My Science, Right or Wrong
Last week proved to be an excellent case study into the uneasy relationship between the Bush administration and the science (and scientists) of global warming.
On Friday, the administration embraced a study from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded with "90 percent certainty" that human carbon emissions over the last 250 years have caused the global climate to warm. Before warning of possible "unintended consequences" of mandatory carbon caps, Bush's Energy Secretary Samuel Bodwin went so far as to say:
Human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth's climate. That issue is no longer up for debate.
You might think that acknowledging the human responsibility for climate change while worrying about possible economic consequences of fixing the problem seems a bit disingenuous, but that's just because you've been reading too much Orwell.
While all this was happening, California Rep. Henry Waxman was holding hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a recently released report (PDF) from the Union of Concerned Scientists accusing the Bush administration of systematically manipulating science to meet their policy goals. More than 1600 government climate scientists were asked about their experiences, and findings in the report include:
Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent of all respondents to the question) perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications.
Two in five (43 percent) perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of scientific findings.
More than one-third (37 percent) perceived or personally experienced statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented scientists' findings.
Nearly two in five (38 percent) perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.
Nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate related work.
The report, and the subsequent Waxman hearings, inspired an exceptional editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Good climate scientists have no political agenda. They seek to apply their skills within the long-established norms of scientific inquiry to understanding what is happening to global climates and what that portends. Their findings are critical to ensuring that the U.S. government embraces the wisest possible climate policies. Ensuring the integrity of federally funded climate science should thus be a high priority for the U.S. government, which does most U.S. climate research. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has turned that priority on its head. [...]
The reason for the political interference is clear: The Bush administration has an indefensible pro-business bias that trumps even the health and welfare of the nation's citizens. Because efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming could have severe impacts on deep-pocket companies close to the administration, its perverse logic dictates that the global warming science be suppressed.
Scientists often have good news for us ("We cured polio!"), but sometimes they figure things out that we'd rather not hear ("Sorry, but the earth isn't the center of the universe."). Climate science is no different. It turns out that when a few billion people participate for decades in the uninterrupted practice of releasing heat-trapping gasses into the earth's fragile atmosphere, things start to heat up a bit. Denying, censoring, and distorting science in the past has set us back centuries in the quest for knowledge and truth. Denying, censoring, and distorting climate science may not leave us with too many more centuries.
Tags: Bush, Carbon+Caps, censorship, climate+change, Henry+Waxman, Politics, Union+of+Concerned+Scientists
February 13th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Y'know, the most frustrating thing for me in this entire issue is the defensive stance that non-believers have taken. They accuse the progressive and green movements of pointing fingers and "playing the blame game" as though it were a childish thing to do.
Here's the deal, kiddies: It's not so much about pointing fingers to assign blame; it's about pointing fingers to assign responsibility. We are all of us members of the human race, are we not? And providing that this is true, are we not then all responsible for and contributors to the issue at hand?
Do not — I repeat, do not — let your defensive, protective tendencies keep you from doing the right thing! What's the matter with our American leaders that they cannot eat a little political crow in the name of literally saving the world?
I don't get it. It seems such a small sacrifice to make.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I don't think it's unreasonable for the elected officials to have a say over publications that will affect policy.
The environmental community; if it is not biased due to the fact that those 'called' to be environmental scientists would score generally ‘greener’ than your average person; would certainly suffer a myopia centered on their own specialty.
As crime prevention is most important to police and education is most important to teachers; there's no reason to believe the cadre of environmental scientists are immune from this reasonable professional bias.
But our elected officials, if they are to be good stewards of our trust and our votes, are to set policy based on more than just one input. They must find real balance because the reality is that we cannot sacrifice the economy; upon which all government, charity and environmental advancement depends; at the altar of any one discipline or subset of a discipline that holds popular public favor of the moment.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Thanks for the comment, Jimmy.
You may be right that some, many, or maybe even most environmental/climate scientists have biases that affect their work, or at the very least what they choose to study and research.
But I don't necessarily buy the "balance" argument. Using the examples you gave: Should the government seek the input of sociopaths to "balance" the input of police? Should the government seek the input of the Taliban for a "balanced" view of education? Please pardon the hyperbole, but why should the government want the input of Exxon to "balance" the conclusions of tens of thousands of (real) scientists?
I have much more to say, but alas, I'm late for class.
Thanks again for the discussion, Jimmy.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
As for police needing balance, yes… maybe not from a sociopath; but when a country like ours has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners it is time to take stake of a system out of control.
Public educators seeking input from the Taliban, too, is a bit ridiculous; but our return on investment in education in this country is atrocious. I don’t believe it is heresy to suggest the cause is a system that rewards supposed potential and good intentions rather than results; but to pose changing this to the esteemed education bureaucracy is to invite assault from the system and from those who blindly support the system based on their emotions about children and education.
Even negating any bias of the media itself; it is proven that disagreement about policy will gain disproportionate media attention and obviously the specialist bureaucrat will be perceived the expert. What is a dutiful elected official to do if the biases of an un-elected bureaucrat under his charge contradict the electorates demand for balance among other priorities?
Do we take the power of policy out of the hands of our elected representatives and turn it over to the bureaucracy?