Access Denied
The national intelligence assessment isn't the only government report the White House doesn't want made public. The journal Nature reports that the White House also put the kibosh on release of a report by weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association that suggested a link between global warming and the increased frequency and strength of hurricanes.
A spokesman at NOAA has disputed the charge, but it certainly jibes well with the obstructionist pattern of the White House when it comes to environmental science, as well as a recent report that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, officials at the Commerce Department restricted media access to NOAA scientists who held that warming and hurricane intensity might be related.
A spokesman at NOAA has disputed the charge, but it certainly jibes well with the obstructionist pattern of the White House when it comes to environmental science, as well as a recent report that, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, officials at the Commerce Department restricted media access to NOAA scientists who held that warming and hurricane intensity might be related.
12 Comments:
Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment committee, raised some interesting questions about why Dr.Deming was told of the need "to get rid of the Midieval warm period" during his speech September 25, 2006.
Senator James Inhofe. Huh, let's see: Wasn't he the one who invited Michael Crichton, the Jurassic Park author, to testify in the Senate as a climate expert? The one who called global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" That James Inhofe? Ahh.
where is the outrage over high flying jets that burn millions of gallons of fuel in the upper atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is the greatest and there is no plant life to absorb the CO2?
I guess if Al Gore can be a climate expert anyone can! What happened to thinking about what is said instead of who is saying it?
First, no one I know claims Al Gore is a climate expert, certainly not Gore himself. He has, however, done his homework and pretty fairly represented the evidence to support his claims. Furthermore, when Gore held Senate hearings on the subject, he invited genuine scientists from the top of the field to give testimony, not sci-fi authors with medical degrees.
What Crichton has done is sieze on any anomalies that might seem to undermine the evidence for global warming and use those to conclude that there is, in fact, no warming, and even more bizarrely, that it is some kind of conspiracy. He's neither an expert, nor has he made any convincing arguments to counter the science.
The fact that Inhofe highlighted Crichton is itself testimony to the lack of scientific support for his stance. And yes, I think it's fair to consider the source of comments, and Inhofe, in my opinion, is not a reputable one.
As for the Medieval Warm Period, my understanding is that, while it was a period of relative warmth in Europe, it was also largely limited to Europe. Of course, if you're determined not to believe in global warming, then you cling to this point, as it's one of the few thin reeds available to you.
Minor detail: the Medieval Warm Period is not limited to Europe. To see a discussion of its effect on the West, for example, take a look at a 2004 paper called "Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western US," by Edward Cook and associates.
But Gore's discussion of the science has stood up to scrutiny. According to over 100 leading climate scientists surveyed by the AP in a story by Seth Borenstein (no longer available on-line) it was on the mark. Here's a couple of quotes:
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
as a skeptic I remember Paul Erlich. another anomaly? the fact that when man-made CO2 levels started rising in 1940s, the earth's temps started going down, prompting alarming headlines about the coming ice age in the 1970's. ok so that was wrong. Al Gore, give me a break, cherry picks, ignoring so called anomalies, artic warmer in 1930s than it is now, water loss in lake Chad more likely due to grazing and population changes than climate change, according to NASA scientists, increased hurricane activity not shown to be related to long term temp. change, etc. point being, why would Al Gore be more believable than......Dr. Deming? I can find just as many people who think Gore's stuff is a piece of work as I can Crichton's. does that make either one of them credible? Are we on a course to make science something you vote on, like is the earth flat? Take that vote in the 13th century.
Thanks, Kit, for your reinforcement of the evidence that the midieval warm period was not just limited to a minor area. If I have to be relegated to one holding on to a thin reed in order to question the magnitude and veracity of the so called "global warming" so be it.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
OK, basically it is a debate which comes down to a vote. Do we do something to protect ourselves in case Al Gore and the Global Warming fanatics are right or do we stay the course and hope for the best? I believe it is prudent to do all that we can to protect ourselves from this potentially devasting trend and change in the environment in which we live. - Does it matter who is right? Al Gore or Michael Crichton? Who are these scientists anyway? Why do we only hear from them through third parties? Although, I would like to learn more regarding this my background does not suggest that I am even able to understand the science. To me it is a matter of common sense. Pollution hurts the environment. Releasing additional Co2 in the atmosphere must have some effect on our planet. The direction the world is heading in in terms of development more and more pollutants will be released as more countries are developed. Shouldn't we at least make efforts to find cleaner energies? Debate all you want but take action at the same time. Clean energy is an insurance policy for the future of Earth and it's inhabitants. Too bad you can't buy it from progressive. Yet.
Okay, lots of points to cover:
First, let me just say that I truly hope the skeptics are right. I hope the scientific consensus is wrong. I don't wish anyone the future as predicted by the climate models.
Second, I'm certainly no expert on climate change, but I read as much about it as I can and try my best to make sense of it. I know the paleoclimatic record -- and perhaps especially the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) -- is contentious. Here is what I find on the subject from NOAA:
"Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a 'Medieval Warm Period' where temperatures were warmer than today. This 'Medieval Warm Period' or 'Medieval Optimum,' was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called 'Little Ice Age.'
In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) 'Little Ice Age' from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric 'Medieval Warm Period' that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
Of course, depending on the extent of your skepticism and/or paranoia, that may be dismissed as simply part of the propaganda from the conspiracy.
Which brings me to a third point: If you do believe in a climate conspiracy, as, it seems, Mr. Crichton does, I wish you would explain what the motivation would be for such a conspiracy? In State of Fear, (fiction, I know, but presented as a kind of alternate truth), Crichton suggests it's a plot by environmental groups to make money. Now, I ask you: Does that ring true to anyone? Does it? 'Cuz if it does, you have a radically different idea of how the world works than I do.
Continuing on: Was Paul Ehrlich wrong? Well, he was in terms of the time frame he envisioned, no doubt about it. He may yet be proven right, however. Time will tell. Ditto Malthus. Like it or not, there is such a thing as limits.
Does Gore cherry-pick? Yes, but then so does anyone who's presenting an argument. You could argue and I might be forced to concede, for example, that Kilimanjaro's vanishing snowcap is more drought-related than temperature-related. Or that global warming wasn't necessary to cause the destruction of New Orleans. Any major hurricane making a more-or-less direct hit on that city would have been sufficient. And that certainly could have happened with or without global warming.
In my own humble opinion, I think Gore overstressed that connection. But what I think Gore succeeded at was in building a convincing case for anthropocentric warming by putting together a preponderance of evidence, starting with the Keeling Curve and extending to the observed retreat of glaciers nearly everywhere in the world. And that, I don't think you can dismiss.
Finally, someone asks: Are we on a course to make science something you vote on, like is the earth flat? Take that vote in the 13th century.
Well, like it or not, we are forced to act based on what we know to the best of our knowledge. We do it all the time. Whether or not the world was round wasn't a question that demanded any action. Whether or not the world is heating due to greenhouse gas emissions is.
Fortunately, averagejoe is correct: It makes sense to wean ourselves off oil and coal no matter what the truth about warming is. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
And thanks for the comments. As a reminder: These are my opinions. I do not speak for the Sierra Club.
Speaking of hoaxes, why is a mediocre scholar like Deming the only one supporting Inhofe in editorials such as today in the Washington Times? Because he is funded by Exxon Mobil to create this aura of controversy.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=660
I would suggest the readers to look at this article on how the Royal Society, the UK equivalent to the National Academy of Sciences, has challenged Exxon to quit funding these puppet speakers. Now the global warming detractors should quit attacking Gore and the likes, and start unveiling the real political interests behind the "controversy".
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main