Science And The Limits Of Being Human
The great Tom Junod reflects:
We are not going to live forever. We are not going to have our life spans scientifically amplified to biblical lengths. We will not be able to take pills that will give us the musculature of superheroes or allow us to gorge ourselves while enjoying the health benefits of starvation. We will reach our limits, and, with some hard-won variation, those limits will be — they will feel like — the same limits we humans have always had. We will remain human where it counts, in our helpless and inspiring relation to our own mortality.
Does this sound obvious? It shouldn't.
Indeed, what I should have said from the start is that I believe that we are all going to die, in that science increasingly believes otherwise — and science increasingly has become a matter of belief. Its logic, once pointed at the eradication of disease and infection, is now inexorably pointed at aging and death, which is to say the ultimate questions that were once left to religion. …
As it expands its realm into matters of faith, science will become more and more faith-based, and more and more energized by the off-label indication. Its promises will become harder to believe the closer they come to being fulfilled, because belief will obligate us to make choices we are not equipped to make — choices once left to popes and their priests. And this is how science will finally become like religion in all things except its actuality.
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Tim Phillips On Climate Policy: ‘If We Win The Science Argument, It’s Game, Set, And Match’
At an October blogger briefing at the Heritage Foundation, Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips explained his organization’s plans for defending global warming pollution. A day after his policy director, Phil Kerpen, claimed the organization did not question the science of climate change at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event, Phillips relished in the success of the “UK email scandals” for convincing people of a scientific “conspiracy,” saying “over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming.” “If we win the science argument, I think it’s game, set, and match” for “the left,” he expounded. Phillips also discussed his plans as head of the astroturf group to make the Environmental Protection Agency an “albatross” and to kill “the myth of green jobs.”
Phillips has harnessed right-wing populist anger in the service of pollution giant Koch Industries on several fronts, especially to prevent any limits on greenhouse gas pollution. His organization’s propaganda efforts include attacks on climate legislation, with the “No Climate Tax” pledge signed by a large majority of freshmen Republicans, and the “Hot Air Tour” that has traveled around the country the last few summers. AFP’s “Regulation Reality” campaign attempts to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency. Their campaigns use a mix of false economic arguments, appeals to patriotic freedom, and support of global warming denial.
In 2011, Phillips announced, his organization plans to drive a wedge between Congress and the EPA, to increase attacks on climate science, and to attempt to discredit clean energy jobs, creating the impression that the American people support a pollution agenda (even though polls show the opposite).
Watch it:
“We have to make the Environmental Protection Agency an albatross”
They made it a political liability, guys like Ernie and others, and they pushed back on OSHA. And then there was proof that you could indeed take on a regulatory agency and push it back. We have to make the Environmental Protection Agency an albatross, a political albatross for members of Congress.
We launched a “regulation reality” effort earlier this year, we’re going to continue that — that goes around the country and lays out how the EPA is costing jobs, how it is driving up the cost of our goods which makes them less competitive, and it works. Members of Congress suddenly began paying attention when they’ve got small business owners and local folks, consumers, in their districts and states who were pounding them, saying “What the heck are you doing to me here?”
The number one thing I hear on the road at our events is the EPA. That’s the number one agency. Now the health care thing is looming on the horizon, but the EPA is what’s killing more jobs and inhibiting more job-creators than anything else out there.
“We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming”
We made a decision early on, we launched our effort on cap and trade and global warming about three years ago. We’ve been at it for a while. We made a decision that as a free-market group we would focus on the economic impact. So we’ve focused on job losses, there are some great studies out there. Heritage. We’ve used Heritage for the job-loss studies especially, and the National Association of Manufacturers, groups like that. We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming. Hence the name change, you notice how it went from “global warming” to “climate change.” Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now it’s “progressivism.” They did the same thing with “global warming” and switched over to “climate change.”
“If we win the science argument, I think it’s game, set, and match for them”
The one thing I know from the polling data that the American public knows there’s an economic liability. They clearly agree with us on that. And for the first time, in the last twelve months especially, I’ve seen a dramatic tilt among independents especially with regard to believing the science involved behind global warming. That was in the high seventies, a little as two years ago. High seventies said yeah, there’s scientific evidence for man-made global warming. That’s now dropping, depends on what poll you’re looking at, Gallup and others. That’s down in the low fifties now. That’s precarious for the left. Because they’ve already lost the economic argument. We’ve beaten them there. We’ve just got to keep pounding that argument. If we win the science argument, I think it’s game, set, and match for them.
“There is a conspiracy going on, there are people fixing the data”
I think the UK email scandals was probably the tipping point. I think that’s for the first time — you’d always had some outliers, I say that in a good way, not in a bad way, who were saying, hey wait a minute, there is a conspiracy going on, there are people fixing the data. I think that when those emails became public, the public looked at it and said wait a minute, here’s this supposedly UN, these UN scientists, and we’ve always — I think we hold scientists in high regard, and that’s a good thing, science is, uh, a good thing — but when it was clear from those email exchanges that they were manipulating data, and even hiding data that was not of advantage to them, that was a crucial tipping point on the science side.
I think the economic tipping point was $ 3 and $ 4 a gallon gas. When $ 4 a gallon gas happened two summers ago, remember when that kicked in? We noticed a dramatic uptick in turnout for our rallies, events, the pressure on the legislators, being willing to call and email. And the polling data confirmed that, saying that it was $ 4 a gallon gas. And then I think that the UK email scandal was the science side.
“How sad for the polar bears, right?”
And the other thing that we’re really pushing with allies is the myth of green jobs. I know many of you have been on this issue as well. What a great balloon to puncture. Because that’s the last leg they have to stand on. You noticed what the president, what the left talks about on this? It used to be the science. Then they began tilting away from the science and saving the polar bears to it’s the right thing to do, you know. And now it’s job creation. They’re literally reduced to a job creation argument. They don’t even talk about the polar bears any more. How sad for the polar bears, right? It’s wrong. But, now it’s job creation argument. That’s the last thing they’ve had. And it’s not a legitimate argument. I think the public is getting that.
Climate Science Rapid Response Team press release
This inaugural news release from the Climate Science Rapid Response Team explains the “who & what,” the “how it works” and the “why” they are doing it:
NAME: Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)
WEBSITE: www.climaterapidresponse.org
WHO & WHAT: The CSRRT is a match-making service between top scientists and members of the media and office holders and their staffs from various levels of government. Our group consists of dozens of leading scientists who wish to improve communication about climate change. The group is committed to providing rapid, high-quality information to media and government officials. Our members have expertise in virtually all areas of climate science and they are available to share their current understanding in a fairly rapid time frame.
Conservative leaders attack Browner, Administration and Upton on climate science and clean energy
Senior Fellow Daniel J. Weiss is CAPAF’s Director of Climate Strategy.
The incoming House Republican majority includes many climate science deniers. They have already begun their attacks on promoters of policies to reduce energy use, save families money, and cut global warming pollution. This includes an attack on Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a leading candidate to become Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
He is under fire for his efforts to require more energy efficient light bulbs. But he has also joined the global warming witch hunt by hurling misleading charges about Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Carol Browner in an attempt to discredit her long record of basing energy policies on sound science. This attack is the beginning of efforts to undo the Obama Administration’s successes at creating clean energy jobs, saving families money, and reducing oil use and pollution.
The attack on Upton sprung from the effort by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to become Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C). House Republican term limit rules restrict their members to three Congresses (six years) as chair and/or ranking minority member of a committee. Barton seeks a waiver to allow him to become Chair of E&C in 2011 even though he already served as chair for two years and ranking member for four years. Without a waiver, the next most senior Republican – Upton – should become chair.
Despite Upton’s life time American Conservative Union record of 72 percent, many on the far right believe he is not conservative enoughto oversee federal energy, communications, and health care policy. Politico reported on this anti-Upton campaign.
They’re pointing to Upton’s support for phasing out some incandescent light bulbs in favor of greener alternatives.
Right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh cited Upton’s promotion of eco-friendly light bulbs evidence that he shouldn’t take the Energy and Commerce gavel.
“This would be a tone-deaf disaster if the Republican leadership lets Fred Upton ascend to the chairmanship of the House energy committee,” Limbaugh said this week. “This is exactly the kind of nannyism, statism, what have you, that was voted against and was defeated last week. No Republican complicit in nannyism, statism, can be rewarded this way.”
Upton (R-Mich.) teamed up with California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman on 2007 legislation aimed at phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy efficient bulbs. That language eventually became law as part of a larger energy bill.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy notes that incandescent bulbs that use only 10 percent of their energy for light – the rest is waste heat. More efficient compact fluorescent bulbs
use less energy and last longer, [so consumers] will save up to several times their purchase price each year through reduced electricity bills and fewer replacement bulbs.
Upton’s light bulb efficiency provision was part of the Energy Independence and Security Act that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007.
The bill sets lamp efficiency standards for common light bulbs, requiring them to use about 20-30% less energy than present incandescent bulbs by 2012-2014 (phasing in over several years) and requiring a DOE rulemaking to set standards that will reduce energy use to no more than about 65% of current lamp use by 2020.
The attack on Upton’s leadership to require light bulbs to waste less energy and save more money is an example of the right’s broad attack on science and clean energy technology.
After the assault he promptly dimmed his support for energy efficiency and consumer savings. Politico reports
Hoping to counter attacks from his right, Rep. Fred Upton is promising to reexamine a controversial ban on incandescent light bulbs if he becomes chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
After the right’s attack on Upton, he followed in their footsteps by launching a similar misplaced attack on Carol Browner. On November 15, he sent a letter questioning her actions on the Department of Interior moratorium on deep water drilling in the wake of the nation’s worst oil disaster. It focuses on the disproved charge that her office modified the DOI report so that it appeared that the moratorium decision was peer reviewed by scientists when it was not.
This question was fully examined by the Inspector General at the Department of Interior, and it found no wrong doing.
While the 30-Day Report’s Executive Summary could have been more clearly worded, the Department has not definitively violated the IQA [Information Quality Act, which guides the federal government’s use of information]. For example, the recommendation for a moratorium is not contained in the safety report itself. Furthermore, the Executive Summary does not indicate that the peer reviewers approved any of the Report’s recommendations. The Department also appears to have adequately remedied the IQA concerns by communicating directly with the experts, offering a formal apology, and publicly clarifying the nature of the peer review.
Upton’s letter is like issuing a speeding ticket to a car traveling at 25.1 miles per hour in a 25 MPH zone, even after the radar gun demonstrated there was no violation.
Interestingly, we could find no record of Upton raising similar concerns about the Bush administration’s frequent editing of documents to remove descriptions of climate science. The New York Times revealed that
A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
Upton’s misleading attack on Browner is his attempt to demonstrate his right wing, anti-science bona fides during the mud wrestling to win the coveted E&C chair. However, this false attack is not an isolated incident, but instead part of the incoming House majority’s effort to attack climate science and scientists, as well as the administration’s successful clean energy policies.
As chair, Upton plans to conduct hearings designed to undermine EPA rules to protect public health and the environment from toxic coal ash, smog, mercury and other toxic chemicals, and global warming pollution. All of these safeguards will be based upon the best medical and scientific evidence available in order to protect children, seniors, and others from these harmful, controllable contaminants.
Upton’s attacks are the rule, rather than the exception, among the new majority. His colleagues plan a host of similar efforts to conduct witch hunts in the name of oversight. This could include efforts to overturn or delay the implementation of President Obama’s new fuel economy standards that would reduce oil use by 1.8 billion barrels, save consumers $ 3000 or more over the life of their car, and cut nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution. Bloomberg reports,
Tea Party-backed candidates who won seats in the House by campaigning against federal regulation and spending, including the GM and Chrysler bailouts, may lead opposition to increasing fuel-economy standards, said Russ Harding, senior environmental policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality from 1995 to 2002 [under Republican Governor John Engler, now head of the National Association of Manufacturers].
Incoming Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa (R-CA) plans to interrogate the administration over some of its other successes.
With their new majority in the House, Republicans are expected to waste no time in flexing their oversight authority. The ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government reform panel confirmed that the GOP-led committee will investigate polices like the stimulus, the health care bill, and the bank bailout.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the “stimulus”) has had a real success creating clean energy jobs, investing in renewable technologies, and reducing families’ energy bills via efficiency.
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the likely chair of the House Science Committee, has already announced his future assault on climate science.
The likely next chairman of the House Science Committee says “reasonable people have serious questions” about the science connecting manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) on Wednesday vowed to investigate the Obama administration’s climate policies if he becomes chairman.
Fred Upton is on the receiving end of the kind of assault that he has levied on Carol Browner. Many more similar attacks are likely after his colleagues take control of the House of Representatives on January 5, 2011. The objective of these attacks is to defeat or delay health and science based policies that protect and benefit society as whole even if they reduce profits for big oil, dirty coal or other special interests.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), defeated by a Tea Party candidate in his primary, alerted his Republican colleagues that their assault on science and clean energy policies would harm Americans. At a House Science Committee hearing on global warming science he warned,
I would also suggest to my Free Enterprise colleagues — especially conservatives here — whether you think it’s all a bunch of hooey, what we’ve talked about in this committee, the Chinese don’t. And they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century. So we may just press the pause button here for several years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button.
What we’ll find is we’re way behind those Chinese folks…They plan on leading the future. So whether you — if you’re a free enterprise conservative here — just think: it’s a bunch of hooey, this science is a bunch of hooey. But if you miss the commercial opportunity, you’ve really missed something.
Former House Science Committee Chair Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) also counseled his compatriots against this attack on science.
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry — the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity — are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.
Inglis and Boehlert are urging Republican leaders to reject the unfair, anti-science attacks aimed at Fred Upton and his common sense light bulb efficiency legislation. Hopefully, he and his colleagues will refrain from hurling such false, destructive charges at Carol Browner, scientists or other administration officials. If not, they will demonstrate the same ignorance, selfishness, and economic obliviousness shown by Upton’s attackers.
– Daniel J. Weiss is Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy, Center for American Progress Action Fund
Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Bjorn Lomborg’s Washington Post op-ed – UCS takes on Lomborg’s failed movie, Cool it
According to Box Office Mojo, in its premiere weekend, Bjorn Lomborg’s effort at disinfotainment, Cool It, scored a whopping $ 26,487 in ticket sales. In its 41 theaters, that’s a “$ 655 average.” In its second weekend, the movie expanded to 43 theaters, but its ticket sales fell to $ 10,734, about $ 250 per theater, a 60% drop.
I’m sure the Danish statistician would appreciate Box Office Mojo quantitative detail, but you don’t need to know much statistics to realize that not bloody many people are actually watching this movie.
In fact, the movie is just a clever loss leader for Lomborg’s bad ideas. A film is a ticket to widespread media attention, far more than even a new book provides. For instance, the movie means that credulous reviewers who don’t follow the energy and climate debate closely will write columns that millions will read (see “Cool It and plausible deniability“), compared to the, uhh, hundreds that are flocking to the film.
The movie also gives newspapers a ‘reason’ to run more disinformation from the Danish delayer, not that they need much of an excuse (see “WashPost recycles another denier WSJ op-ed, this time from coal apologist Bjorn Lomborg. Funny how two new senior Post editors came from the WSJ“).
But at least that gives our redoubtable Brad Johnson a chance to test the new Climate Science Rapid Response Team:
In a recent op-ed in Washington Post, Bjorn Lomborg argued that efforts to reduce global warming pollution can wait, because “coping with climate change is something we know how to do.” To bolster that claim — which goes against the consensus of practically every scientific body in the world — Lomborg cited “the fact that the best research we have – from the United Nations climate panel – says that global sea levels are not likely to rise more than about 20 inches by 2100.” Lomborg concluded that “fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse threaten to swamp rational debate about climate policy”:
“Obviously, whether it involves dikes or buckets of white paint, adaptation is not a long-term solution to global warming. Rather, it will enable us to get by while we figure out the best way to address the root causes of man-made climate change. This may not seem like much, but at a time when fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse threaten to swamp rational debate about climate policy, it’s worth noting that coping with climate change is something we know how to do.”
Because Washington Post editorial editor Fred Hiatt did not bother to fact-check Lomborg’s column, the Wonk Room took on the task. We chose to test the new Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a scientist-run initiative to link top climate scientists with the media officially launched today. After we submitted questions about Lomborg’s claims to the team, we received comprehensive answers from three top climate scientists within 48 hours, even though we made our inquiries before the official launch.
In separate e-mail interviews (the scientists also offered to conduct phone interviews), the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology’s Ken Caldeira, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Josh Willis, and Rutgers University’s Alan Robock independently confirmed that Bjorn Lomborg had misrepresented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report.
Caldeira, who believes “one meter (or three feet) per century from melting ice sheets is probably in the right ball park” for future sea level rise, explained what Lomborg left out when citing the “20 inches by 2100″ figure:
“Like mercury in a thermometer, seawater expands and rises as it heats up. Melting ice also causes sea level rise. The third assessment report considered only thermal expansion of the ocean and not melting glacial ice.”
Willis discussed the details of the IPCC report further:
“Bjorn’s claim that the IPCC report says that global sea levels are not likely to rise more than about 20 inches by 2100 is incorrect. You have to remember that the sea level projections in the 2007 IPCC report had a big asterisk by them. The report was very clear that the 20 inch projection was probably too low because it did not account for the kinds of dynamic changes in the glaciers and ice sheets that we see today. In fact, the IPCC report was careful to say that they could not place any upper bound on the amount of sea level rise that is likely over the next century.”
Robock’s response reaffirmed Willis and Caldeira. Furthermore, when asked the research the IPCC summarized still “the best research we have” on the likely range of sea level rise, Robock said, “Absolutely not”:
“Absolutely not. It was the best we had five years ago, but there has been a lot of work since then, including better observations of the rate of melting from Greenland and Antarctica and better models.”
Robock also explained that Lomborg mischaracterized the work of the world scientific community when he argued that those who call for the immediate reduction of global warming pollution are relying on “fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse”:
“His choice of words is very alarmist and cherry-picking from other alarmists. The IPCC and the world scientific community do not say “supposedly imminent apocalypse.” They engage in rational debate. He is saying that extremists on one side are much more influential than it seems to me that they are. In fact it is the extremists who argue against any response to global warming who have been much more effective so far.
“He is also wrong in asserting that we know how to adapt to climate change. If that were true, nobody would be worried about it. How do we adapt to massive extinctions of natural species? How do we adapt to all the major coastal cities of the world having to deal with flooding from stronger storms and rising sea level? Dikes will not do it.
“And there are no geoengineering techniques that have ever even been tested, let alone shown to produce less risks than the risks of global warming.
“But I agree that adaptation is not a long-range solution. Mitigation is, but we have to get started immediately.”
Of course, none of this is actually news. At Real Climate, top sea-level specialist Stefan Rahmstorf explained the IPCC sea level numbers back in March, 2007. At Climate Progress, Joe Romm debunked Lomborg’s lies about sea level rise back in September, 2007. And climate scientists have been warning the presidents of the United States of the “vast geophysical experiment” of global warming since the 1960s, and calling for reduction in fossil fuel use by the 1970s.
– Brad Johnson
For more on Lomborg’s geo-engineering myths, see Caldeira calls Lomborg’s vision “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists has posted a nice debunking of Cool It:
New Documentary on Bjørn Lomborg and Climate Change is Long on Opinion and Short on Facts, Science Group Says
Lomborg cherry-picks data to present skewed view of how we should combat global warming
A new documentary on climate change recently opened up in theaters. Titled “Cool It,” it features a Danish political scientist, Bjørn Lomborg, who has stirred up controversy in the past by questioning the urgency of addressing the problem.
The good news about “Cool It” is that it doesn’t dispute the reality of climate change. Lomborg accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence that burning coal and oil and destroying forests has overloaded the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, trapping heat that would otherwise escape into space, thus warming the planet and disrupting the climate.
Instead, the film argues against “fearing” climate change. It opens with animations and voice-overs from schoolchildren talking about climate change, including a child worrying that the Earth is getting “very, very, very, very, very, very” hot.
While the film features many interviews with schoolchildren to bolster its case, Lomborg fails to convey the urgent need to address climate change that scientists have identified. They have concluded that if we do nothing to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, we could lock in 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit of global temperature increase by the end of the century.
Below are just a few of the problems in the film.
Square peg economics for a round hole problem
Broadly, the film focuses on issues Lomborg argues should take priority over addressing climate change, including poverty, malnutrition, disease and clean water. In fact, those interrelated problems are only going to be more difficult to address in an increasingly warming world.
Lomborg also sees climate change through the narrow lens of classical economics. For example, he relies on traditional cost-benefit analysis, like weighing the economic benefits of a new bridge against to the cost of constructing it and, perhaps, the cost of relocating a few hundred local residents whose homes would be displaced by the bridge and new roads.
But as many economists have pointed out, climate change presents a unique challenge because actions we take (or fail to take) today will have grave repercussions for generations to come.
Engineering the climate–a dangerous proposition
Lomborg argues for more research on geoengineering, such as using a stratospheric spray of small particles to reflect sunlight from the Earth, to “buy time” while scientists and engineers develop new clean energy technology.
“Cool It,” however, does not explore the high risks and uncertainties of many geoengineering proposals. Reflecting sunlight, for example, would damage crop production worldwide because plants need sunlight to grow.
Lomborg accepts that climate change is real, but incorrectly discounts its threat
The film makes it clear that climate change is real and driven by human activities that overload the Earth’s atmosphere with carbon that traps excess heat like a blanket.
However, the documentary discounts the future consequences of unabated climate change and the economic costs and impacts on people and communities.
Lomborg criticizes the Kyoto Protocol, but doesn’t acknowledge it was never meant to solve climate change on its own There is nearly universal agreement that the Kyoto Protocol, as Lomborg says, is not enough to seriously address the problem of climate change. That is narrowly true, but the reality is that the Kyoto agreement was intended to be just a first step in a long-term global effort.
It did set up a framework for reducing emissions, but major emitting nations such as the United States and Australia did not ratify it, so its effectiveness was undermined.
Lomborg argues against specific clean energy policies and action in isolation, failing to acknowledge that they all could work together
At various points in the film, Lomborg cherry-picks a single action or clean energy policy, emphasizes its cost, and contrasts it with what he claims would be its relatively small impact on global temperatures.
For example, he criticizes the European Union’s renewable electricity requirement, hybrid cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs. However, he fails to mention what a full suite of policies and consumer actions could accomplish.
Multiple analyses (including UCS’s 2009 blueprint) have concluded that a combination of policies aimed at reducing vehicle emissions, boosting renewable electricity production, and increasing energy efficiency would dramatically lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Lomborg recycles the discredited claim about global cooling and misrepresents scientific research
“Cool It” includes a clip from a 1978 “In Search Of…” television episode titled “The Coming Ice Age.” The program was an interesting—but not always scientifically accurate—television show narrated by Leonard Nimoy, who played Mr. Spock on the original “Star Trek.”
”In Search of…” featured such topics as UFOs, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster in a less than scientifically rigorous fashion.
For more, see “The global cooling myth dies again.”
Climate Science Rapid Response Team Debunks Bjorn Lomborg
In a recent op-ed in Washington Post, Bjorn Lomborg argued that efforts to reduce global warming pollution can wait, because “coping with climate change is something we know how to do.” To bolster that claim — which goes against the consensus of practically every scientific body in the world — Lomborg cited “the fact that the best research we have – from the United Nations climate panel – says that global sea levels are not likely to rise more than about 20 inches by 2100.” Lomborg concluded that “fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse threaten to swamp rational debate about climate policy”:
Obviously, whether it involves dikes or buckets of white paint, adaptation is not a long-term solution to global warming. Rather, it will enable us to get by while we figure out the best way to address the root causes of man-made climate change. This may not seem like much, but at a time when fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse threaten to swamp rational debate about climate policy, it’s worth noting that coping with climate change is something we know how to do.
Because Washington Post editorial editor Fred Hiatt did not bother to fact-check Lomborg’s column, the Wonk Room took on the task. We chose to test the new Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a scientist-run initiative to link top climate scientists with the media officially launched today. After we submitted questions about Lomborg’s claims to the team, we received comprehensive answers from three top climate scientists within 48 hours, even though we made our inquiries before the official launch.
In separate e-mail interviews (the scientists also offered to conduct phone interviews), the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology’s Ken Caldeira, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Josh Willis, and Rutgers University’s Alan Robock independently confirmed that Bjorn Lomborg had misrepresented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report.
Caldeira, who believes “one meter (or three feet) per century from melting ice sheets is probably in the right ball park” for future sea level rise, explained what Lomborg left out when citing the “20 inches by 2100″ figure:
Like mercury in a thermometer, seawater expands and rises as it heats up. Melting ice also causes sea level rise. The third assessment report considered only thermal expansion of the ocean and not melting glacial ice.
Willis discussed the details of the IPCC report further:
Bjorn’s claim that the IPCC report says that global sea levels are not likely to rise more than about 20 inches by 2100 is incorrect. You have to remember that the sea level projections in the 2007 IPCC report had a big asterisk by them. The report was very clear that the 20 inch projection was probably too low because it did not account for the kinds of dynamic changes in the glaciers and ice sheets that we see today. In fact, the IPCC report was careful to say that they could not place any upper bound on the amount of sea level rise that is likely over the next century.
Robock’s response reaffirmed Willis and Caldeira. Furthermore, when asked the research the IPCC summarized still “the best research we have” on the likely range of sea level rise, Robock said, “Absolutely not”:
Absolutely not. It was the best we had five years ago, but there has been a lot of work since then, including better observations of the rate of melting from Greenland and Antarctica and better models.
Robock also explained that Lomborg mischaracterized the work of the world scientific community when he argued that those who call for the immediate reduction of global warming pollution are relying on “fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse”:
His choice of words is very alarmist and cherry-picking from other alarmists. The IPCC and the world scientific community do not say “supposedly imminent apocalypse.” They engage in rational debate. He is saying that extremists on one side are much more influential than it seems to me that they are. In fact it is the extremists who argue against any response to global warming who have been much more effective so far.
He is also wrong in asserting that we know how to adapt to climate change. If that were true, nobody would be worried about it. How do we adapt to massive extinctions of natural species? How do we adapt to all the major coastal cities of the world having to deal with flooding from stronger storms and rising sea level? Dikes will not do it.
And there are no geoengineering techniques that have ever even been tested, let alone shown to produce less risks than the risks of global warming.
But I agree that adaptation is not a long-range solution. Mitigation is, but we have to get started immediately.
Of course, none of this is actually news. At Real Climate, top sea-level specialist Stefan Rahmstorf explained the IPCC sea level numbers back in March, 2007. At Climate Progress, Joe Romm debunked Lomborg’s lies about sea level rise back in September, 2007. And climate scientists have been warning the presidents of the United States of the “vast geophysical experiment” of global warming since the 1960s, and calling for reduction in fossil fuel use by the 1970s.
Former GOP chair of House Science Committee Sherry Boehlert on “Science the GOP can’t wish away”
What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.
The National Academy reports concluded that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.” Party affiliation does not change that fact.
Once upon a time there were moderate, pro-science Republicans in DC, like Sherry Boehlert, former chair of the House Science Committee. They are pretty much all gone from office now, replaced by Tea Party extremists, but Boehlert had a great op-ed in Friday’s WashPost, with the print headline, “Science the GOP can’t wish away.”
Here are more excerpts:
Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.
National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists.
Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.
When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts – always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists – careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect – report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.
While many in politics – and not just of my party – refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation’s most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by “tree huggers” sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying “in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.”
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry — the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity — are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.
And it’s also self-destructive (see “A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice“).
Sadly, this is mostly howling at the moon (see “The climate zombie caucus of the 112th Congress“).
The Science Of Guessing
Jonah Lehrer reports on a new study that appears to prove "psi" – instances of telepathy, clairvoyance or psychokinesis. But Lehrer reminds us it's been done before:
Consider the story of Adam Linzmayer. In the spring of 1931, Linzmayer, an undergraduate at Duke University, began participating in an experimental test of extra-sensory perception, or ESP. The study was led by the psychologist Joseph Banks Rhine and revolved around the Zener deck, a special set of cards featuring five different symbols. The test itself is straightforward: A card is drawn from the deck and the subject is asked to guess the symbol. While most of Rhine’s subjects performed in the neighborhood of random chance – they guessed about 20 percent of the cards correctly – Linzmayer averaged nearly fifty percent during his initial sessions. Furthermore, these “guesses” led to several uncanny streaks, such as when he correctly guessed nine cards in a row. The odds of this happening by chance are about one in two million. Linzmayer did it three times.
In a short time, Linzmayer lost his abilities, and performed only slightly higher than average. What makes the new study by Daryl Bem so important is "Bem’s attempt to create rigorous, well-controlled tests of psi that can be replicated by independent investigators."
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
New ‘Climate Science Posts’ sidebar
You asked for a sidebar on climate science, and you got it!
I’ve put up a few possibilities, but I’d like to know what you think should go there. I don’t think it should be more than 5 to 7 posts, aimed mostly at new visitors (who actually comprise a substantial fraction of visits on any given day).
The full list of my posts on climate science that you can choose from are here.
Hmm. Looking at that category makes me realize that it also has posts in it on the disinformers and confusionists. Maybe I need a new category for them so that the “science” category just has articles on climate science.
I’m not averse to writing an overview post on climate science basics, but it might be better just to create a post that links to some of the best resources on CP and the blogosphere on climate science, things like In must-see AGU video, Richard Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History” and, of course, Skeptical Science.
So feel to propose content/links for an “Intro to climate science” post.
Who’s Up For a ‘Center for Science in the Public Interest Xtreme Eating Awards’ Diet?
**Written by Doug Powers
As the First Lady prepares to announce a plan to put 5,000 salad bars in schools across the nation (nothing says “this will keep you healthy” like a salad bar for runny-nosed students who are a foot-and-a-half shorter than the sneeze guard), the Center for Science in the Public Interest has announced their 2010 Xtreme Eating Awards for the most unhealthy foods you can put in your body. Some of it looks pretty darn good!
For some time now, I’ve had the notion for a diet consisting of nothing other than foods the Center for Science in the Public Interest warns us not to eat, and this might be tha catalyst to get it started.
Here’s what the CSPI’s Xtreme Eating Awards are all about:
With two out of three adults—and one out of three children—overweight or obese, you’d think that restaurants would have some interest in keeping their patrons alive and dining out longer.
With mandatory calorie labeling on the horizon for chain restaurants, you’d think that restaurants would be dropping high-calorie items from their menus.
With close to 30 percent of young Americans too heavy to join the military, you’d think that restaurants would at least stop introducing new heavyweight items.
Nope. It’s business as usual in the restaurant industry. And that means it’s business as usual around here. Welcome to our 2010 Xtreme Eating Awards.
The “get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and close Gitmo” left has been reduced to expecting everybody to believe that they’re losing sleep over people’s weight disqualifying them from joining the military? If you had “no, that’s not why” in the office pool, you win. The reason of course is that turning obesity into a national security issue gives them a weak justification for yet another government takeover — of “Big Chef” in this case.
By the way, the Xtreme Eating winners are here. More stuff to add to my bucket list.
The CSPI calls Olive Garden’s 1,030-calorie, deep-fried Lasagna Fritta appetizer “food porn.” Bow-chicka-bow-bowww… Previous CSPI “food porn” winners are “Debbie Does Donuts” and “Deep-Dish-Pizza Throat.”
As for the new diet, no, I don’t think I’ll exist completely on food the Center for Science in the Public Interest warns against, but if I did I’m willing to bet that I’d still outlive the namby-pamby nannies at the CSPI whose blood-pressure reading red lines every time they see a McDonalds Happy Meal commercial.
My kids won’t take part in the new diet either, because they have something called “parents,” and as such have little need for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
