Slashdot Log In
Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:38 AM
from the get-up-there-and-talk-science-boy dept.
from the get-up-there-and-talk-science-boy dept.
Jeff K writes "Facts and science collide with tribal loyalties, the Washington Post reports: 'Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Your skin is not melting (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember years ago when the offical stance was there is no such thing as global warming, this has evolved to, there is no proof of global warming, to okay it exists but it isn't our fault, somehow I get the feeling the intention now is to attempt to prove it isn't caused by the biggest donators to the Bush administration.
When the whitehouse and the pentagon started to open up and declassify documents all those years ago, it was a good thing it felt like finally they are opening up, now things are going back to feeling more like the cold war, a policy of secrecy, spying (although internally now rather than on a foreign element), lies, and gagging the people with important information.
So as you feel your skin cancer forming and watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent posting [slashdot.org] about a new fossil link between water creatures moving onto land is the classic example (as is archaeopteryx). Such a creature was predicted both in the evolutionary path as well as the geologic path. And the prediction was confirmed by the discovery.
But the IDers will now say (and this was discussed ad nauseum in the postings) "Well what about the creature that came before or after it? Where are those fossils?"
So off the paleontologists go and find those fossils and the IDers repeat the same questions. Same thing here. The evidence for global warming continues to be found and expanded upon and every time the data is presented someone chimes in "But man can't affect the Earth! We're too small in the grand scheme of things."
In 1815 Mt Tamboras eruption caused the year without a summer. It spewed out roughly 40 million tons of gases and ash from April through June. In one year man produces orders of magnitude more pollutants through the burning of fossil fuels than was done in those two months. Apparently it's ok for a volcano to influence the worlds climate but when man throws out, on a continuing basis, enormous quantities of pollutants every year, well that can't have an effect on the climate.
It's time to get over ourselves. We are, to an extent, influencing global warming which may or may not be a natural phenomenon. These are facts which cannot be disputed. But as the parent poster said, as you watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
The really sad part is that if prevention or at least mitigation would take place it would provide a needed boost to employment in this country. Think of all the companies who would need to expand or be created to produce the pollution control products for factories and power plants. Think of all the people who be needed to service those products.
If nothing else, think of the influx of taxes that the Republicans could use to create a bigger, more intrusive government. Think of the children and all that porn that could be banished from the interweb! Won't someone think of the children!
Parent
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Informative)
So, you either believe the literal word of Genesis, or you believe it might be figurative. And if you're truly a fundamentalist, its the former.
Parent
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:
According to this article [umich.edu] the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article [ecobridge.org] (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say [noaa.gov], you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry [wikipedia.org] which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
After all that I found another source [sdsu.edu] which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.
As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons [bellrock.org.uk] while another indicates 400 million tons [physorg.com].
Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.
I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.
Parent
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article: "Although Bush and his top advisers have said that Earth is warming and human activity has contributed to this, they have questioned some predictions and caution that mandatory limits on carbon dioxide could damage the nation's economy."
It doesn't sound like there's any denying going on, but rather a question regarding the impact?
Parent
Misconception (Score:5, Funny)
And global warming is linked to an incidence of skin cancer... how?
I think you're referring to the ozone hole.
That was the LAST Impending Global Catastrophe. Keep up with the times.
Parent
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Funny)
Actually more middleleft, but if you prefer to remain blinded to the reality perhaps the extra UV rays will aid your efforts.
Parent
Re:Your skin is not melting (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like the author of that book had an agenda. And wasn't very well informed.
Volocanoes are responsible for "global warming". If the gases that they spew are more plentiful that all that humans can put out in 100 years then they are far more responsible.
Except that volcanic eruptions over the last 100 years only account for 4% of the total greenhouse gas emissions over that same period. Which goes back to my point. You'll need to find a better book to quote.
It's rather amazing what conclusions you can reach when you decide the results before you begin your "research". Most of what the right-wing comes out with is based on this kind of "research".
It's so strange. Politically, I'm in the middle-right myself. Lately, however, I find that I have more in common with the statements coming from the left than the right-wing nutjobs, who seem to have not only inhaled, but gargled the bong water. My most sincere hope is that McCain can carry the Republican ticket, and we can wrest the Republican party back from the lunatic fringe. Wasn't the Republican party supposed to be the one defending personal liberties? So why in hell is the current president & cronies leading the charge to destroy our Constitutional freedoms?
(I know the answer: neo-cons are actually fascists at heart. It was a rhetorical question.)
Regards,
Ross
Parent
Why is McCain exempt? (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think he's any better? McCain voted for every one of Bush's failed policies, stood shoulder to shoulder with him in 2004 and has his share of lobbyists on his staff payroll doing his part for the K Street Project. Oh, he stood up against Bush on torture. Woohooo, that was a pretty safe departure. He didn't stand up and slam the administration's response to hurricane Katrina, didn't start yapping about campaign finance reform until the Repubs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And didn't take a stand on the war in Iraq until the political wind started to shift. He voted for the Credit Card Company give back labeled bankruptcy reform, the Drug Company Medicare Benefit Plan and all of the spending in the 8 TRILLION dollar deficit. That's $90,000 for every family in America.
I say he's just as corrupt as the rest of them and you're one of the people who supported them.
Parent
Re:Cautiously Submitting a Non-Biased Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the answer is quite clear on this. The last Democratic president was doing things quite clearly differently (i.e. supported Kyoto and didn't suppress embarrassing research results); it was a Republican Congress that blocked his efforts. The 2000 Democratic candidate is active in raising awareness of global warming. It's reasonable to believe that another Democratic president would do things differently as well.
I'm tired of "the other side is just as bad" bullshit arguments. After the results of the 2000 elections, it should be pretty clear that that's not true. Most of the people who make those kind of claims are just trying to avoid moral responsibility for results of their (selfish) choices.
Parent
Maybe they should arrest all those nasty storms (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the cost of doing nothing is much lower in the long run.
do they care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:do they care? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Rick
Parent
Re:do they care? (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't appear that US citizens even care about global warming. Maybe work on this first, or is the Federal goverment responsible for public morals?
Actually, according to http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/0 4/1154214 [slashdot.org]:
I'd say the public's morals are just about right, and it's time for the government to take notice and change its backward policies.
Parent
Re:do they care? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Not just Americans. (Score:5, Insightful)
You only have to read a slashdot story on Climate Change (and the amount of time posters call it "global warming" to know that the vast majority of people all over the world are not getting the full story on climate change.
I'm more worried about the current administration's failure to legislate forced change to energy (particularly oil & gas) consumption, then I am about the American public's lack of awareness of the facts.
Re:Not just Americans. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm more worried about the current administration's failure to legislate forced change to energy (particularly oil & gas) consumption, then I am about the American public's lack of awareness of the facts.
It's a classic free rider problem [wikipedia.org] and therefore a responsibility of government. It's also a worldwide free rider problem, where individual countries can choose to be a free rider.
The vast majority of people is not competent to judge what is happening. As always, people will believe the story if they believe in the authority of the messenger. In many countries in Europe, the climate change story has been adopted as fact for some time by governments, media, and meteorological services. In the US it hasn't.
The willingness to act on climate change obviously also depends on the consequences. In the Netherlands the government is already investing billions to deal with higher sea levels and more river water than was projected in the past. The last two decades have been so extremely wet that it cannot be a coincidence anymore according to the national meteorological service.
Parent
Its nice to know someone has balls (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I like this Pieter Tans guy. I think there needs to be more scientists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people like him, who don't allow their convictions to be challenged by the administration.
Of course ... (Score:4, Funny)
Throw out the coin. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton was no better, no matter what the Progressives might say. This is the reason guys like this run for office -- to change the climate of thinking in the US and in the World. When it comes to public opinion, you may win on occasion when the big guys pick your side, you may lose on occasion. But when it comes to reality, you'll always lose -- the politicians will never do things the way you want them to, and they usually have hidden reasons for doing what they do.
If this doesn't help prove the case for withdrawing federal funding of research (and arts and dozens of other areas) to better allow researchers to publicize evidence for their beliefs, I can't think of what will.
There is no federal mandate for financing science or art or anythink of the sort, and the reason for it was so that the science and the art wouldn't be corrupted by opinion or political control.
Canada following suit (Score:4, Informative)
George Bush is CLEARLY teh debbil! (Score:5, Insightful)
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." - TIME, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
But NOW (I understand) they're sure?
Let's just point out:
"From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, North America experienced colder and generally more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase slightly moister than the present began, and conditions at least as warm as the present lasted until about 115,000 years ago. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate with a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by cold and aridity in many areas around 11,000 14C years ago."
(Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAME
Does the temperature seem to be moving up lately? Yep.
Beyond that, it seems to be a huge guessing game: are humans responsible for the current warming? (personally, I think we probably contribute significantly to it)
Is warming a catastrophe? Even IF you buy into the Cassandras, for every "coral reef is gonna die because the water's too warm!" it's hard to believe that there's not a corresponding expansion (northward) of coral-reef-able zones. For every acre of expanded desert, there's another acre of former-tundra that now has a growing season.
And don't even get me STARTED on "cities will flood" crap. Duh? For ANY city in any location, over a long enough span of time, the odds of it surviving unscathed are ultimately zero. Nobody built the big cities (generally starting as a cluster of wooden huts around a river or nice bay) with an eye toward their long term survivability - NOBODY. To presume at this point that we need to exert every effort to somehow FREEZE Earth's dynamic climate to accomodate habitation choices made 000's of years ago?
That's just stupid.
Re:Ignorance will not be bliss ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like new Orleans?
Parent
This is government, not business (Score:4, Informative)
In effect, a non-issue. Most of you already know you shouldn't go to the media and make comments about the job your boss is doing, or make comments about what they should do instead.
No, it *is* an issue. My tax dollars are at work funding government scientists. What's the fucking point of paying these scientists to do research if they can't talk about the results of their work with the public? We have a long tradition of federally-funded scientists being generally insulated from politics, because in the past both major parties have recognized the value of unbiased scientific research.
The Bush Administration has been muzzling the results of government-sponsored research for several years now, and this is a very troubling development. Representative democracies (yes, even republics, for those of you who will latch onto the semantics) need some areas of government to be devoid of partisanship.
If you're wondering about Hansen's reference to Nazi Germany and the USSR, read Hitler's Scientists [amazon.com] to see how science can be co-opted for political ends.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
The pollution in question is carbon dioxide. One litre of petrol will produce the same amount of carbon dioxide when burned, regardless of the engine in which the burning takes place. Hence, as far as global warming is concerned, the fuel-efficiency of your vehicle is all-important.
Of course, there are other pollutants in car exhausts, against which measures the new-but-inefficient car may perform better, but that's a separate issue.
Parent