As you probably know, on Wednesday the Washington Post published an op-ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called Copenhagen’s political science. But before you cheer WaPo for their sudden interest in allowing conservative points of view, the same issue carried a rebuttal piece called Don’t let the climate doubters fool you. The writer is one Alan I. Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.
Is it me, or is it only when a conservative writes an editorial does the WaPo provide an opposing response?
But we’ll get to Leshner’s piece in a moment. First, let’s look at Sarah’s, which really rustled the feathers of the alarmists. Among the gems from her piece include:
The [“ClimateGate”] e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits—not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate—far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen—which actually allow them to increase their emissions—President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people. …
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs—particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.
A pretty damn good piece, if you ask me. Now let’s look at the rebuttal of Leshner, who is (supposedly) a scientist:
Don’t be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994—long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking—seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
This is an unfortunate choice of example. For the 2000’s had a second-hand smoke scare. This resulted in such government bureaucrats taking such draconian liberty-sapping measures as forcing restaurants and bars to go smoke-free and even prohibiting people to smoke within the confines of their
own homes and vehicles, when children are present. Yet, for the past couple of years,
studies have come out showing that predictions of illnesses from second-hand smoke were … um, overblown. Not to mention that the government has piled so many taxes on top of cigarettes that it’s become their own cash cow. (This is a
non-smoker writing this.)
Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny the “reality of some changes in climate,” she distorted the clear scientific evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, largely as a result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that “while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes.” Her statement inaccurately suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause for concern.
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide—derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation—stands at 389 parts per million (ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000 years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
It is Dr. Leshner who is being deceptive and inaccurate. Climate-change science is
not clear; far from it. There is
no conclusive evidence whatsoever that humans are the cause of anything warming related. Not to mention that most of the “catastrophes” alarmists keep saying will happen are actually happening: No increased hurricanes (just the opposite), no dwindling polar bears (just the opposite), etc., etc.
As a scientist, Leshner should know that the 1880’s (or more accurately, 1850’s) marked the end of a “Little Ice Age” that has resulted in temperatures rising without human help. To use the 1880’s as a reference point—which the alarmists use all the time—is highly deceptive. He should also know that 650,000 is a blip on the Earth history timeline, and that the earth has been much warmer earlier than that.
Dr. Leshner also omits—and climate alarmists have been caught suppressing—the Little Climate Optimum (LCO), the period between the 10th and 13th centuries during which Greenland was actually green and the currently frigid Northern Atlantic was navigable; when there were farms and vineyards in parts of Northern Europe that are too cold for them today. The climate was estimated to be 3 degrees C more than today, yet the world thrived!
Leshner fills the rest of his article with typical talking points like “thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions worldwide agree” and “the consensus of 18 of the world’s most respected scientific organizations,” “the clear consensus of a vast majority of scientists,” ”a century of evidence based on thousands of studies.”
Yet none of these supposedly impressive phrases impress me, since notions like “consensus” and “scientists agree,” and “vast majority of scientists” have no place in science. Later in the article Leshner makes the ridiculous assertion that the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest on record, a claim which is absurd on its face.
The problem, of course, is that if all these prominent scientists from all these respectable institutions agree to this supposed air-tight scientific data, their conclusions mean nothing due to the rigging of this data at the University of East Anglia that was discovered a few weeks ago. Leshner—like Al Gore and the entire mainstream media—arrogantly dismisses the discoverty of the hacked emails showing this. A group of politically-motivated scientists over a period of more than a decade have been caught manufacturing a climate change catastrophe and “scientists” like Leshner have the audacity to pretend it doesn’t mean anything. Yet it’s “deniers” like Sarah Palin who shouldn’t be trusted?
Based on this misleading article Leshner is a disgrace to his field, and honest scientists should demand his resignation from the AAAS and Science magazine.
But the media isn’t the only place Sarah Palin’s editorial made waves. Climate alarmists in our government took swipes at the former VP candidate in this Politico article by Glenn Thrush. My own commentary is interspersed throughout.
House Democrats spent Thursday targeting former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for using e-mails, many from the 1990s, from English climate scientists to bolster her claim that global warming is “bogus” and ridiculing her op-ed in The Washington Post calling for President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate talks.
First of all, many of the emails are from the 1990’s, but many of them are also from the 2000’s including just last month. And if many of them are from the 90’s, how does that work against Palin’s argument? There’s no statute of limitations on deception and fraud. All it means is that climate “scientists” have been rigging the system for over a decade, which should infuriate people even more, not less.
“Before Sarah Palin writes a book, she should try reading a few,” said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who followed up with a series of peer-reviewed reports on rising sea levels, air temperatures and ocean acidity.
First of all, why is this the only way Democrats debate an issue: ad hominem attacks? What an arrogant jerk this Inslee is. Second of all, those “peer-reviewed reports” Inslee flashed aren’t worth the trees that were killed to print them. In case anyone forgot, the Univ. of Lies at East Anglia has been caught red-handed manipulating the figures, dumping the data that doesn’t fit the alarmists’ pre-ordained conclusions, and actively blocking our scientists who refute their “science.”
“Ex-Governor Palin is at it again, [she] somehow has discovered some kind of smoking gun,” added Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who compared Palin’s statements to her support of the discredited “death panel” charges over the summer.
Careful Mr. Thrush, you’re bias is showing: The “death panel” was not discredited. On the contrary, the Dems had to rework a section in HR 3200 to get rid of the death panel Ms. Palin allegedly imagined. And now we have the government decree that women should not have mammograms until age 50, when many cases of breast cancer are found in their 40’s. If this is not the manifestation of a death panel, I don’t know what is. But why is this even mentioned? The topic is climate change, not government-run health care. So I guess Blumenauer can’t adequately debate the issue either. He needs to change the subject and make politcal cheap shots.
Asked if Obama should stand up to Palin personally, Inslee shot back: “There are those in the birther movement encouraged by the former governor of Alaska who don’t even believe he’s president.”
Another politically-motivated swipe that has to do with the topic at hand.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House’s climate change panel, said he will hold hearings into the East Anglia controversy after the Copenhagen summit – if only to highlight the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change independent of the school’s work.
Again, the overwhelming evidence does not exist. The only thing overwhelming here is that this is all a hoax.
Markey said he would welcome the Republicans in Copenhagen because they would be “exposed to the consensus the world has reached…They are in a very, very, very small minority on the planet.”
Markey is dead wrong. First of all, “consensus” doesn’t belong in science; it’s proof that this whole climate change issue is a political one, not scientific. Second of all, there is a petition out there signed by over 31,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) that Al Gore’s catastrophic climate change theory is wrong, including:
Dr. Reid Bryson, “father of meteorology,” the most frequently cited climatologist in the world;
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus prof. of physics, Inst for Advanced Studies, Princeton;
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, first Dir of Meteorology at The Weather Channel;
Dr. Robert Giegengack, chair of Dept. of Earth and Env Science at UPenn;
Dr. Timothy Ball, Univ. of London, Chair of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former prof. of climatology at the Univ. of Winnipeg;
Dr. Robert Carter, paleoclimate scientist and prof. of geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook Univ., Queensland, Australia;
Dr. John Christy, dire of the Earth System Science Center at the Univ. of Alabama and panelist on the NAS’s report on temperature reconstructions;
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.;
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, Wellington, N.Z.;
Dr. Chris Landsea, former member of IPCC who resigned because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, prof. of meteorology, MIT, member of NAS.
These scientists are at the top of their field. Yet (despite the laughable complaint by Blumenauer and Inslee that the media’s coverage of this issue is 50-50) hardly anyone knows these scientists exist. Such “deniers” have been systematically refused a place at the table - at NASA, IPCC, East Anglia, and the media. The result is a purposeful illusion that deniers make up a “very, very, very small minority on the planet”.
Shame on Inslee, Blumenauer, Markey and other Dems for politicizing science and kudos to Sarah Palin for holding their feet to the fire.
We’ve got a long uphill battle, my friends.
Recent Comments