climate change skepticism

Bush dodges question about whether climate change is caused by humans

After making kissy-face in front of the press corps at the White House today, Bush and Blair took a couple of questions. One reporter asked Bush whether he believes global warming is an anthropogenic problem (without using any big words, of course):

And, Mr. President, if I may, as well, on climate change -- you didn't talk about climate change -- do you believe that climate change is manmade and that you, personally, as the leader of the richest country in the world, have a responsibility to reverse that change?

Naturally, Bush dodged the causation issue:

In terms of climate change, I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. And my administration isn't waiting around to deal with the issue, we're acting. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it. And if you look at the statistics, you'll find the United States has taken the lead on this research.

[More blather ensued; check it out in the transcript, if you're the masochistic sort.]

As it turns out, even as Bush was bragging about the millions the feds are spending on climate-change research, The New York Times was posting an article by Andy Revkin alleging that the administration is doctoring that very same research to jive with the oil industry's preferred version of the "science":

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.

Wouldn't want those millions of taxpayer dollars to result in any too firm conclusions, now would we?

A review of the distorted plot and politics in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear

Michael Crichton's State of Fear is an attempt to meld serious politico-scientific critique with a modern techno-thriller. It's an ambitious undertaking, but to paraphrase Thomas Edison, success is 1 percent ambition and 99 percent not writing an awful book. Crichton's novel, alas, is unilluminating as a critique and unsatisfying as a thriller.

Climate Wars III: Return of the Scientists

Legitimate climate scientists are at something of a disadvantage. They do careful research and publish peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. Then a squadron of industry-funded pseudo-scientist hacks descends on the popular media to stir up doubt and confusion. By the time the scientists can defend their work in, say, Science, popular attention has moved on. Thus the false sense in the American public that there is real scientific uncertainty about the basic fact of anthropocentric climate change (when there really isn't).

Enter RealClimate.org, a new blog written by a group of bona fide climate scientists.  "We aim," they say, "to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." Already they've got invaluable entries on the recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the "hockey stick" kerfuffle, and the recent study showing that the stratosphere is cooling.

This is an essential resource -- one wishes experts in more areas would start similar blogs -- one that we'll be returning to frequently. Bookmark it.

It’s gettin’ hot in herre

The New York Times editorial page took the Bushies to task yesterday for ignoring and distorting science on climate change, echoing accusations made by NASA's top-dog climatologist, Jim Hansen.

Speaking in Iowa last week, Hansen castigated the Bush administration for its failure to face up to facts and act, and he "said that he had been instructed by Sean O'Keefe, administrator of [NASA], not to discuss publicly the human contribution to global warming," the Times writes. The editorial continues:

[T]his administration has a depressing history of discouraging robust discourse on climate change. ...

The net result is that while most of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto agreement, and committed itself in general terms to mandatory cuts of carbon emissions, America is saddled with a passive strategy of further research and voluntary reductions.

Dr. Hansen said he knew he was risking his credibility and possibly his job by criticizing Mr. Bush in the final days of the campaign, but had decided -- properly so, in our view -- that the risks of silence were greater.

Find more background here.

I Double Dare Ya

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank not known as a particular favorite of enviros, issued a debate challenge to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change last week. In a letter published as an ad in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, CEI Distinguished Fellow Jack Kemp, a one-time vice presidential candidate, congressman, […]