Posts
Newsweek on Global Warming Denial
Newsweek has a lengthy article on the organized and well-funded anti-global warming campaign. Here is the jist:
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
5 comments:
A couple of months ago, in an NPR interview this comment was made by NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin:
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." (FoxNews.com, June 1, 2007.)
After the interview aired, Griffin issued the following comments in a press release:
"NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems.
"It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well." (Ibid.)
.
What is your reaction to this?
I would also be interested in your comments about this article.
I don't have much of a reaction to either. I tend to agree with those who say that Griffen's comment is a non sequitur. Nobody thinks that we have the ideal climate, rather the issue concerns changing of the climate around which we have built our lives (eg. coastal cities, current areas of food production, etc).
As for the water vapour, I don't know much about climatology. But others that do say it is essentially a red herring.
This article is worth mentioning.
In any case the Newsweek story is rather one sided - prominent examples of global warming being exagerrated are not mentioned. What about The Day After Tommorrow or Earth in Balance?
The U.N. IPCC says the sea level may rise by 23 inches over the next century. That is not exactly catastrophic.
Ultimately though the interesting question is not exactly how much the temperature will rise, but the cost / benefit analysis of doing something significant enough to make a measurable difference. I seriously doubt measures as drastic as doubling the price of all carbon based fuels would make much more than a dent in total emissions.
If that was worth mentioning, then so is this.
I am glad they figured it out. It is not the sort of thing that inspires confidence.
Post a Comment