Posts
Utah's Legislature Goes for Climate Science Denial
Last week Utah's House of Representatives voted 56-17 for a non-binding resolution urging the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide, ostensibly because they fear it will hurt Utah's agriculture. OK, that's understandable; no problem. It's their job to represent the interests of their constituents and seek the best policies. Unfortunately, this concern for Utah's economy is accompanied by an attempt by several House members to become to climate science what Chris Buttars was to evolution.
This has been brewing since at least last fall, which prompted 18 BYU earth scientists to write the House and urge them not to embrace fringe views. (See Open Letter (PDF).)
You can read the bill here. It includes amendments that changed some of the more inflammatory language, like "conspiracy" and "gravy train." That's right; the person who composed this resolution--Rep. Kerry Gibson, apparently--used the words "gravy train".
Anyway, the bill is nonsense almost from beginning to end. It's also self-contradictory. If I may paraphrase: Scientists have been fudging data to make it look like the earth is warming, but it's not. But if it is, the warming is natural. Or if it isn't natural, it's because of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are not used anymore. And that explains why the natural, non-existent, artificial warming has leveled off over the last 12 years.
Also of interest are some of the comments reported in the Salt Lake Tribune.[Rep. Gibson] said there is mounting evidence that humans can't influence their environment...
That's actually a paraphrase, so I have to hope he didn't say that. Because if he did, not only is it asinine, it is contradicted by his own bill where he attributes warming and then cooling to human use (and then non-use) of CFCs.Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, staged a defense of carbon dioxide, saying it is an odorless gas that is "essentially harmless to human beings" that is unrelated to air pollution and can actually encourage plant growth.
Thank you, Rep. Noel, for the science lesson. But I'm sorry, that is not a serious argument. In the physical world nothing is an unadulterated good in unlimited quantities.
Rep. Noel thinks he knows what is really behind all the fuss about climate change: population control. But Noel defended the "conspiracy" wording, pointing to an out-of-print textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, written in the 1970s by biologist Paul Ehrlich, Ehrlich's wife, Anne, and physicist John Holdren about the potential hazards of unchecked population.
Don't forget fluoride! Fluoridation of water has to be somewhere in there too!
The Kanab Republican, referring to Holdren as the Obama administration's "energy czar," read from passages of the 1,000-plus-page tome about population-control alternatives that included abortion and forced sterilization. He did not share the authors' conclusion: that voluntary population-limiting methods are "a far better choice." [I think that means that Noel failed to mention the conclusion, not that he disagrees with it. -- LDSSR]
"Now, if you can't see a connection [of a conspiracy] to that," the legislator said, "you're absolutely blind to what is going on. This is absolutely -- in my mind, this is in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe."
The icing on the cake in all of this is the call for an apology from BYU and the 18 scientists who wrote the letter last fall. To their credit, both BYU and its scientists say there will be no apology. I guess those 18 scientists feel free to speak their mind since they aren't dependent on the "gravy train" of state funding for their jobs.
Personally, I think the House owes the citizens of Utah an apology for passing a resolution filled with nonsense, and for indulging in conspiracy thinking to the point that they have latched onto any dissenting views and ignored the expertise coming from one of their state's major universities.
27 comments:
Thanks for pointing this out. This is hugely embarrassing for Utah. In fact it reminds me of when in 1897 Indiana State Representative T.I. Record introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives that the value of pi should be 3.20. How sad that the legislature is seeped in so much ignorance about how science works. You can't legislate the facts of the universe. Very sad. Sad and frightening. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.
This is one of the rare times when I feel like protesting, no matter how unlikely it is that any politician will be swayed by a citizen who doesn't have money to buy influence.
I realize your thing is science rather than politics, but do you have any suggestions for making an effective statement? Anybody in particular in our loony legislature who might oppose this nonsense and use my letter as one more bit of support for his opposition? Anything else I can do?
Steve,
Thanks for reminding me of the pi bill. Similarly, after Pluto was made a dwarf planet, New Mexico and Illinois passed resolutions that Pluto is a planet. But that's really just semantics.
Ardis,
I'm not a Utah resident, so I'm afraid that I don't have much advice. I guess the State Senate and the Governor are the ones to contact now. You could also see whether your representative supported this and register your pleasure or displeasure as appropriate.
On the bright side, as far as I know it's really only a symbolic statement.
No doubt there are errors here and there, but ultimately this is a policy statement, and as I am sure you are well aware, physical science does not and cannot recommend what is the optimal social policy.
That is what economics is for, a subject that climate scientists (when not falsifying their own data) tend to be woefully ignorant of, if not in outright denial about. We must triple the price of energy because otherwise the glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear in twenty years, right?
So, once you have demonstrated to all parties concerned that the Himalayan glaciers will definitely disappear in our lifetime if we do nothing, hire an economist to produce definitive evidence on the social and economic costs and benefits of doing so relative to all the other problems that could be addressed with the same resources.
I'm embarrassed. It makes the whole state look foolish and backwards.
Didn't Ronald Reagan say trees caused pollution?
Anon,
I'm not sure about that, but in a mix-up he did say, "Facts are stupid things."
Mark,
Yes, policy is a separate matter. No argument here otherwise.
The IPCC admitted that the Himalayan glacier error was indeed an error. (I'm sure they also regret the anxiety you have felt over the matter for the last two years.) Will the Utah House admit that almost their whole bill is a mistake?
"This is hugely embarrassing for Utah."
I think this applies to everything that the Utah State Legislature does.
Mark,
These people in the legislature are not driven by climate science or economics, but the Eagle Forum.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is hugely good for Utah. In fact it reminds me of how not so many years ago there was concern about global cooling. How good it is that the legislature is taking a stand for common sense and demanding a definite link between global warming and human behavior. The legislator is lucid in its thinking about how science works. You can't legislate change that is based on incomplete scientific evidence. Very good. Good and welcoming. Send the manmade global warming alarmists back to the Middle Ages.
However, I wish the legislation were more about cleaning Utah's air, which gets real bad in the winter months. I will get behind legislation to clean the air.
From the bill:
"global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;"
Correct. Phil Jones recently said fifteen.
"the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and
climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures; "
Also correct. Michael Mann is guilty of cherry picking his data, as well as using statistical techniques that can turn any data series into a hockey stick.
"there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming "
Also correct. See the recent climate gate emails.
It takes some considerable effort to find anything that is wrong with this document.
Ultimately though, this is a policy document, stating that the sense of the legislature is that it is premature for the EPA to attempt to regulate dioxide. Even if (most) everything the IPCC claims was true, that would still be a reasonable policy expression based on any number of economic factors, some of which are mentioned in the text of the bill.
BTW, I have never seen any evidence that the Eagle Forum has much in the way of interest in non-social issues. Abortion, parental rights, etc, are the kind of thing they care about.
The Eagle Forum cares about all sorts of issues beyond basic social issues. They publish columns and opinions on all of the issues that they care about on their website. You can even fill out questionnaires for politicians to see how in line or out of line you are with the Eagle Forum, and many of their questions are more than just social issues. I can see the Utah Eagle Forum backing this resolution 100%; I don't think it's unlikely that they are indeed part of the driving force behind it and similar measures.
Mark D, it seems like you are placing the blame for bad policy on the scientists (in your first comment). It is not the responsibility of science to formulate policy based on the evidence it discovers. Politicians and policy makers often cite scientific research as support for their policy, but that in no way implies that the researchers agree with said policy.
Take the BYU letter as an example. The scientists that signed the letter make a point that they have diverse political beliefs: "We note, in closing, that the undersigned represent a number of political persuasions (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents,) and disagree with one another about how society ought to respond to the threats posed by a warming climate."
Perhaps the reason that we are getting bad policy as a result of all this is that politicians (like those in Utah) are wasting taxpayer money by spending time on stupid resolutions like this instead of coming up with smart solutions. Maybe you should give them a lesson in "economics."
Dave:
"demanding a definite link between global warming and human behavior"
Despite the scandals and outliers, this is what an overwhelming consensus of climatologists is asserting. Surely you understand that scientists, especially a majority, would not continue to stake their reputations on a theory that has truly been debunked. These guys are standing up for their science and the scientific community is supporting them despite the crazy denialism that is going on.
We are seeing the effects of this denialism in our government's policy making and that is terrifying.
I agree with Mark on all points.
The use of the word "Denial" in the title of this post flags it as having been written by a True Believer in AGW. As best I can tell, the "science" is far from settled on this issue, though the propaganda has been intense. I am not convinced that we really have a problem with CO2. From where I sit it looks like a highly politicized debate based on rather incomplete climate models, heavily manipulated data, and fervent belief.
Fortunately, it looks like the hot air is escaping from this issue at the national level-- if only because we can't afford it (at least not without "evil" nuclear power :-) ). I'm game to spend public money doing more research, but I'm not going to go hog-wild over this.
Letting the EPA decide on its own to regulate CO2 as a pollutant is dangerous policy in its own right that will almost certainly be very harmful to both the economy and our freedom and produce negligible environmental benefits. Unless a law is passed allowing the EPA to do so it is also unconstitutional (even then there are issues for strict-constructionists).
Have you run out of "LDS Science" to review? There are far more opinions here than science.
Mark,
"global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;"
Correct. Phil Jones recently said fifteen.
No. First, it depends on whose numbers you use. NASA GISS has better coverage of some areas and has 2005 as the warmest year. (See here, esp discussion of Fig. 4). As for Jones, he said that if you only look at the last 15 years, you don't get statistical significance. But that's because it's too small of a window to be meaningful. Back it up to 1975 and you do get statistical significance. Further, he specifically denied a cooling trend.
"Also correct. Michael Mann is guilty of cherry picking his data, as well as using statistical techniques that can turn any data series into a hockey stick."
Mann's statistics in his original "hockey stick" papers had some problems, but correcting them had little effect on the result. Further, independent studies using different proxies and statistical techniques have gotten similar results. The "hockey stick" is not discredited in the eyes of the National Academies of Sciences, nor the IPCC.
Tom the Younger,
I used the words "climate science denial" instead of "climate change denial" on purpose. The Utah House has chosen to embrace fringe views rather than the mainstream state of the science, which they mis-characterize. The state of the science is a separate question from whether it is right or should be acted upon.
Unless a law is passed allowing the EPA to do so it is also unconstitutional...
The Supreme Court said otherwise in 2007. The EPA is not involved just because it wants to be. It is involved because of its duties in relation to the Clean Air Act.
It would have been so much better had the legislature worded the resolution honestly.
"We believe CO2 emission regulation will adversely affect our constituency and economy related to Utah's large oil and coal industry. Furthermore we *believe* the science of global warming is incomplete."
Isn't that more honest and up front? Even respectable! It can then be debated for what it is rather than taking advantage of the current public misinformation and confusion.
Jared, I agree that funny things sometimes come up in the Utah Legislature, but I don't think this is one of them. After your reply I finally followed the link and looked at it. It was an admirably short bill :-) and, frankly, not the silly statement that you characterized it to be.
Perhaps it has been updated since you first read it, but the primary concern I read of in lines 22-28 are that "the proposed cap and trade legislation... would result in significantly higher energy costs to American consumers, business, and industry". I too am extremely concerned about energy costs. Agriculture comes up in lines 59-62, but it is clearly a secondary, supporting argument.
The resolution list quite a few other serious concerns I share about the Global Warming/Climate Change movement's proposals. The link you provide to the New Scientist website does not prove that "the bill is nonsense" from beginning to end, though it does assert to answer some (but not all) of the concerns raised in the resolution.
I suppose I should be glad that there are brave and noble souls determined to protect us from the evils of carbon dioxide, but I rather doubt that we understand climate enough to make such big policy changes. I am fairly confident that the side affects of the proposed "cure" are much worse than the disease.
Not to mention the fact that that we are totally ignoring the dangers of dihydrogen-monoxide:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Take care :-) .
Good grief. I thought the denialism was bad in Europe, but it seems to have gone even further in North America, when it's actually reached legislation.
I spent a large part of the the last few months looking into the material given by denialists (when I should have been more busy on my thesis), and have seen nothing but unsubstantiated claims, based on misunderstandings and conclusion jumping as well as completely ungrounded charges and rumours, being spread as "the truth". Every charge has a more plausible explanation, and yet the 'hoax'-labelled ideas are the ones chosen. I'm quite baffled.
In discussions with denialists, I found myself back to the same situation as last year, when I tried to show moon landing denialists that they were a "bit" wild in their assumptions.
I very much enjoy this blog, and the balanced way in which you discuss science in your entries. Keep at it!!!
(Is the refusal to change the classification of Pluto in New Mexico and Illinois true??? That is just completely hilarious... )
Stan,
I agree with you.
Tom the Younger,
I don't claim to know all the background, but Reps. Kerry Gibson and Mike Noel are farmers, and the Utah Farm Bureau was a big supporter.
Theresa,
Thanks for the support. Good luck with your thesis. On Pluto, see this.
These are the standards the EPA is supposed to follow, by law, to determine tbat a substance should be placed on the list of federally regulated air pollutants:
The Administrator shall periodically review the list established by this subsection and publish the results thereof and, where appropriate, revise such list by rule, adding pollutants which present, or may present, through inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise, but not including releases subject to regulation under subsection (r) of this section as a result of emissions to the air.
Does that sound remotely like the sort of hazard potentially posed by larger than normal levels of carbon dioxide? What adverse health effects are posed by ~400 ppm of CO2?
I recognize of course that the Supreme Court has decided that the EPA has the authority to make such a determination. That doesn't mean, however, that someone with legal standing won't be able to challenge that determination in the future.
By the way "climate science denial" is dogmatic two times over. It implies a univocality that science does not have, and especially not on this question (namely the severity and/or existence of anthropogenic global warning), and the idea that climate science is an either or question - heretic or true believer, that's your choice.
The debate is over, and the religion established, apparently, before it has hardly begun. Any deviation from orthodoxy must be censored, ridiculed, and punished any and all evidence to the contrary. No time for opposing views, no back and forth, just dogma and superstition established by the high priesthood of climate "science" from beginning to end.
Too inflammatory you say? Hardly more so than "climate science denial", about a theory (AGW) that has some of the thinnest evidence in the history of scientific theories. Correlation is not causation, and that is about all that AGW has going for it. Roughly the same level of evidence as the correlation between the population of China and the size of the national debt.
Mark,
You can find out the health effects by following the EPA link above.
...a theory (AGW) that has some of the thinnest evidence in the history of scientific theories. Correlation is not causation, and that is about all that AGW has going for it.
I am not a climate scientist, so I have to trust what the community of experts say, just like we all do on many other topics. But with all due respect, I've read enough of the resources I've collected here to have a hard time taking that kind of statement seriously.
Of course there is still much to learn, and we may never have absolute certainty. But when someone stakes a claim against the mainstream science, they need to have good and intellectually honest reasons. I don't think the Utah House has done that.
No remotely informed person claims that the world hasn't gradually been warming (on average) over the past thirty years, if taking a bit of a vacation for the past ten.
The debate is about anthropogenic global warming, and there the evidence consists largely of some crude computer models that have had very little success in predicting much of anything (like the leveling off of temperatures for about a decade now).
The legislatures of the world are ultimately the bodies that have to be convinced that heavy carbon dioxide regulation is worth more than it costs. So don't ridicule them, convince them.
By the way, in the spirit of balance, one could do a lot worse than read the perspective represented in the more technical posts here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Just a quick comment to Mark D's last entry: In the spirit of balance, if there's a link to Watt's blog, I'd like to counter with this blog entry - complete with references to the original papers (after all, those are the ones one *should* be reading, rather than people's possibly biased opinions on what the papers say):
climateprogress.org: A guide to current state of climate science
Post a Comment