* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 26 Jul 2003
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
North Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
MODERN TIMES by Art Hobson [email protected] A Zealous White House In this space two weeks ago I discussed ideology versus rationality, and the role of ideology in the Bush administration’s zealous promotion of the Iraq invasion. Zealous promotion is characteristic of this administration’s approach to most issues. Here are several examples. Regardless of massive scientific evidence to the contrary, this administration seems ideologically convinced that human-caused global warming is not a threat. Following his inauguration, Bush joined the fossil-fuel industry’s campaign against James Watson’s re-election as chair of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the large body of scientists that has evaluated global warming research. Watson, a respected atmospheric chemist and chief scientist of the World Bank, had successfully chaired the IPCC for five years. During Watson’s tenure, the IPCC confirmed that global warming is occurring, that it is at least partly caused by humans, and that aggressive action against fossil fuel emissions is essential. Fossil fuel interests, who have long seen Watson as a foe, successfully urged Bush to launch an intense international lobbying campaign that unseated Watson. According to Watson, the IPCC’s message that the world can and should reduce fossil fuel emissions “is not the message, for whatever reason, that the Bush administration wanted to hear.” Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center for Climate Change put it more bluntly: “Dr. Watson is a very credible voice for stronger action on climate change, so it’s not all that surprising that the Bush administration didn’t want to renominate him.” Recently, the National Academy of Sciences independently assessed the administration’s own plans for studying global warming. The scientists concluded that those plans lack “a guiding vision, executable goals, and clear criteria.” In short, it lacks the characteristics needed to do good science. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency compiled a report, submitted to the United Nations, that agreed with the IPCC’s conclusion that global warming is a real threat. Despite the report’s origin within his own administration, Bush commented dismissively that “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,” and that he still opposes the Kyoto Treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The White House tinkered with a 2003 EPA environmental report, deleting scientific discussions of the impacts of global warming, and inserting an unwarranted (according to the scientists who wrote the report) emphasis on uncertainties. These alterations were so unscientific that the EPA decided to just delete the report’s entire section on global warming. In March of 2001, Bush reversed a campaign commitment to regulate fossil fuel emissions from power plants, and announced that the Kyoto Treaty is no longer acceptable to the United States. Both moves flew in the face of massive evidence. The scientific and international communities were outraged. An open letter to Bush from Jimmy Carter, John Glenn, and several noted scientists stated that “No challenge we face is more momentous than global climate change. …We urge you to develop a plan to reduce U.S. production of greenhouse gases.” But the only plan forthcoming actually increases U.S. production of greenhouse gases. Another example of administration zealousness is the decision to commit billions of dollars to deploying a missile defense system that is known to be incapable of defending the nation. In an unsuccessful attempt to prevent such a commitment, the American Physical Society passed a resolution calling on the government to delay deployment until the system was demonstrated to be workable against realistic threats. The system being deployed is known to have a success rate of 40 percent at best. This is far from sufficient to protect the nation, since even one nuclear missile that penetrates the system can destroy a large city. We would not accept such a failure rate in the private sector. What if, for example, a nuclear reactor manufacturer installed reactors that catastrophically failed 60 percent of the time? There’s more. The Department of Health and Human Services disbanded or stacked five committees in order (according to a DHHS spokesperson) “to hear preferentially from experts who share the president’s philosophical sensibilities.” Committees on human research, environmental health, workplace injuries, and others were stacked with scientists long affiliated with polluting industries. The administration is obsessive about abortion and sex. For example, America cast a lone vote last year against a long-standing U.N. resolution on population because Bush objected to the terms “reproductive health services” and “reproductive rights.” The White House tinkered with a National Cancer Institute’s website, which formerly stated that the best studies showed “no association between abortion and breast cancer.” The statement was altered to say that the evidence was inconclusive. Fortunately, this alteration was canceled when a scientific review panel insisted that the original language, which correctly reflects current research, be reinstated. Similarly, the web page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which formerly pointed to studies showing that education on condom use did not lead to increased sexual activity, now omits this discussion. The White House is intensifying its scrutiny of sensitive research topics. The National Institutes of Health has warned researchers to cleanse terms such as “transgender, prostitutes, needle exchange, abortion, condom effectiveness, men who have sex with men” and “commercial sex workers” from grant applications and reports. Years ago, the great physicist Max Born stated that “the belief in a single truth and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the world.” We see these words borne out today in the worldwide devastation wrought by rigid ideologies of all sorts. The Bush administration follows a similar anti-rational and ideological path.