NPR helpfully weighs in on climate change and the upcoming election. Even though a certain party has had super-majority control of the Congress and the Executive branch for the past 2-years (and done nothing on energy/climate policy), NPR blames the real boogeymen and women: GOP candidates not-yet-elected and, of course author George W. Bush. Their arguments, aside from being of the typical straw man variety, go back to the age-old meme: if only the knuckledraggers and flat-earthers would get with the program and accede to the demands of the enlightened (NY Times John Broder summarizes that argument, dutifully). From NPR, which is known for impartial analysis:
The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
That’s a scientific fact.
Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
That too, is a fact.
And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.
Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he’s a climate change denier. Ron Johnson, who leads in the polls of Wisconsin’s senatorial race, has said that “it is far more likely that [climate change] is just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate.”
And when Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was asked whether human activity contributes to global warming, she said, “I don’t have an opinion on that.”
Conservatives in Congress are turning against the science behind climate change. That means if Republicans take control this November, there’s little hope for climate change policy.
Today’s climate change denial trend isn’t new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.
Scientific Findings Dismissed
For 10 years, Rick Piltz worked as a senior official for the Global Change Research Program — the main governmental office that gathers scientific data on climate change carried out by U.S. researchers.
“It was an office where the world of science collided with the world of climate politics,” Piltz tells NPR’s Guy Raz.
In the spring of 2001, Piltz was putting together a major report for Congress. The report would include clear evidence that tied carbon emissions to a rapid shift in global temperatures.
Piltz says his team was told “to delete the pages that summarized the findings of the IPCC report. To delete the material about the National Assessment of climate change impacts that had just come out.”
The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the international body that collects climate research from countries around the world. The National Assessment was a similar report that covered research from U.S.-based scientists. In both cases, the result was conclusive: Climate change was happening and human activity was speeding it up.
But the Bush White House didn’t buy it.
“The expertise had come together to make pretty clear and compelling statements, and to say that you didn’t believe it was to say that you didn’t want to go along with the preponderance of scientific evidence,” Piltz says.
The science was being politicized. Over the next four years, almost every report Piltz and his team put out was heavily edited. References to climate change or carbon emissions were altered or even deleted.
By 2005, Piltz couldn’t take it anymore. He resigned and told his story to The New York Times.
A Conservative Who Spoke Up — And Paid The Price
It’s a big deal for Republicans in Congress to say they believe that humans are heating the planet.
“People look at you like you’ve grown an extra head or something,” says Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina.
Inglis has represented South Carolina’s 4th District for the last 12 years, but this one will be his last.
In June, Inglis lost the primary bid to Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Trey Gowdy, who accused him of not being conservative enough.
For the longest time, Inglis says, education, health care issues and the environment have been Democratic issues, while taxes and national security have been Republican issues. Inglis says that’s not right.
“As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that’s our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that’s who we are.”
Inglis paid the price for speaking out about the importance of conservation and climate change.
He admits he may have “committed other heresies,” such as voting for TARP and against the troop surge. “But the most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let’s do something about it.”
Inglis, who also voted no on cap-and-trade, tried to make climate change palatable for conservatives. He proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions — mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.
Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. “We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn’t like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there.”
Inglis even stressed the need to hold the oil and coal companies accountable for their environmental practices.
Accountability, he says, “is a very bedrock conservative concept — even a biblical concept.”
Even though Inglis won’t be coming back to the Hill to serve another term, he hasn’t lost hope in climate change policy. The choice, Inglis says, is clear.
“Do we play to our strengths? Or do we continue to play to our weakness — which is playing the oil game.”
Tackling Climate Change Takes Both The Left And The Right
Bill McKibben, scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont and the founder of 350.org, says it is a tragedy that conservatives are turning their back on the science behind climate change.
“On this issue maybe more than most, we need that interplay of liberal and conservative,” he says. “Liberals are good at sort of pointing the way forward in kind of progressive new directions and conservatives are good at providing the anchor that says human nature won’t go along with that. That back and forth has been very useful.”
If Republicans take control of the House this November, McKibben says, he doesn’t see a future for climate change policy.
“Look, the Democrats — with a huge majority — couldn’t pass climate change legislation even of a very, very weak variety this year, so I doubt there’ll be any action over the next two years.”
That is, unless conservatives decide to team up with liberals.
“We desperately need conservatives at the forefront of the fight,” McKibben says. “The sooner that conservatives are willing to accept the science, the reality, the sooner we can get to work with their very important help in figuring out what set of prescriptions, what combination of market and regulation will be required in order to deal with the most serious problem we’ve ever stumbled into.”
“The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises. That’s a scientific fact.”
That statement reminds me of Achilles and the Tortoise. One can believe that, and still believe the effects of CO2 are overrated. For instance, the temperature can increse with each additional doubling by a factor of 1/10
The net increase after n doublings would be
1.111111…….
Whaddaya expect from a bunch of knuckle dragging PROGRESSIVES who would fire Juan Williams?!?!?!?! He apparently wasn’t extreme enough for them on every single talking point!!!
Depends on the fuel. I’ve seen plenty of whitish/greyish smoke.
You don’t need to be a weatherman to see that Anthropogenic Climate Change is coming to DC on Election night.
I do not think that the word “fact” means what NPR thinks it means. NPR begins a broadcast segment with the assertion that “manmade CO2 causes Earth’s temperature to rise and that is a fact.” I will not rehearse the infinity of reasons for believing that this “fact” is not a fact. NPR is a propagandist for statist causes. It is nigh time that NPR be defunded. US citizens who choose to be communists are welcome to do so. But out government should not be in the business of funding communists.
I have listened to NPR fairly often for well over 30 years. I remember the piece NPR did on Kristen Byrnes a couple of years ago. While it was somewhat balanced, the music score they chose in the background was one I’ve heard them use in other pieces that were about looney, off-beat or comical subject matter that was not to be taken seriously.
Ryan,
I would call it a news report reporting the hypothesis that most climate scientists would say is best supported by the available data.
Ryan: that’s your opinion, and that’s fair. This article is built upon the classical liberal template that the GOP is standing in the way of science, and in their mindset, “progress”. In fact, it has been recalcitrant Democrats who torpedoed cap and trade in the Senate (cross reference West Virginia governor Joe Manchin’s campaign commercial blowing a hole with his rifle in a cap and trade bill). Note the Obama administration’s handling of the oil spill data, and “suppressing” scientific data and not allowing NOAA to go public. Geeze, sorta blows a hole in that James Hansen not-being-able-to-speak-out-under-Bush canard…
rogerthesurf says:
October 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm
“The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
That’s a scientific fact.”
‘Do you think he had some proof for that statement which I don’t know about? Of the empirical kind I mean.’
———————————————————
Try the surface temperature data collected over the past 100 years and the direct CO2 data since the 1950’s and ice core data going back earlier. You might also want to look at the RSS and UAH microwave data of tropospheric oxygen, and compare that warming with the surface warming data. Take a look at the NSIDC September report and look at September ice minima over the past 40 years. There is plenty of data out there, data of different types that are all internally consistent. You need to spend more time with actual data and less time with an easily available ideology that supports what you’d like to believe.
Owen says:
October 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Mr. Hansford,
Ah Owen, Owen, Owen…where to begin, where to begin… *Sigh*
I’d start with lognormal mathematics. That may be something you didn’t pass in college, or even get to, but it isn’t too late.
Astonishing ignorance at NPR.
Have they no understanding of the properties of the CO2 molecule? Its ability to hold heat is logarithmic, not geometric.
Greatest source of CO2? How about primary production, soil respiration, and geophysical events? All of those beat human activities as the lead contributor of CO2
Those clowns need to be calibrated.
Anybody who talks about THE SCIENCE
How many ways can AGW be shown wrong? Add one more to the list tomorrow morning. What will NPR do when the whole thing finally collapses on their heads. Oh wait, then they will be the deniers.
John Kehr
NPR is nothing more than the Left hand of the DNC and fanatical left.. George Soros (who is reaping billions due to Obama’s Ban in the Gulf which sent drilling rigs and the employment south) is giving millions to NPR to keep it going…
that in itself is reason enough to defund it..
It is also reason to suspect anything it does..what are its motives?
I don’t know what happened then.
What I was trying to say was:-
Anybody who talks about THE SCIENCE gets my back up straight away.
What they mean is “scientific evidence” for a particular hypothesis.
The term “THE SCIENCE” alerts us to the fact that it is a politican speaking.
That’s wether they have been awarded a PHD or not.
“THE SCIENCE” sounds just like “the recepe” for puff cakes or somesuch.
Science is a process – the “scientific method”, not a thing.
Just this quote alone is a complete lie because there is no”fact” established.
“Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
That too, is a fact.”
PROVE that it is a fact! Let’s see it.
NPR has outlived its usefulness.
They call themselves “Public” Radio, but they do not necessarily reflect the views and the interests of the Public…who [whether the Public likes it or not] funds them with their tax money.
I have to admit…[and I have listened to and supported NPR for many years]….their handling of this highly, highly irresponsible piece…combined with the North-Korean-style censorship of Juan Williams recently…it is all adding up.
They’ve got to go.
Good riddance, NPR. You will never get another dollar of donation from me.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
They [NPR] report as if they are in their own greenhouse effect of the Washington Insider Greenhouse, and feedback is rampant.
Pathetic.
Keep talking, NPR. Keep talking.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
But the really BIG question, Owen, isn’t about whether there’s warming–it’s what to do about it.
I take it you’re a Kyoto Protocol fan… am I right? If so (and I’m presuming a Yes answer here), then you don’t have any trouble spending, say, $40 Trillion for a $3 Trillion benefit?
See, the thing about some Repubs isn’t that they’re science-dead-in-the-brain as you claim; no, what they do is what any good businessman or engineer would do, and that is consider what happens AFTER the science. What amazes me is that your so-called “science” president (who’s so far from being a scientist it’s a joke!) is really no businessman, either. And he’s no engineer, to boot!
So the Dems charge ahead like there’s no tomorrow (literally, from their belief in “Tipping Points”, apparently), and that must be what drives them to spend SO MUCH MONEY! (By 2012, the INTEREST alone will consume all tax revenues… oh jolly good, we’re never going to get out of debt!)
What, the Dems don’t plan on being around when the debt comes due? Their “catastrophe” will have wiped everybody out by that time?
That’s about the only logical explanation unless one considers the alternative, which is BLT and then it all makes sense! Perfect sense!
When I got to the line where NPR says….
“Today’s climate change denial trend isn’t new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.”
…I couldn’t read any further. Fortunately, that was early in the piece, saving me the pain of reading the whole thing.
As a climate scientist, I’ve been interviewed twice by NPR for “no things considered”, once about Noctilucent Clouds and another time about a lunar eclipse. Both times the interviewer asked me if humanity was influencing the appearance or occurrence of the phenomena, and both time I answered, simply, “no”. So both times he rephrased the questions and asked again, and again once more, a total of six times. Six times my answer was “no”. Of course, none of my “no” answers were aired.
So what hypocrites they are at NPR – censoring facts, comments, and interviews that suggest that AGW (and related human trashing of the universe) is NOT happening, while claiming others censor data that suggest AGW is happening.
From my personal experience with NPR and with some academic entities who shall remained unnamed until I retire, censorship of facts that refute AGW is rampant.
Poor NPR. As AusieDan alludes to, they have failed to understand that there is no such a thing as a “scientific fact”. There is science which seeks to determine the facts, and there are facts. One cannot disagree with the facts. One can only disagree with the selection, accuracy and interpretation of the facts (which would be the science). Conflating one as the other reveals a troubling inability to differentiate between the two, or else a deliberate attempt to mislead.
I don’t know which is worse (and that is a fact).
I shall now return to my reading of historical literature which is my second favourite topic after the climate debate. I have a wonderful book that I am part way through. I just got to the part where science determined that anyone who was ill had too much blood in them and some would have to be let out. I know this seems shocking today, but at the time it was apparently the consensus, and the science was settled, and those who disagreed were simply too stupid to understand the scientific facts. Seems like the blood letters had trouble differentiating between science and fact as well.
On the other hand it is scientific fact that throwing virgins into volcanoes prevents them from erupting. I can prove this by pointing out the large number of undersea volcanoes recently discovered. There are more than we thought because no one threw any virgins into them. Only the land based volcanoes have had virgins thrown into them, and their number has remained static. My understanding is that some primitive tribes attempted to throw virgins into undersea volcanoes, but without success. It turns out virgins float. Who knew? Maybe virgins are all witches? I haven’t read that far yet but I think that’s where the science went the next century in regard to detecting witches.
In any event there seems to be some sort of parallel between volcano control and disease control. If the volcano erupted despite having had virgins thrown in, it was clear that an insufficient number of virgins had been used. Similarly, if blood letting failed to cure the patient and they died, clearly an insufficent amount of blood had been let out according to the proven scientific consensus of the time, and they had the facts to prove it.
Turns out they were “scientific facts” which don’t actually exist.
Peter Pan says: “If only ALL the kids out there would get on board and say the magic words, Tinkerbell the Climate Fairy would recover!”
LOL.
What warming?
Oh, you mean that little 0.6C blip the last 100 years?
The warming stopped 10-15 yrs ago, and that’s the way the climate cookie crumbles.
NPR is so last decade. They have a program called Fresh Air, and they really should step outside and get some of it before they pass out.
Having been a computer programmer for the past 44 years (including programming for NOAA) I am well familiar with the difference between scientific facts and computer modeling. A computer model of our atmosphere is only a finite approximation to all the atmospheric physics, which isn’t even fully understoond. AGW is an outgrowth of computer models, not scientific facts.
Ryan: by all means expound…
During a campaign the air is full of speeches – and vice versa.
(Henry Adams)
Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. “We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn’t like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there.”
—
I guess he means Canada, eh?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I consider myself to be neither a D or an R, but the choice between the parties on AGW and other areas of politicized science has pushed me more toward the R’s, particularly in this election cycle when voting D will almost certainly result in Cap & Trade of one type or another.