Most science advisers have taken as their job to inform the President and his Administration, as well as Congress, the media, and the public, of the thinking of the scientific community on key science issues of the day. Bush’s advisor, John H. Marburger, III takes the opposite view. He believes his job is to inform (misinform? disinform?) the scientific community, as well as Congress, the media, and the public, of the “thinking” of the Bush Administration on key science issues. In 2006, he summed up the “technology, technology, blah, blah” strategy of Luntz/Bush:
Don’t get distracted by actions to save the climate from destruction. The real payoff is in never doing anything.
UPDATE: The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has just released a report documenting “Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under The Bush Administration.” Just pathetic!
Realclimate has a good report on Marburger’s lecture at the huge American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, titled, “Reflections on the Science and Policy of Energy and Climate Change”:
The good news, I suppose, is that he at least stated that he accepted the established physical connection between CO2 increase and warming — the inhibition of infrared emission by CO2, amplified by water vapor feedback. That’s about the only good thing I can say about the lecture. It was basically an hour long apology for the White House global warming policy. And don’t get me wrong — by “apology” I do not mean that he was expressing regret for the dismal performance of the White House in this sphere.
While acknowledging the correctness of the basic physics, Marburger implied that it was impossible to make useful predictions of climate damages, because of difficulties models have with forecasting regional climate change and things like response of El Nino to warming. Over and over, he castigated the community for being reluctant to do research on adaptation, and over and over stated that adaptation was cheaper than mitigation (reducing CO2 emissions). He stated that it was going to be basically impossible to reduce emissions significantly anyway, since the technologies didn’t exist to do that (I guess he never read Pacala and Socolow’s paper on the wedge concept). His basic answer to everything was that nobody would (or should) do anything until carbon free energy became cheaper than current means of producing energy by burning fossil fuels. There was no recognition that things like carbon taxes might be necessary to put the cost of harms due to climate change into the market. These damages were basically ignored in his world view — except insofar as he said they should be handled by adaptation. “Anthropogenic Climate Change is not the only source of risk to vulnerable populations” He mentioned the need for clean water — the favorite example for everybody who wants to ignore climate change.
He had lots of praise for fossil fuels “Fossil fuels have made modern economies possible” and echoed the Bush administration line by saying the goal should be to reduce carbon intensity (carbon per $ of GDP) not carbon emissions. Sorry, Dr. Marburger, but infrared radiative transfer doesn’t give a fig about GDP. It’s the emissions that count, and they somehow have to be brought down.
It will be no surprise that Marburger hewed to the line that only voluntary carbon reductions should be sought. He referred to “aspirational goals” as the basis for global carbon policy. More remarkably, he put the blame on Congress when somebody asked why no mandatory carbon caps had been put into place — conveniently ignoring that Congress is within a few votes of passing such a cap, but is laboring under a Presidential veto threat. Even more remarkably, in response to a question about White House censorship and re-writing of documents touching on climate change science, he defended these as “Legitimate attempts to improve the communication of science,” and to “correct some fine points that got glossed over.” He baldly stated, “I have not found any evidence of any attempt to censor science.”
Perhaps somebody should ask Jim Hansen for a second opinion on that. I’m sure our readers can provide Dr. Marburger with additional examples, if he needs a reminder.
Marburger should be retitled the pseudo-science advisor.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
I don’t understand what you think is wrong with his statement – “It’s important not to get distracted by chasing short-term reductions in greenhouse emissions. The real payoff is in long-term technological breakthroughs.”
Isn’t the long-term need new technology, whether you believe the warm-mongering hype, or the peak oil hype, or any other hype?
Even Gore admits, in fancy terms, that what the alarmists want isn’t currently feasible, technologically: “The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do.”
You haven’t been reading my posts on technology, then. All the hypothetical long term future technology in the world won’t save the climate if we don’t start cutting emissions significantly now using existing technology.
I am not sure what Gore meant by that quote, since it was not in the context of anything. I’ll ask his folks.
I think what Al Gore meant by that statement was a discussion of the politics in the world on Global Warming. In the political context he explained it made sense.
This making the science advisor a political arm of this administration doesn’t surprise me. They tried and got caught to do the same thing to the criminal justice system with the selective firing of U. S. Attorneys.
It’s politics that runs this administrations science. It may have been a politically run Defense Department and Iraqi postwar program that made the Iraq war so costly. Instead of letting competence run it, they selected thru Rumsfeld to be overly political.
Just like after the first Space Shuttle blew up in 1986, Dr Feynman, well known physicist said that you can’t fool nature with public relations.
But in politics, we can be fooled with public relations or at least a majority can be. I realize I am stating the obvious, but it sure does get frustrating.
any coment on this?
Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans
Posted on 12/11/2007
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
who is david evans?
What is the plug in electric car but a long-term technological breakthrough? Can you name three examples of existing technologies not now in use or underused and your plan to implement them?
Plug in is not either a long-term technology or one requiring a breakthrough. Andy Frank at UC Davis has been building them for over a decade! Many companies will introduce them around 2010. We may need incremental improvement in Li-Ion batteries for commercial success. However, we may not.
BTW, I’m not Joe. But this is just too easy.
Why yes, we can reduce emissions by building smaller houses. What would these smaller houses look like? Just like the houses our grandparents built when they squeezed their dollars harder than we do.
We can reduce emissions by driving less. When suburbia began almost nobody had two cars, dads carpooled to work, and moms drove everybody’s children to the beach or Cub Scout meeting. Not to mention walking a half mile to the bus stop or a mile to school, not considered at all unusual just 50 years ago.
We can reduce emissions by eating locally. Apples from Chile or New Zealand may be good for somebody’s economy, but not for mine. It’s just stupid to fly an apple halfway around the globe.
There are three examples of existing technology that could reduce emissions. I’m sure the rest of you can think of some more.
Since Pierrehumbert appoves of France’s record on emissions through the use of nuclear energy I’d say it looks like we already have the technology.
any coment on this?
Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans
Posted on 12/11/2007
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
who is david evans?
Presuming you are an innocent and not a FUD purveyor or spam bot, use Google.
Best,
D
The Republican attack on science is of course older than Junior’s administration. Another terrible example besides Marburger is the Office of Technology Assessment, which the 104th Congress (e.g. Gingrich) shut down. There are other examples from the Reagan and Bush Sr years. As Upton Sinclair pointed out, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it,” and the investors in the Republican party do often seem to make their Senator and Congress clients’ jobs depend on it.