The Bush administration has consistently misled the public about the threat of global warming, said scientists who testified yesterday before a US House committee hearing into political interference with climate change science. Global warming also took center stage at a separate hearing in the US Senate yesterday, where the debate flared as senators offered their views and solutions regarding climate change.
The White House’s refusal to hand over documents requested by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has also raised a recurring issue attending federal investigations into the Bush administration – the conflict between Executive Privilege and the need for Congress to be able to hold the President accountable. Executive Privilege is not named in the US Constitution but is implied by the Separation of Powers; it can be invoked to protect state secrets, national security and confidential discussions between the government and its advisors.
Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said he believes the public’s right to know, and their democratic right to hold the government accountable, must take precedence in the committee’s current investigation: “The committee isn’t trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security … We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior Administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimizing the potential dangers. I believe Congress is entitled to these documents.”
Mr Waxman referred specifically to allegations that Philip Cooney, the Bush administration’s former head of the Council on Environmental Quality who now works as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil, had routinely imposed his own views on the reports of climate change scientists.
Dr Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 12 years, testified that his press releases about the findings of climate change studies had been “delayed, altered and watered down.” He cited one example where a study explained that Antarctica would warm considerably over the next century, based on projections of continued greenhouse gas emissions, which had clear implications for rising sea levels. He said the original press release had been “softened” to the extent that it raised almost no interest and delayed the study’s entry into the wider public discussion regarding the scientific understanding of global warming.
Another witness, Rick Piltz, told the hearing that he resigned as senior associate with the US Climate Change Science Program in 2005 after White House officialsrepeatedly insisted that the language in official reports on global warming be weakened or deleted.He cited one instance in which the potential consequences of climate change had been entirely deleted from a report to Congress.
Dr Francesca Grifo gave testimony on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, which defends whistle-blowers. She said a survey of 279 scientists had revealed that nearly half the respondents had been pressured to delete the terms “climate change” or “global warming” from their reports, while one third of the scientists reported that officials had made public statements that misrepresented their findings.
Scientists who participated in the survey also complained that uncertainty had been injected into issues on which most scientists agree, and that they had been banned from talking to the media about their research, which Dr Grifo argued is a violation of their freedom of speech. “You don't give up your constitutional rights when you become a federal scientist,” she said.
Meanwhile in the US Senate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, conducted a hearing inviting Democrat and Republican senators to offer their views and solutions on climate change.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said his bill would cut greenhouse gases by 2 percent each year and reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “This is an issue over the years whose time has come,” said Sen. McCain. “I don't think any time is too late, but I do believe if we don't act fairly soon, we may have reached a tipping point where we may not be able to reverse this trend.”
The bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), said that the Bush administration’s lack of leadership had undermined global efforts to reduce emissions. “We were laggards on this issue. That has been giving excuses to some of the rapidly developing nations, like China and India, to say, ‘If the United States with all its wealth and its enormous energy consumption is unwilling to do this, why would we who are still trying to feed our people want to invest in dealing with this problem?’”
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) complained that the hearing was being used by some senators to enhance their presidential ambitions, and gestured towards Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). He said capping carbon emissions would adversely affect the US economy and lifestyle. “We're 25 percent of the world's economy today, and, under today's technologies, if you are 25 percent of the world's economy, you are going to be the largest emitter,” said Sen. Craig. “We have the lifestyle to prove it, and all of us live that lifestyle, and none of us want to deny it to our citizens.”
As he walked out of the hearing, Sen. Clinton replied, “I'm sorry that Senator Craig is leaving the room, because I wanted to certainly express my very strong support for maintaining America's lifestyle. As I recall, on my many trips to California, which has kept electricity use (low) for 30 years, the lifestyle is pretty good.” She also said, “This is a problem whose time has come.”
Former committee chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” repeated his claim that there is “no convincing scientific evidence” that human activity is causing global warming, “We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time.”
“I’ll put you down as sceptical,” quipped Sen. Boxer.
Despite the scepticism of some senators, Sen. Boxer said, “We have the feeling that there is critical mass here to be very serious about this, at long last”. At least 60 votes are needed in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster that could prevent the passage of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Boxer intends to first introduce measures to improve energy efficiency in federal buildings, which is supported by the White House.
President Bush recently referred to “the serious challenge of global climate change” in his State of the Union address. However, he remains opposed to mandatory caps on carbon emissions, which scientists consider critical in the fight against global warming. Even with bipartisan support for such legislation, there are concerns that Mr Bush will use his veto power to prevent its passage.
The irony might come to this: it is very possible that in the upcoming decade or two that solar output decreases might have adequate influence to temper (or even reduce?) global temps.
And President Hillary's fans will claim that it was The Smartest Woman In The World that did it (despite the IPCC claims that it will take 1,000 years to get CO2 levels down).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarquestion/
Written by paul marchand
on 2/1/2007
I keep reading peoples comments here that the "left" doesn't understand science, that Global Warming is not a fact, and that the whole thing is nothing but a bunch of alarmists making too much noise. For all those of you who agree with this line of reasoning, please read on...
Anyone who denies that the earth is currently undergoing a dramatic rise in average temperatures is simply being ignorant. This is as close to a "fact" on the issue that you will get. We have data from ocean sensors, land sensors, satellites, etc, etc that indicate the earth's average temperature is increasing. For all you who dispute this, I would ask you to supply your source for this contradictory evidence. For every "report" you can supply that says the earth is not warming, I will supply TEN reports that say that the earth IS warming. Take off your ideological blinders and wake up to the truth!
Now, I will admit that there is no "smoking gun" which links human activity to the recent rise in global temperatures. The truth of the matter is there never will be a "smoking gun." As a scientist with a firm grounding in the scientific method (I use it daily in my job), I understand that the earth's climate is an incredibly complex system, in which a myriad of variables are in play at any given moment. The more complex a system is, the more difficult it is to characterize/understand/model it. The best we can hope to do is try to pick out what we think may be the most important 100 or so variables and then model the whole system using computers with a lot of number crunching power.
Coincidentally, this is what many scientists have done, and the conclusions that the overwhelming majority of them have come to is that human generation of CO2 is the most likely cause of this latest warming trend, and that if something is not done to curb it, the resulte will be a much higher global average temperature than has been experienced in millions of years, resulting in significant climate changes all over the world. As I said, this is the conclusion of many different scientists using many different climate models. These are scientists from many different organizations, representing many different countries and ideologies. Yet, given all that, the vast majority still come to the conlusion that we are the source.
One last thing. Given that the earth's atmosphere is such a complex system, and that it is virtually impossible for us to predict what may be the result of human's "tampering" with it by the introduction of massive quantities of CO2 (and other potentially hazardous gases), shouldn't we, as stewards of this planet, take every precaution necessary to reduce our impact on it? We may never be able to accurately predict what will happen as a result of our careless generation of greenhouse gases. The effects could possibly be relatively harmless, yes. But there is the same likelyhood that the result could be something far worse than we even anticipated.
Do we really want to gamble on something as important as this?
Written by gkmoid
on 1/31/2007
Even if we all don't, Big Oil Companies are not delusional about oil and the consequences of burning hydrocarbons for fuel. They know they are really in the energy business and not just the fossel fuel business. It seems to make business sense to push oil consumption to the edge where prices are as high as we will take it and then shift their enormous economic clout into centralizing and controlling the "new" forms of energy e.g. solar. They will not allow their government representatives to subsidize or encourage alternative energy use until the time is right business wise for them to take over at the new high prices. Greenhouse gases are just an unfortunate side effect of the business strategy.
Written by john schooley
on 1/31/2007
I agree. Unfortunetly as long as we are controled by these dememted criminals the public will suffer the age old disease of, "it cant happen here." The word came from on high, the gov. so its ok, and it what they want to hear.
Misled, is a very refined manner of expresing what our lords and masters are doing to this county and this world.
This home of ours, this very world could be and should be treated as our home, (number one priority,) it could be a paradise.
Written by christopher jones
on 1/31/2007
Everyone made jokes about Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," and now it seems to be the hot topic. I think every US citizen should watch this movie and then go out a see "Hacking Democracy (HBO)", "Why We Fight", and "Who Killed the Electric Car?" You'll soon realize just how much "truth" the government, big oil, and the US auto makers have forgot to tell us.
Written by Gary Vender
on 1/31/2007
I don't think man made global warming is a hoax. It is obvious that we pollute the planet. I saw on a documentary the other night that deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforests, which includes cutting the trees and then burning the stumpage etc, causes 30% or more of man made global warming. So, if we admit we have a problem and do our best, who convinces the poor people in Brazil who make a living off logging? The fact is, most people have enough problems and are scared about too many things already. Panic and law changes that can disrupt the economy put us right into the hands of our enemies. If our lawmakers weren't trying to scare the hell out of us all the time to get us on "their side" we might could find some solutions to our problems.
Written by Sandy
on 1/31/2007
The sheer arrogance of the political left is staggering, particularly in their ignorance of, attitude towards and abuse of the scientific method.
First of all, Global Warming is not a fact! Rather it is a theory which is not based directly measured, statistically significant data, but rather on derived data which is based on other theories. Standing up and screaming about Global Warming does not make it fact, it just makes the screamer obnoxious.
Second, the scientific method requires that the problem be correctly and accurately stated. Right now, Global Warming is an alarmist statement rather than a properly stated problem.
Third, when trying to analyze a problem, good scientific and engineering practices require that the system be well defined with all variables defined and boundary conditions stated. In the case of Global Warming, the system would be the entire planet atmospheric conditions. Once the system is defined, then all the relevant variables would have to be identified: for the planet's atmospheric , this would include, but not limited to, geo-volcanic activity, solar radiation, forestation and foliage, and human activity.
I could go on, but quite frankly I haven't seen any understanding of good scientific or engineering methods from the political left to make it worthwhile.
All we have seen is the left's constant attempts to hamstring the US economy with numerous restrictions while excusing socialist and communist countries from the same restrictions. This would be the fundamental flaw in numerous solutions, including the Kyoto Treaty.
Written by Jeffrey Penkowski
on 1/31/2007
Jeffrey, you are absolutely correct the far left is being nothing short of bombastic on this "global warming" issue. The next thing you know those crazy devil worshipers will claim that cigarettes cause cancer and poor people actually can not help being poor, sure, like it’s not their fault.
Written by Bill Splivins
on 1/31/2007
It's been a long standing practice of researchers to submit preleminary data that suggest there may be a drastic problem as the end of their grant approaches. After getting people alarmed, they then request additional time and funding to complete the study. This has happened in many fields of science. It's called job security.
Written by Dan Steedly
on 1/31/2007
Real Climate meet Real Science!!!
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (Paperback)
by Dennis T. Avery, S. Fred Singer
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (Paperback)
by Henrik Svensmark (Author), Nigel Calder (Author)
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157
http://www.realclimate.org/
Written by lars
on 1/31/2007
Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html
Written by lars
on 1/31/2007
When I was attending college 30 years ago the problem of emissions and the resultant increase in global temperatures was already being discussed. It was clear even then that the problem was becoming critical. President Carter tried to do something about this and was largely stopped by conservatives. As long as the electorate remains blind to what is happening nothing will change. I hate to say this, but in my opinion its already too late
Written by Tom Pinkston
on 1/31/2007
I really can't believe there are people out there who believe that Global Warming is NOT real. What is it gonna take for you to get over your denial? What more proof do you need? It sure would be nice if Global Warming was not a real threat, but it is. And even if it wasn't, go to L.A. and see how "great" the smog is. Why would anyone be against finding renewable and clean resources? I guess it is just laziness, arrogance, and general ignorance.
Written by Vince from San Diego
on 1/31/2007
TonyB, the justice system is reactionary - it deals with damages *after* they've already happened. If a unknown man with a baseball bat was advancing on your daughter, would you take this same attitude ("I have no evidence that he will strike her"), or would you start taking precautions? It's our lives and our children's lives at stake here; better to err on the side of caution than to run the risk and then say "Oops, I was wrong; guess you all have to die." The public, who ultimately own public policy decisions, are largely responsible people accustomed to protecting their future and I think they're becoming ever more uneasy that we're gambling with the future of life. The problem is that, the longer one waits to address a problem, the more abrupt the solution must be - and this gives naysayers the chance to say "Look, they're crazy radicals".
Written by EricM
on 1/31/2007
global warmimng is a hoax
Written by poot
on 1/31/2007
gee that explains all the previous global warmings and ice ages......when there was no human influence......................................................
hmmmmmm which is worse? glaciers covering the northern most of the northern hemispere or a little rise in sea level?.........................................................i guess you should be in favor of reducing world population by say 90% then and punishing china, india, africa, muslems, catholics, etc for creating the population explosion than caused the co2 problem we are in..............................
Written by lars
on 1/31/2007
Iraq, Katrina....well, what did you expect in other areas under the 'management' of this team? Ten years from now the international courts may want to hold this gang responsible.
Written by jim mcc
on 1/31/2007
I can,t wait to see what bush gets blamed for next the problem is with all the blaming going on it deverts the attention away from solutions god forbid we come up with on of those.
Written by dan wilcenski
on 1/31/2007
The statement that Global Warming is "a theory" is a red herring. General Relativity is also "a theory". "Fact" is something that HAS happened. Facts are static. Theories are prediction-systems, and, because of limited knowledge, all predictions are possibly incorrect. But as someone else commented, we cannot wait for "facts" in this matter. It is irresponsible and ultimately indicative of the moral weakness of the modern human being. You can criticize Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" if you choose (there was a lot of melodrama, etc.), but he was right in one way: corporate attitudes towards Global Warming and Cigarettes are quite similiar. Sow doubt... continue making money... stocks respond to short-scale time-frames... adapt your strategy, not your position.
What it comes down to is the "position". Adapt around it all you want, but keep your mind open to the possibility that future data will invalidate it. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's stance on smoking cigarettes. She was said not to trust a man who did not smoke cigarettes--being as they were the symbol of man's dominion over the "forces of nature". She died of lung cancer.
Written by Psychlotron
on 1/31/2007
No one knows as fact anything about global warming, it's causes, the ultimate effects, or how to change it. A consensus among a large group does not make fact. If that were so, the world would still be flat. To say President Bush is misleading the public because he doesn't buy every dire pronouncment about global warming is nonsense.
Anyone who claims to have "truth" about climate change is either ignorant of the variables involved or lying. We are far from understanding the cause and effect involved in the climate.
Written by Steve Holle
on 1/31/2007
No one knows as fact anything about global warming, it's causes, the ultimate effects, or how to change it. A consensus among a large group does not make fact. If that were so, the world would still be flat. To say President Bush is misleading the public because he doesn't buy every dire pronouncment about global warming is nonsense.
Anyone who claims to have "truth" about climate change is either ignorant of the variables involved or lying. We are far from understanding the cause and effect involved in the climate.
Written by Steve Holle
on 1/31/2007
I can't believe there are still so many Bush supporters after the travesty that has been the past 7 years. If you don't believe the scientific evidence, all one needs to do is look around to see the toll global warming is taking on weather patterns, the environment, various animal habitats and the list goes on... The ignorance, irresponsibility and denial is truly astounding.
Written by Kim
on 1/31/2007
SHOCK! HORROR! My sentiments, of course. How can there be any ounce of discussion on whether or not there are hard facts? Are we, one nation under God, not in a war right now that was started on theory and assumption?? Losing thousands of our soldiers to this war, based on theories that are based on reports, we are continuing our effort to protect our freedom and lifestyle. Why are we not doing the same for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren? How is a preemptive strike on assumed enemies any different from a preemptive strike on global warming? The reports are there, just as they were before we went to war, yet acting on them in THIS case is somehow silly to a few of you. Just because there aren't explosions of epic proportion, you turn your head and scoff. Anyone who says we shouldn't worry about it is, without question, a selfish individual, unwilling to lift a pinkie for the future generations. As if you had to work for everything this nation has done, personally, and therefor have done enough for the future. Get off your wagon and wake up. Our grandparents made this country great, and they worked hard to protect us, their future generations. Just as we respond to terror threats, we need to respond to global warming threats with a plan of action. Just in case.
Written by Lindsay83
on 1/31/2007
First you must prove that a problem exists in order to claim damages. This is the first tenant of our justice system. Making claims of great harms that "could" or "might" happen "if" this or "that" happens is gratuitous sloppiness in stating your absolute position without facts and data to conclusively prove your position. Absent data and facts, you have an opinion or belief. Opinions are for newspaper columnists and beliefs are for church. Nothing wrong with either, but they have NO place in public policy decisions.
E-mail
Print
To
Buzz Right Back on this article