EMAILS: Bush Officials Blocked Scientist From Discussing Global Warming/Hurricane Link
EMAILS: Bush Officials Blocked Scientist From Discussing Global Warming/Hurricane Link
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member on the Government Reform Committee, has just released a series of emails from the Department of Commerce that suggest that Bush officials “tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes.”
In a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Waxman details how CNBC requested an interview with NOAA scientist Tom Knutson in October 2005 — one month after Hurricane Katrina — “to discuss whether global warming is contributing to the number or intensity of hurricanes.”
CNBC’s request was forwarded from NOAA to Chuck Fuqua in your office. Mr. Fuqua is currently a press officer. He used to be the Director of Media Operations for the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Upon receiving the request, Mr. Fuqua emailed back to NOAA, “what is Knutson’s position on global warming vs. decadal cycles? is he consistent with Bell and Landsea?” … [Dr. Gary Bell and meteorologist Chris Landsea have both expressed doubts about connections between global warming and hurricanes.]
NOAA responded to Mr. Fuqua that Dr. Knutson projected a “very small increase in hurricane intensity” due to increased greenhouse gas pollution. Mr. Fuqua responded, “why can’t we have one of the other guys then?”
This apparently ended the matter. NOAA’s Daily Media Tracking Log states that the request for the interview with Dr. Knutson was subsequently denied.
Whether Bush officials admit it or not, the scientific link between global warming and hurricane intensity is strong, and was bolstered again by a report released last week.
Read a full copy of Waxman’s letter HERE, and read copies of the emails HERE. Also, read about Waxman’s Safe Climate Act — the first bill ever to target global warming pollution.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
58 Responses to “EMAILS: Bush Officials Blocked Scientist From Discussing Global Warming/Hurricane Link”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
The question of whether we are feeling the effects of global warming right now is a very interesting debate, indeed. It seems as if more and more climatologists agree we may actually be seeing serious (and possibly catastrophic) effects right now. How can these politicians live with themselves and sleep at night knowing they are destroying the planet for money?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pmKeep up that denial, its an excellent defense mechanism.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pmYes by all means let the Press Officer decide what the Department’s stance onthe issue is. Place a crony in every department as a mouthpiece to direct the propaganda. A little Gestapoish wouldn’t ya think.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pmWait, so what you’re saying that the Bush people surpressed scientific information because it did not comport with what they wanted it to say? Outrageous!
September 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
How can these politicians live with themselves and sleep at night knowing they are destroying the planet for money?
Comment by Parrotlover77
you are talking about an administration that is torturing prisoners, they deny people due process, lie about everything.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThey are monsters and it doesn’t seem to bother them at all.
I really can’t wait for these evil bastards to be out of power
September 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pmGeorge Bush: The propaganda president. It’s amazing how afraid the Bush administration is of the Truth. George Bush pretends to be macho, and yet he’s a coward of the greatest degree when it comes to spreading the truth.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:16 pmDid he have the “Zoolander /Mushroom Cloud” look on his face when he did it?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pmIf Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, or one of the other monsters currently in control of our country isn’t actually the AntiChrist, they either believe themselves to be, or are trying very hard to be.
This administration reads the Book of Revalations like it is an instruction manual.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pmIf Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, or one of the other monsters currently in control of our country isn’t actually the AntiChrist, they either believe themselves to be, or are trying very hard to be.
They are acting the part and using the bible as a tool to guide the religious sheeple into another Armageddon end-times scenario..and they fall for it everytime, and Yes I am a Christian, but look at this;
Predicted date of Doom
ca. 2800 BC Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), Assyrian clay tablet 2800 BC There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common.”
634 BC Romans Rome to be destroyed around 365 AUC (389 BC). (Thompson p.19)
1st Century The Apostles expected Jesus to return before the passing of their generation.
ca. 70 The Essenes, Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66-70 as the final end-time battle.
2nd Century The Montanists believed that Christ would come again within their lifetimes and establish a new Jerusalem at Pepuza, in the land of Phrygia. Founded ca. 156 AD
247 Roman increased persecution of Christians, Christians believed that the End had arrived.
365 Hilary of Poitiers predicted the world would end in 365.
380 The Donatists, looked forward to the world ending in 380.
4th Century St. Martin of Tours (ca. 316-397)Antichrist has already been born.
500 Roman theologian Sextus Julius Africanus expected the Second Coming to take place no later than 500 AD.
500 Hippolytus — Christ would return 6000 years after the Creation, anticipated the Parousia in 500 AD
500 Irenaeus saw 500 ad as the year of the Second Coming.
Apr 6, 793 Elipandus, bishop of Toledo, described a brief bout of end-time panic that happened on Easter Eve, 793. According to Elipandus, the Spanish monk Beatus of Liébana prophesied the end of the world that day in the presence a crowd of people. The people, thinking that the world would end that night, became frightened, panicked, and fasted through the night until dawn. Seeing that the world had not ended and feeling hungry, Hordonius, one of the fasters, quipped, “Let’s eat and drink, so that if we die at least we’ll be fed.” (Abanes p. 168-169, Weber p.50)
800 Julius Africanus revised the date of Doomsday to 800 AD.
800 Beatus of Liébana wrote the world would end by 800 at the latest.
806 Bishop Gregory of Tours calculated the End occurring between 799 and 806
848 The prophetess Thiota declared that the world would end this year.
Mar 25, 970 Lotharingian computists foresaw the End on Friday, March 25, 970, when the Annunciation and Good Friday fell on the same day. They believed that it was on this day that Adam was created, Isaac was sacrificed, the Red Sea was parted, Jesus was conceived, and Jesus was crucified.
992 Bernard of Thuringia calculated that the end would come in 992.
995 apocalyptic paranoia around the year 1000.
1033 Jesus failed to return in 1000, Burgundian monk Radulfus Glaber described a rash of millennial paranoia during the period from 1000-1033.
1184 Various Christian prophets foresaw the Antichrist coming in 1184.
Sep 23, 1186 John of Toledo, the world was to going to be destroyed on this date, and that only a few people would survive
1260 Italian mystic Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) determined that the Millennium would begin between 1200 and 1260.
1284 Pope Innocent III expected the Second Coming to take place in 1284, 666 years after the rise of Islam.
1290 Joachim of Fiore (the Joachites) rescheduled the End to 1290 when 1260 prophecy failed.
1306 In 1147 Gerard of Poehlde the end of the Millennium would be in 1306.
1335 Another Joachite doomsday date.
1367 Czech archdeacon Militz of Kromeriz the End would come between 1365 and 1367.
1370 Jean de Roquetaillade, a French ascetic. The Antichrist was to come in 1366.
1378 Arnold of Vilanova, a Joachite, the Antichrist was to come in 1378.
Feb 14, 1420 Czech Doomsday prophet Martinek Hausha– world would end in February 1420, February 14 at the latest.
1496 The beginning of the Millennium, according to some 15th Century mystics.
ca. 1504 Italian artist Sandro Botticelli — Apocalypse in the loosing of the devil for three and a half years
Feb 1, 1524 The End would occur by a flood starting in London on February 1 1524
Feb 20, 1524 astrologer Johannes Stoeffler. The world was to be destroyed by a flood on this date (Julian), Pisces being a water sign.
1525 Anabaptist Thomas Müntzer. Thinking that he was living at the “end of all ages,” he led an unsuccessful peasants’ revolt and was subsequently tortured and executed.
1528 Stoeffler recalculated Doomsday to 1528 after his 1524 prediction failed
1528 Reformer Hans Hut predicted the end would occur on Pentecost (May 27)
1532 Frederick Nausea, a Viennese bishop, was certain that the world would end in 1532 after hearing reports of bizarre occurrences, including bloody crosses appearing in the sky alongside a comet.
1533 Anabaptist prophet Melchior Hoffman’s prediction for the year of Christ’s Second Coming 1533, to take place in Strasbourg. He claimed that 144,000 people would be saved, while the rest of the world would be consumed by fire.
Oct 19, 1533 Mathematician Michael Stifel calculated that the Day of Judgement would begin at 8:00am on this day
Apr 5, 1534 Jan Matthys predicted that the Apocalypse would take place on Easter Day (April 5, Julian calendar) and only the city of Münster would be spared
1537 French astrologer Pierre Turrel using four different calculation methods. The dates were 1537, 1544, 1801 and 1814.
1544 Pierre Turrel’s doomsday calculation #2.
Jul 22, 1556 In 1556, a rumor was circulating that the world would end on Magdalene’s Day, as recorded by Swiss medical student Felix Platter.
Apr 28, 1583 The Second Coming of Christ would take place at noon, according to astrologer Richard Harvey. (numerous astrologers in London predicted the world would end)
1584 Cyprian Leowitz, an astrologer, predicted the end would occur in 1584.
1588 The end of the world according to the sage Johann Müller
1600 Martin Luther believed that the End would occur no later than 1600.
1603 Dominican monk Tomasso Campanella wrote that the sun would collide with the Earth in 1603.
1623 Eustachius Poyssel used numerology to pinpoint 1623 as the year of the end of the world.
1624 The same astrologers who predicted the deluge of February 1, 1524 recalculated the date to February 1, 1624 after their first prophecy failed.
1648 Using the kabbalah, Sabbatai Zevi, a rabbi from Smyrna, Turkey, figured that the Messiah would come in 1648, accompanied by miracles. The Messiah, of course, would be Zevi himself!
1654 Helisaeus Roeslin of Alsace, basing his prediction on a nova that occurred in 1572, foresaw the world ending in 1654 in a blaze of fire
1657 Final apocalyptic battle per the Fifth Monarchy Men, English millenarians who attempted to take over Parliament to impose their extremist theocratic agenda on the country.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm~~~
Anyway the list of possible Armageddons is very long, and if someone tells you Christ is coming and they know the date..don’t believe them..
2000 - God proclaims that George Bush is the second coming of Christ and that He will be speaking through him. Tells everyone that He will be taking a vacation for the next 8 years and will be forwarding all questions to Bush.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pmO-kay and you wonder why no one takes you nut bags seriously?
Ohh, Ohhh look at these “predications” about the Anti-Christ and run your life by them.
The mother ship is coming for you. Get on board because we will still have power.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pmDear Slap Happy+Guy. You are nuts. Please read and understand the post before you make silly comments and make a fool of yourself.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pmO-kay and you wonder why no one takes you nut bags seriously?
Ohh, Ohhh look at these “predications†about the Anti-Christ and run your life by them.
The mother ship is coming for you. Get on board because we will still have power.
______
(those predictions were not made by me)
Why should we take you seriously? Motherships..sheesh, at least people here use facts,,I have shown you many false prophecies by many ‘nutbags’..many of them like Robertson, Falwell, Rushdoonie, Hagee and their Iraq war for Jesus end times insanity and I posted them because I do NOT run my life by them and people should not listen to Hagee and these other War, death and blodd for the return of Jesus ‘nutbags’
September 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pmHappy Guy should have spent more time paying attention to the teacher in elementary reading class and less time paying attention to…(his own nut bag, maybe?)
September 19th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI recommend all press officers in all federal departments be named Mr. Fuqua while Bush is in charge.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:30 pmBush has to ignore climate control in order to get votes from the religious Catholic ENDTIMERS - who beleive it will be the end of the world
Please all endtimers shoot yourselfs now its better than going to Africa and hanging around refugee camps and talking to them about revalations where they suddenly go into buildings and burn themselfs
We Know we watched a digusting program on TV about American ENDTIMERS
September 19th, 2006 at 1:33 pmI recommend all federal department press officers be named Mr. Fuqua while Bush is in power.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:34 pmsorry for the double post
September 19th, 2006 at 1:39 pmWell, that’s certainly the action of an administration with no insecurity and nothing whatsoever to hide.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:42 pmBush blocks the truth about everything, so this is just the usual Dubya Dunce Decider Despot crap!
September 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pmWORSE THAN TERRORISM……..?????
melting ice……….
September 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pmUm, Tobey, not sure what you mean by “Catholic ENDTIMERS” (No. 17), but I’ve been a Catholic all my 40+ years, and I’ve yet to meet a “Catholic ENDTIMER”. (More likely to meet a “Catholic Closing Timer,” or a “Catholic You Don’t Have to Go Home But You Can’t Stay Here-er,” if you know what I mean. But ENDTIMER? Not so much …)
Just for clarification, Catholics believe in, y’know, science ‘n stuff … including evolution, the big-bang theory, global warming and the rest of it. Not that there aren’t whacky conservative Catholics, too - Lord knows I’ve come across more than my fair share - just don’t lump us with those anti-science, anti-intellectual “Christians” who don’t know how to use the brain that God gave ‘em …
September 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pmWhether Bush officials admit it or not, the scientific link between global warming and hurricane intensity is strong…
TP is being dishonest again with this blatantly false statement. A concensus of IPCC climate scientist found:
There is no compelling evidence to indicate that the
September 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pmcharacteristics of tropical and extratropical storms have
changed. Changes in tropical storm intensity and frequency
are dominated by interdecadal to multidecadal variations,
which may be substantial, e.g., in the tropical North Atlantic.
Owing to incomplete data and limited and conflicting
analyses, it is uncertain as to whether there have been any
long-term and large-scale increases in the intensity and
frequency of extra-tropical cyclones in the Northern
Hemisphere. Regional increases have been identified in the
North Pacific, parts of North America, and Europe over the
past several decades. In the Southern Hemisphere, fewer
analyses have been completed, but they suggest a decrease in
extra-tropical cyclone activity since the 1970s. Recent
analyses of changes in severe local weather (e.g., tornadoes,
thunderstorm days, and hail) in a few selected regions do not
provide compelling evidence to suggest long-term changes.
In general, trends in severe weather events are notoriously
difficult to detect because of their relatively rare occurrence
and large spatial variability.
More from Salon
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/
September 19th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#24 talk about not being honest
Haven’t looked at the IPCC lately, but in case you didn’t know there have been a few reports published AFTER the IPCC findings that show very strong evidence to link hurricanes with global warming.
Please get a clue. Global warming isn’t real? Then tell me why have GLOBAL temperatures risen noticably over the last 30 years? Why is the Arctic melting at a record pace? Why are glaciers the world over dissapearing?
Recent studies have removed the Sun from the equation - so pray tell what other ‘natural’ phenomenon could cause global temps to rise even as the sun’s output stays consistent?
Once we get past this issue, its easy even for a lay person to see the correlation between hurricanes and global warming. Hurricanes 101: what fuels hurricanes? Warm ocean surface waters. So it follows that if global warming is occuring (which it is) the ocean surface temps would also rise - which leads to the only logical conclusion that global warming WILL cause hurricanes to increase in frequency and intensity.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:29 pmHaven’t looked at the IPCC lately…
You’ve never read it. That’s quite obvious.
Recent studies have removed the Sun from the equation.
That’s completely false, but go ahead and cite the recent studies.
Then tell me why have GLOBAL temperatures risen noticably over the last 30 years?
Exactly how much do you think they have risen in the past 30 years? And you can detect it?
September 19th, 2006 at 5:37 pm#27 I have in fact read the IPCC report, no thanks to you ASSuming things.
As for a study which removes the sun from the climate change equation, I give you a very recent CNN article:
As for your last question:
Um… YES. Excuse me but wasn’t it YOU who just accused me of not reading the IPCC report? They cite in their report that:
Which is beside the point - your question is a loaded one.
Can I detect it? Yes, I can. I can detect it when I see glaciers and snowcaps melting away to nothing. I can detect it when we have yet another record breaking summer of heat wave temperatures. I can detect it when we have yet another year of record breaking wildfires. I can detect it when I see the mountains of my home state Colorado turning brown from record temperatures and lack of rainfall - something that has never happened during my 28 years living here.
If you value scientific thought, and the IPCC then why do you try to combat the idea of Global Warming? Especially when the evidence becomes stronger year after year?
September 19th, 2006 at 6:06 pmThe average surface temperature has risen approx 0.6° over the 20th century. Very good, but you claim that temperatures have risen noticably over the past 30 years. I would like to know what you think that noticable value is.
Thanks for the CNN article. It’s not the actual study, but I’m aware of it. That study does not remove the sun from the equation. No serious study will, since the solar radiation is the primary force affecting climate.
I spent much of my 50 years in SW Colorado. This summer it rained almost every afternoon. We have had dry years and wet years. We did not have dry conditions this year. The anomolies in your region are not being felt through out the state, the country or the world, and are most likely the result of natural variability. Every variation in climate cannot be blamed on anthropogenic emissions. But that’s what irrational alarmists do and I think you fit into that category quite well.
So when will you produce studies that show very strong evidence to link hurricanes with global warming, contradicting the IPCC and hurricane experts?
September 19th, 2006 at 7:26 pmOkay,
September 19th, 2006 at 8:05 pmwhich is it? Is the Bush Administration evil for lining the pockets of his buddies in big oil by pushing the price of oil over $60 per barrel, or is he improving the environment by making fuel efficient cars more appealing due to higher gas prices?
Numerical models are not scientific evidence of anything.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:28 pm[…] Read the whole story. […]
September 19th, 2006 at 10:00 pmOhhh, now a righty tool uses the word concensus. You do realize the righties have deemed the word concensus moot, right?
September 19th, 2006 at 10:08 pmI’ve never been a fan of Clinton, but I can’t believe that the man was impeached for a blowjob, yet the Bush administration lies, cheats, advocates torture, and muzzles government scientists. I guess Shrub and the Dark Lord feel like global warming won’t affect them, so who cares.
And people wonder why I’ve become more liberal as I age?
September 19th, 2006 at 10:37 pmI can’t believe how many wacked out Liberal Nutjobs were involved with this post. Hold up the Mirror Ladies……it is SCARRRRRRY.
Oh No the Sky is Falling,Oh No the Sky is Falling,Oh No the Sky is Falling,
Oh No the Sky is Falling,Oh No the Sky is Falling,Oh No the Sky is Falling,
Oh No the Sky is Falling,Oh No the Sky is Falling, ect….
You Pussies make me want to PUKE ! Long term Weather Cycles, Fighting For what’s right, Letting global supply and demand decide crude Oil prices, Standing Ground in the fight is always right when your right, not Left & Behind.
Stand TALL those who STILL STAND for SOMETHING, We will Prevail !
September 19th, 2006 at 11:14 pmStand TALL those who STILL STAND for SOMETHING, We will Prevail !
Comment by Chicken Hunter
Thanks, I know we will.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:57 pm#27: Analyzing the IPCC report and your argument, I think that your train of thought is as follows:
- According to the IPCC report, there is not enough evidence to claim that tropical storm intensity has been increasing over the last few years.
- Tropical storm intensity and frequency would only be increasing if global warming were occurring.
- As there is no way to prove that tropical storm intensity and frequency have been increasing, there is consequently no way to justify global warming.
- Hence, global warming does not exist.
There are, of course, logical and factual fallacies in your train of thought and the one that the article attempts to spur in its readers minds. I would like to start out by quickly pointing out that the report states there is not enough evidence to justify that the recent increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms is part of a long-term pattern. It does attempt not link such a possible increase to global warming, nor does it deny the existence of global warming. These are all conclusions that you and others have reached by yourselves, albeit not of any fault of your own. I believe that the tone and style of the report have been engineered so as to direct you toward these kinds of ideas.
To begin with, in stating that there is not enough evidence to justify a long-term increasing trend in the severity and frequency of tropical storms, the article does imply that there has been such an increase, at least in the “short†term. Using a platform of scientific debate, it is of course hard to prove that there has been such an increase and that this increase is part of a long term trend, especially in a system as complex as that of tropical storms. After all, what is enough evidence? Do we need to record trends over the last 5 years or maybe last 100? What kind of scale should we be using? One related to human activity or geological activity? And how likely does it have to be that hurricanes tomorrow will be more intense and frequent than those last year? 80, 90 or 99 percent? Such questions are fundamentally linked to the fact that systems like tropical storms are rely on interactions between so many factors that we cannot currently understand them at a very precise and accurate level. We are therefore forced to use statistical tools and interpret tropical storms as tweaked random systems.
Because statistical models only give us figures that we are forced to interpret for ourselves, we are allowed to reach our own set of conclusions through different interpretations. As such, it can be hard to reach a conclusion that people agree upon through statistics– especially when people who are actively engaged in discrediting global warming use extremely biased and faulty assumptions to reach their own ends. Moreover, these individuals can also use this fact to give themselves the liberty to criticize other studies for their interpretations - most of which are perfectly reasonable. You can subsequently see that studies that have looked at trends in a human scale are criticized for not taking into account a timescale that takes into account the history of the earth. In turn, those which have are said to not focus enough on the present. In short: it is therefore very simple for these to manipulate the subjective terms for “sufficient evidence†so as to justify existing data and classify it as “insufficient”.
Though most importantly, the fact that the report backs its “insufficient proof†argument up with a strongly negative tone makes it seem as if there is actually no increase at all. This is not a mistake; it is just malicious writing. Again, on a scientific platform, the writers could definitely not state that there is no increase – by their own standards of proof, this would require them about as much evidence as someone else would need to show them that there is an increase. Nevertheless, by rejecting the certainty of an increase in the long term, they can adopt a negative tone and suggest that there is none at all. In truth, however, short term data definitely suggests a dramatic increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms. And in the long term, all we can say is that there is some uncertainty that stems from the statistical analysis: for all we know, there can be an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms in the long term; we are just unable to prove it by playing their game.
Also consider the fact that we may not actually be able to afford the luxury of adequate scientific proof in this case. What if there is really an increasing trend in tropical storms? Can we really just wait another 100 years to prove it? Can we really take such a risk when everything we have lived through in the last decade suggests that tropical storms are increasing in their frequency and intensity are destroying towns around the world and the United States? Should we not, instead, avoid the risk by taking at least a few measures? Remember that measures do not have to fight against global warming (although this is probably the smartest thing to do), they can focus on building levies, increasing awareness and fostering a response teams.
The truth is, we probably should not wait and probably should not take that risk. As a nation, the United States does not do things that way. Yet, the government and its “scientific†organizations require so much proof on an issue like this simply because it is related to global warming and works against their agenda. Ironically, these are the very same people who were relatively easygoing in terms of their “evidence†when it came to war against Iraq – what many today consider a waste of effort and billions and billions of tax dollars. My point in writing all of this is that there has been so much debate about global warming recently and that it is not doing us any good. Even an everyday report like this one, which focuses on tropical storms, is being used so as to credit or discredit global warming. The truth is that global warming is not a debatable subject - whether you are conservative or liberal, from Alaska or from California, it is truth and it affects us all. So read some articles, take some classes, understand the process (because it really, really, really makes sense), see how the entire scientific community universally agrees on the subject, see how U.S. government officials are so careful about their claims or learn from how this report is so malicious. If you don’t want to, then open your eyes, go outside and feel how hot it is during the summer, see how irregular the seasons have become and visit some of the colder regions of the world to see how fast the glaciers are melting. Whether you ignore it or you accept it, the way things are going it will soon be undeniable and unavoidable and affect us all. Hopefully, by then, the U.S. government will be as determined and generous nation it was only a few years ago during the War on Iraq. Hopefully by then, it will use its influence as a world leader to pave the path for other nations, like China, India and Brazil to follow in its footsteps.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:03 am#27: Analyzing the IPCC report and your argument, I think that your train of thought is as follows:
- According to the IPCC report, there is not enough evidence to claim that tropical storm intensity has been increasing over the last few years.
- Tropical storm intensity and frequency would only be increasing if global warming were occurring.
- As there is no way to prove that tropical storm intensity and frequency have been increasing, there is consequently no way to justify global warming.
- Hence, global warming does not exist.
There are, of course, logical and factual fallacies in your train of thought and the one that the article attempts to spur in its readers minds. I would like to start out by quickly pointing out that the report states there is not enough evidence to justify that the recent increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms is part of a long-term pattern. It does attempt not link such a possible increase to global warming, nor does it deny the existence of global warming. These are all conclusions that you and others have reached by yourselves, albeit not of any fault of your own. I believe that the tone and style of the report have been engineered so as to direct you toward these kinds of ideas.
To begin with, in stating that there is not enough evidence to justify a long-term increasing trend in the severity and frequency of tropical storms, the article does imply that there has been such an increase, at least in the “short†term. Using a platform of scientific debate, it is of course hard to prove that there has been such an increase and that this increase is part of a long term trend, especially in a system as complex as that of tropical storms. After all, what is enough evidence? Do we need to record trends over the last 5 years or maybe last 100? What kind of scale should we be using? One related to human activity or geological activity? And how likely does it have to be that hurricanes tomorrow will be more intense and frequent than those last year? 80, 90 or 99 percent? Such questions are fundamentally linked to the fact that systems like tropical storms are rely on interactions between so many factors that we cannot currently understand them at a very precise and accurate level. We are therefore forced to use statistical tools and interpret tropical storms as tweaked random systems.
Because statistical models only give us figures that we are forced to interpret for ourselves, we are allowed to reach our own set of conclusions through different interpretations. As such, it can be hard to reach a conclusion that people agree upon through statistics– especially when people who are actively engaged in discrediting global warming use extremely biased and faulty assumptions to reach their own ends. Moreover, these individuals can also use this fact to give themselves the liberty to criticize other studies for their interpretations - most of which are perfectly reasonable. You can subsequently see that studies that have looked at trends in a human scale are criticized for not taking into account a timescale that takes into account the history of the earth. In turn, those which have are said to not focus enough on the present. In short: it is therefore very simple for these to manipulate the subjective terms for “sufficient evidence†so as to justify existing data and classify it as “insufficient”.
Though most importantly, the fact that the report backs its “insufficient proof†argument up with a strongly negative tone makes it seem as if there is actually no increase at all. This is not a mistake; it is just malicious writing. Again, on a scientific platform, the writers could definitely not state that there is no increase – by their own standards of proof, this would require them about as much evidence as someone else would need to show them that there is an increase. Nevertheless, by rejecting the certainty of an increase in the long term, they can adopt a negative tone and suggest that there is none at all. In truth, however, short term data definitely suggests a dramatic increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms. And in the long term, all we can say is that there is some uncertainty that stems from the statistical analysis: for all we know, there can be an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms in the long term; we are just unable to prove it by playing their game.
Also consider the fact that we may not actually be able to afford the luxury of adequate scientific proof in this case. What if there is really an increasing trend in tropical storms? Can we really just wait another 100 years to prove it? Can we really take such a risk when everything we have lived through in the last decade suggests that tropical storms are increasing in their frequency and intensity are destroying towns around the world and the United States? Should we not, instead, avoid the risk by taking at least a few measures? Remember that measures do not have to fight against global warming (although this is probably the smartest thing to do), they can focus on building levies, increasing awareness and fostering a response teams.
The truth is, we probably should not wait and probably should not take that risk. As a nation, the United States does not do things that way. Yet, the government and its “scientific†organizations require so much proof on an issue like this simply because it is related to global warming and works against their agenda. Ironically, these are the very same people who were relatively easygoing in terms of their “evidence†when it came to war against Iraq – what many today consider a waste of effort and billions and billions of tax dollars. My point in writing all of this is that there has been so much debate about global warming recently and that it is not doing us any good. Even an everyday report like this one, which focuses on tropical storms, is being used so as to credit or discredit global warming. The truth is that global warming is not a debatable subject - whether you are conservative or liberal, from Alaska or from California, it is truth and it affects us all. So read some articles, take some classes, understand the process (because it really, really, really makes sense), see how the entire scientific community universally agrees on the subject, see how U.S. government officials are so careful about their claims or learn from how this report is so malicious. If you don’t want to, then open your eyes, go outside and feel how hot it is during the summer, see how irregular the seasons have become and visit some of the colder regions of the world to see how fast the glaciers are melting. Whether you ignore it or you accept it, the way things are going it will soon be undeniable and unavoidable and affect us all. Hopefully, by then, the U.S. government will be as determined and generous nation it was only a few years ago during the War on Iraq. Hopefully by then, it will use its influence as a world leader to pave the path for other nations, like China, India and Brazil to follow in its footsteps.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:04 am#27
My problem with ALL of the arguments from the “global warming is a myth” camp is this:
If you are right and we are wrong, and global warming turns out to be a myth, we lose NOTHING by trying to research a way to fix the problem we have reason to believe is occuring.
On the other hand, if we are right and you are wrong, yet we do NOT do the research and the global behavioral changes required to fix the problem we have reason to believe is occuring, WE MAKE OUR PLANET UNINHABITABLE TO OUR SPECIES.
Which view do you think is the more conservative view, and which the more radical view? Which scenario do you think is more dangerous, trying to solve a problem that isn’t as severe as we think, or doing nothing about a problem that is more severe than we think?
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:58 amOh, an addendum:
Regardless, we know for certain that these emissions caused by fossil fuels are dangerous to our physical health So, cutting back on consumption of said substances is the wiser choice either way.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:01 amBritain’s leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.
The scientists also strongly criticise the company’s public statements on global warming, which they describe as “inaccurate and misleading”.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:37 amI was colder than average today so there can’t be any global warming. I only like short responses. the long ones put me to sleep. Thanks, earl
September 20th, 2006 at 8:11 amGlobal Warming: See a child simple solution at mrelectricity.com
September 20th, 2006 at 8:12 amDude…
September 20th, 2006 at 9:44 amThat’s alotta scroll’n,;)
September 20th, 2006 at 9:46 amHere’s what I heard,Bush & posse are all 4 the ‘NEW WORLD ORDER’ rag,Pope’s in there too man they wanna take over the middle east & convert everybody ,it’s the old,”YOUR WITH US OR YOUR AGIANST US” line.Bush thinks God spoke to him, so did you-know-Hitler,he’s also behind, these crazy ‘Jesus Camps’ -SMAKS of ‘Hitler Youth’ there now don’t it?
September 20th, 2006 at 9:56 amGet a grip everyone. There was an iceage and then the ice melted. I do not think there were millions of cars on the road then and the world obviously got hotter. It is the natural cycle, get over it. If it is so bad where are all of the killer hurricanes this year?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:08 pmObfuscators of the link between human activity and global warming depend on the difficulty that humans have in understanding problems involving dynamic complexity. See Global Warming: An Inconvenient-to-Understand Truth and the referenced paper from MIT that explains the flawed nature of public understanding of the problem. George “I’m the denier!” Bush and others are commiting a crime of global proportions. This is the most profound evil I’ve ever seen.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#39 - Thank you. Nuff said.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:04 pm[…] http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 09/ 19/ bush-warming-hurricanes/ […]
September 20th, 2006 at 8:32 pm#49 The ice age was a period in the earth’s history when everything was covered in ice. We were obviously not in the ice age 50 years ago, we have not had one for about 10000 years now.
The fact that ice is melting outside the ice age is what is alarming - especially when it is taking place at a rate that has never been observed in the last 60 million years of this planet’s history.
Sorry for the long answer and the double post before. #50: Denial of global warming is a crime… It’s horrible to see what the Bush Administration will go to “protect” the US Economy - just as horrible as it is to see that their efforts are paying off through the people who are believing and regurgitating their lies.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:25 amINTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS ALL
September 21st, 2006 at 2:19 pmANYONE that believes one word of the lies/propaganda issued by BUSHCO’s illegal government deserves the same KARMA as the war criminals,traitors,liars,etc, running america into HELL….WAKE UP and prosecute every one associated with EL DIABLO party,before they kill you for trying to stop THEM,which they will you dissenters with no rights….How f*cked is america,who would trust america, who could love what america has become,opposite of christian .
Hopefully” THE MACHINE EATS ITSELF “….American citizens still have guns and a memory of their rights to bare arms to protect against enemies of the actually real legal state,the third world dictator EL DIABLO….AMERICA has become a nightmare rogue state,with a lot of BOMBS in the hands of super criminals,professional liars….KARMA will come, a universal law that EL DIABLO cannot change for his or hells benefit.
[…] read more | digg story […]
September 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmAs a scientist working for an agency of the Bush Administration, I can assure you that the suppression of data that is contrary to the Republican talking points is not restricted to the Department of Commerce, NOAA, or any other science-based (well science-based under Clinton) agency. I’m thankful for Henry Waxman. I only wish there were 30 of him in the House looking out for all of us. Most of the damage the pro-business religious wackos in the Bush Administration has caused and will continue to cause until January 20, 2009, will remain under wraps. It wont be until the Gore/Clark Administration takes office that the illegal misdeeds of these bastards comes to light. Of course at that time Rush Limbaugh and the noise-machine at Faux “News” will dismiss the truth as a partisan attack on Bush now that he’s in jail in the Hague. But at least it will come out.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:24 am[…] Al Gore said the Bush administration is in denial on the inconvenient truth of global warming; including silencing scientists on this subject. […]
October 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pm[…] Ceux qui avaient rejeté le traité de Kyoto en 2001 et qui, en 2006 encore, déclaraient qu’il n’y avait aucun lien prouvé entre l’activité humaine et l’augmentation brutale des températures ces 20 dernières années, ceux qui en septembre encore faisaient de leur mieux pour faire disparaître les rapports compromettants (source TP) ont retourné leur veste, sans aucun doute touchés par la grâce de Noël. […]
December 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am[…] distortion won’t get fact-distorters out of office By Mr. Gunn All over the web, you see the following email […]
March 29th, 2007 at 10:19 am[…] EMAILS: Bush Officials Blocked Scientist From Discussing Global …Think Progress, DC - 4 hours ago… Department of Commerce that suggest that Bush officials “tried to suppress a federal scientist from discussing the link between global warming and hurricanes … Emails indicate Administration blocked scientist from discussing … Raw StoryGlobal Warming May Raise Hurricane Activity Cornell University The Cornell Daily SunOur view: More killer 'canes Florida TodayTPMmuckrakerall 5 news articles […]
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 pm