the CAUSE. Would the Earth be warming if we weren’t here?
I think the lie is in this thing we call a Scientific Consensus. It seems by claiming a consensus has been reached, it implies that the facts are in and there’s no need for further debate. The left wing media loves this because it’s given them the ammunition to attack any scientists that come out with a dissenting viewpoint, no matter how respected they might be in their field.
Bob, I read that differently than you did.
The context from the speech is:
“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
No. For instance,
He’s questioning the role of natural fluctuations vs. human causes.
He’s questioning the effectiveness of our efforts. Our attempt to reduce sulfer has possibly increased warming because sulfer reflects sunlight. That doesn’t read to me as an acknowledgment of anthropic warming, that reads to me as a criticism of taking actions and getting unexpected negative results.
The president goes on to discuss some of the uncertainties in the science in the last two paragraphs above (which are discussed in the NAS Report). Sounds like a reasonable summary of the consensus at the time to me.
This doesn’t read as an acknowledgement of anthropic change, it reads as a call for limiting response. Only two ways, and both are problematic.
Now maybe there’s some legitimate reservations about Kyoto, its fairness and effectiveness. But I don’t see it accepting Climate Change or AGW. It is an argument to avoid doing anything. “Wait for more data, wait for better understanding of what our actions will do, wait until everyone else will do the same thing.”
“I wouldn’t quite call this “shouting down†legitimate arguments.”
Oh yeah? How’s this:
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
The IPCC delivered a (political) summary on climate change, but is withholding the actual science behind the summary for another three months. And, if any of the science in there contradicts the summary (which apparently, much of it does), then that science will simply be changed to align with the summary. This is the sort of behavior that would have the SEC breathing down a company’s neck if they did it in a business report.
http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
Irishman,
Thanks for your comments. You may be right. He may have been just been looking for ways to justify stalling (drastic) action on CO2 reduction. However, since I tend to agree with the rationale in the speech, I prefer to assume he had more altruistic motives:)
Re. your comments:
He’s questioning the role of natural fluctuations vs. human causes.
and
He’s questioning the effectiveness of our efforts. Our attempt to reduce sulfer has possibly increased warming because sulfer reflects sunlight. That doesn’t read to me as an acknowledgment of anthropic warming, that reads to me as a criticism of taking actions and getting unexpected negative results.
He’s reporting on the uncertainties listed in the NAS report (to justify his policy choices listed later in the report)
The president said:
While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.
There are only two ways to stabilize concentration of greenhouse gases.
You said:
This doesn’t read as an acknowledgement of anthropic change, it reads as a call for limiting response.
It is a straightforward acknowledgement of anthropic climate change. He’s saying even though there are uncertainties (in degree and what constitutes a dangerous change), we know enough to start addressing the problem (greenhouse gases).
I think you probably just don’t agree with his approach to solving the problem. Here’s my take on his stance from the speech.
1. AGW is real and needs to be addressed.
2. There are still uncertainties in the science - we’re not sure how much is anthropic and how much is natural, and where the line is between dangerous and not so bad.
His policy -
1. Reduce the scientific uncertainties by increasing funding for models, research, observations, etc (per NAS recommendations)
2. Kyoto won’t fix the problem.
3. We currently don’t have a good solution to the problem, so start with the easy stuff, like conservation, efficiency etc.
Hmm. Sounds like the typical government response to most problems…
Ed Minchau: “The IPCC delivered a (political) summary on climate change, but is withholding the actual science behind the summary for another three months.”
Here is a good resource for understanding the process behind the SPM and the actual reports themselves. They aren’t “withholding” the science. Each chapter in the report has to be reviewed and finalized, and this process takes time. Much of that editing involves changing wording and phrasing to make the report more readable by the audience, rather than changing the contents themselves. That’s what’s meant by making the report “match” the summary; they are editing the wording to match the parlance of the SPM, which was completed first. They could have just as well chosen to release everything in one big glob in April, but given that the report is based on science done over several years, it is highly unlikely that the main thrusts of each chapter would be greatly changed while final revisions are being make.
It’s kind of like how many scientists writing papers release abstracts about the paper before completely finishing the final publishable version. Even if the paper itself isn’t finalized, the bulk of the work behind the paper is already finished, and isn’t going to change significantly.
Also, I’d be wary of using Junk Science as a primary source of info. I can’t honestly say that I think the author has the best of intentions here.
Well, that didn’t go so well.
Oh well, Brant, we all have our days………….
One thing that really bugs the crap out of me about this whole global warming “Is it or isn’t it?” catfight is that no one in the political arena seems to be saying, “Wait a minute, you guys. All the things we should be doing now to be ready to cope with and counteract it - reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, developing new energy-saving technologies and cleaner sources of power, implementing a sane energy policy, and developing climate-tolerant crops, to name just a few - will be beneficial whether the planet heats up, cools down, or stays the same. And believe it or not, in any case this stuff will save us a heap of money in the long run.”
(By me, they could start by reinstating the home energy-saving tax credits from the 70s. From solar panels to extra insulation, it all comes off your taxes, not to mention your utility bills, and the government doesn’t have to shell out a dime directly. Of course, they’d have to figure out how to live more or less within a slightly smaller budget come tax time………. surely they could find a couple of things to cut here and there, like ganging up on foreign countries who just happened to look at us cross-eyed………)
(OTOH, as far as the average far-right religionocrat is concerned, the whole thing is a non-issue anyway, since the world is going to end any day now. Remember James Watt? “I don’t know how many future generations there will be before the Lord returns.” WTF??????!!!!!!!!!)
Seems to me like our whole public sector is fiddling - or maybe having Dorm Wars (do they still have those, when two guys - and it was almost always guys - would aim their stereo speakers out their windows and see who could crank ‘em up the loudest? one of the guys used to play the Fish Cheer whenever he knew a bunch of parents were around =grin=) while not only Rome but the whole planet is trying to decide if it wants to burn or not.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. If nothing else, all the hot air our government is putting out is threatening to cause a global warming crisis all by itself.
It’s not anti-Republican. Anyone who thinks it’s anti-Republican is just furthering the my-team-vs.-your-team attitude prevalent in DC, which is at the heart of a lot of the problems in this country. Disagree with Iraq policy? Bad Republican! Bad!
That’s a load of crap. People need to think for themselves. The good politicians (and voters!) do.
The post is anti-lies. Plenty of Republicans are also honest in their general dealings, and accept that global warming exists. Obviously the people who see it as anti-Republican haven’t gotten that memo.
[…] at this point, after so many years, what makes me most sad is how many people still try to deny it. The evidence is in. And in and in and in. Time to stop denying, and start doing something about it. These […]
Hear! Hear! Phil.
I couldn’t agree more with your original post.
Why Bush the Lesser hasn’t been impeached and imprisoned for war crimes by you Americans is beyond me.
Why you voted for George II the Mad in the first place is even more so.