Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

The Bush war on science and climate continues

Posted on

"The Bush war on science and climate continues"

Share:

google plus icon

The Guardian online asked me for an opinion piece on the recent ozone decision at EPA. It begins:

Why is it that, in the Bush administration, the desires of well-heeled polluters always trump the analyses of government scientists? The answer is that the top political appointees – and the president himself – personally weigh in on the side of industry.

No surprise to anybody who read Chris Mooney’s excellent book, but it is somehow reassuring, in a pathetic sort of way, to know that the old saying is true: “Plus §a change, plus c’est la mªme chose.” Pardon my French.

I do think it is stunning, even for Bush, that the President himself personally intervened to stop the EPA from trying to modestly slow carbon dioxide emissions growth.

You can read the whole piece here.

Tags:

« »

10 Responses to The Bush war on science and climate continues

  1. Patrick49 says:

    “Why is it that, in the Bush administration, the desires of well-heeled polluters always trump the analyses of government scientists? ”
    It is not only ‘well-heeled polluters’ a typical liberal smear of any one who questions the religious aspects of the true GW believers but down to earth scientists and engineers who doubt the agenda driven government scientists.
    Not a difficult question to answer, the DOE and EPA government ‘scientists’ cannot be trusted to provide unbiased answers to scientific questions regarding the earth’s climate or biofuels.
    For example, Mr. Hansen is the chronic complainer at every public opportunity where he whines that he is being censored as he rattles off his impression of Al Gore on global warming. Back at the lab he presented incorrect temperature data for about five years that inflated the warming cycle. It took a couple of Canadian scientists to finally pin him down and force corrections. Remarkably the 1930s became the warmest decade. Over at the DOE, the touchstone is biofuels, and outrageous claims are made for ethanol by government scientists that are scientificly, technically and environmently wrong. At last the major and most trusted scientific publication in the USA has taken up the challenge and published:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate
    Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change February 7, 2008
    No doubt the global warming zealots are sharpening their verbal knives to silence the truth bearing heretics.

  2. David B. Benson says:

    Patrick490 states “Remarkably the 1930s became the warmest decade.”

    Untrue. I suggest you lern some actual climate science.

  3. exusian says:

    It may come as a shock to you, Patrick49, but most people I know who accept that the science on global warming/climate change is sound also agree with the Scientific American headline Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change.

    Clearly you need to get out more. It’s not those who are looking to combat global warming who are pushing biofuels, its those who are looking to get rich selling biofuels who are, along with those selling their feed stocks, largely corn and palm kernel oil, the former uneconomical in both dollars and energy inputs unless propped up by government subsidies, and driving up the cost of corn, the latter driving deforestation to plant palm plantations.

    And your assertion that the 1930s became the warmest decade when NASA GISS recalculated the integrated temperature record for US urban and rural land stations in the GISTEMP analysis last August is flat out not true. After the correction, 1998 was revised down by 1 one hundredth of a degree while 1934 was revised upward by 2 one hundredths of a degree (a change from an anomaly of 1.24°C vs 1.23°C to 1.23°C vs 1.25°C).

    Plus, the correction made NO perceptible change in the combined global land-ocean temperature record. There is a reason, after all, why they call it GLOBAL warming. Yet you’ve inflated a change in a single year of the US land station record to a full decade.

    Next time you might want to check your facts before you make a fool of yourself in public.

  4. Patrick49 says:

    Exusian
    Not only was 1998 temperature revised down but so were the 2000 to 2006 data.
    A little fact checking would have revealed these changes.””The Hansen error also has a significant impact on the GISS estimate of U.S. temperature history with estimates for 2000 and later being lowered by about 0.15 deg C (2006 by 0.10 deg C).”
    source “Does Hansen’s error- matter” http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885 by Steve McIntyre
    As you no doubt know it was Mr. McIntyre who brought Mr. Hansen’s Y2K error to light and was instrumental in discrediting Mr. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ curve.

  5. David B. Benson says:

    Patrick49 —- A suggestion: if you want factual evidence, you’ll definitely not find it at ClimateAudit. Try someplace reliable, such as

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/

  6. oku says:

    There is also a discussion at realclimate:

    http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=465

    The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

  7. exusian says:

    “As you no doubt know it was Mr. McIntyre who brought Mr. Hansen’s Y2K error to light and was instrumental in discrediting Mr. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ curve.”

    McIntyre, to his credit, did indeed catch the error, but his “discrediting” of Mann’s “hockey stick” curve was itself discredited–repeatedly. Funny how you guys always fail to mention that part.

  8. Hal says:

    In the Guardian piece, Joe wrote: “Once an agency charged with protecting the environment loses its scientific integrity, what has it got left? Besides corporate contributions for the boss’s boss, that is.”

    When Ronald Reagan took over the Presidency in 1981 and in the years following, there were similar actions at EPA. There were massive staff resignations and a very discouraged atmosphere at the agency. There were so-called “science courts” set up at the agency to dispose of pending regulatory matters. In general, industry was invited in and given the chance to propose a voluntary program. These programs were adopted and announced as the disposition of the pending regulatory actions. The Natural Resources Defense Council sued EPA more than a dozen times to have legal procedures followed in these actions, and NRDC won all of the law suits. But the agency lost a lot of its credibility and a lot of its early staff.

    hal

  9. Patrick49 says:

    “McIntyre, to his credit, did indeed catch the error, but his “discrediting” of Mann’s “hockey stick” curve was itself discredited–repeatedly”
    No white flag here as of March 15thhttp://www.climateaudit.org
    or from, what can be found, the two scientific committees appointed by Congress.