OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush suppresses global warming science
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Max Schlusselberg:
- Physicians in pocket of pharmaceutical industry (November 9, 2007)
- Landlord greed crosses boundary (October 12, 2007)
- Milwaukee gang rape exemplifies state's prison woes (September 14, 2007)
- Second Amendment out-of-date (April 20, 2007)
- Internet lacks standard of decency (March 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Abu Ghraib behind discontent (February 22, 2006)
- Kohl ought to follow Feingold (April 13, 2007)
- Bush administration puts bottom line above environment (December 12, 2005)
- Bolton's resignation good for U.S. (December 6, 2006)
- Americans ignore strife for sideshow (February 23, 2007)
by Max Schlusselberg
Friday, February 2, 2007
This week, just like any other, brought more of the same mundane headlines. As usual, newspapers were consumed with the latest public outcries against the war coupled with bloody images to champion the protests. Just below the latest report of ruckus in the Middle East was the typical story of yet another Bush administration scandal. Man, was I relieved. After all, what would a day be without another tale of the Bush posse's clandestine doings to warm my heart? For those who are smart enough to know better than to ruin their day by reading the newspaper, allow me to enlighten you on the latest Washington gossip.
In a recent survey conducted by The Union of Concerned Scientists, a scientist's advocacy group; and the Government Accountability Project, a public interest group working to defend whistle-blowers, some 1,600 federal scientists were sent questionnaires. Despite a relatively low reply rate (about 19 percent of the 1,600 scientists surveyed responded) the findings yielded from the 308 responding scientists are still valid. Forty-six percent of those 308 scientists reported that they had been pressured to alter their findings in ways that resulted in a significant change to their scientific reports. These changes constituted the exclusion of words such as "climate change," or any other such word that is indicative of global warming. In addition to this scientific censorship, the surveyed scientists generated accounts of several other instances in which politics reared its ugly head in the face of science.
Gosh, where to start? Primarily, I could explore the importance of addressing the international crisis of global warming. After all, this testimony of political fiddling coincides perfectly with a frightening, soon to be released, report from the International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short. In their first report on environmental changes since 2001, the IPCC warns that by 2080, roughly 3 billion people will suffer water shortage, approximately 600 million will starve, and on top of all this human devastation, the environment will suffer drastic changes which will effectively destroy ecosystems as well as entire species. Although skeptics of global warming continue to argue these shifts in climate are completely natural, it is utterly impossible to ignore mankind's influence on globally mounting carbon dioxide levels.
The first step of many in the path to stopping, or at least slowing global warming is awareness. How can the American public expect to be environmentally conscious when important facts and reports are never making it to the public eye? The term "Orwellian society" is becoming all too common in recent years where government is forcing its sinister hand into every crevice of the nation.
In a directive that was passed this week, the Bush administration decreed that the policy makers of several government agencies will now be supervised by politically appointed watch dogs. This quietly approved piece of legislation gives the Bush gang the comfort of knowing that several government policy makers, including those for the environment, and pubic health department, will have no option but to enforce the Bush agenda.
It's demoralizing that the White House was granted this directive, especially considering what they will do with it. This legislation was not even enacted by the time the public received preliminary reports of Bush's gagging of scientists. Now that there is a law to qualify him, we can be sure Bush will have no qualms telling researchers what, or for that matter what not, to print.
The conflict of interest here is flagrant. For example, can we trust a man who is involved with the tobacco industry, and at the same time expect that same man to fund lung cancer research? Or for that matter, how could one who is intimately involved in the oil industry be just as concerned with environmental issues such as global warming?
Even more alarming than this single example of government controlled science is the bigger picture. The inherent conflict here is that we have a leader who is more involved in self-interest groups than he is in the interest of humanity. The leader of the free world, who we are inclined to put our faith and trust into, has been anything but trustworthy. People have a right not to be fooled by their government, and it is the loss of this right that should be worrying everyone just as much as global warming.
Max Schlusselberg (schlusselber@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 6:21am):
Very well researched and written - I hope to see more of your work as the world warms (literally) to climate change.
Me? An environmental scientist who has been convinced of this global threat for 20 years (since I was a biology student in Edinburgh); a marine biologist who now performs asbestos airtests because there is insufficient funding to do the work I was compelled to specialise in.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 7:30am):
i think that if we step up our additude we could beat this problem. If we al stick together, we probley wont stop the the proble but we could stop ot from happening so fast and slow it down little by little.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 7:34am):
This kind of news are the most important,
because they are about important stuff that is no desirable as news for the average media, given its lack of visual or emotional impact. Like your editorial, keep informing.
Luis Ferrer
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 8:03am):
In a survey by the UCS, 19% of the government scientists responded and less than 50% said they were told to alter reports.... Hmmm, did you ever think that those 8% of all polled scientists may have drawn questionable conclusions based on questionable data and this was pointed out by supervision?
I know the man made global warming nut cases want to shut the likes of me up, but plain and simple, the science is questionable. The models used are based on a data obtained over a short period of time. Considering there is no more than 100 years of reliable data (may sound like a long time, but in the climate time frame, it is nothing) and of that 100 years, truly precise measurements did not come about until approximately 50 years ago, there is insufficient data to draw such a conclusion. Of course, one can point to computer models, but those models are only as good as their programming and the data input into the model (just look at hurricane tracking models or general weather models... show me one that has little uncertainty beyond tomorrow... you can't. When you figure out why that is, you can see why the "science" of climate change is questionable. What is even more despicable is the attempt by the global warming crowd to use info from the last 10 or so years (and in that time we have had above average and below average temps) in small geographical areas and correlate that to world wide climate change.
I am quite happy to learn, however, that if humans are responsible for climate change, we are all powerful. Considering our SUVs are causing the Martian ice caps to melt as well (the only reason this is an issue is because it coincides with Earth's climate change... making one wonder if there is something, NOT GLOBAL, causing climate change). http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
When I develop my model, it is based on CO2 causing climate change, thus, when CO2 goes up, of course climate change will be modeled. Humans have to be to blame, halt the economy of developed countries, tax the rich and shut everyone up who questions the models (what kind of political ideology does that sound like?). If you ask me, the best way to reduce CO2 would be to wipe out all animal life (other than humans and black lab dogs) to eliminate a large contributor of CO2 (respiration). Everyone would then become vegetarians, which would mean we would have grow more crops, which use more CO2... crisis solved.
Just a dig on the Union of Concerned Scientists. Look at their track record (first off, most of the members of UCS are not scientists, but when they give a donation to the cause, not only do they become educated, they become concerned), show me an example of an issue they pursue that is not intended to harm a capitalist society. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but to see them as anything more than a political group is to see them incorrectly.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 8:51am):
I love how the media constantly reports that Bush is to blame for the state of the environment because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. What they always fail to mention is that Saint Bill (that is, Bill Clinton) didn't submit the Protocol to the Senate in the first place because Kyoto could not do the two things that the U.S. Senate required: 1) that it not harm the U.S. economy and 2) it require meaningful participation by developing countries. People who claim that Bush's refusal to jump on the Kyoto bandwagon makes him do so because either a) they are rabid environmentalists who inherently have no sense of practicality, and b) never read the thing. It was a bad document, that placed the burden of decrease primarily on the shoulders of the U.S. without realistically looking at China, India and the Third World.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 11:38am):
you mean suppresses?
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 12:21pm):
Where to start? How about where you say that although particpation in the survey was puny, the results are still valid. I know that you aren't a scientist, but surely you can imagine that there was a bit of a self selection bias amongst those that completed the survey. The fact that only 19% did is extremely telling. Furthermore, the group that administered the survey is far from beyond reproach.
Maybe you should go back to covering topics that are a little more familiar to you, like strained friendships.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 2:37pm):
How hot can Earth possibly get? How much pollution can we actually tolerate? Why do we need ice caps, just to keep precious Florida afloat? Is anything we attempt actually going to reverse global warming?
Maybe we should be asking ourselves how we should adapt to global warming, instead of how we should stop global warming. Welcome to the new reality.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 2:50pm):
What was the name of this quietly approved piece of legislation that puts the Bush gang in charge of monitoring several government agencies? Where can I learn more about it? Like, which agencies are involved? And who voted for it? Certainly not my elected representatives?! I wanna know!
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 3:35pm):
WELLHow hot can Earth possibly get? How much pollution can we actually tolerate? Why do we need ice caps, just to keep precious Florida afloat? Is anything we attempt actually going to reverse global warming?
Maybe we should be asking ourselves how we should adapt to global warming, instead of how we should stop global warming. Welcome to the new reality.
THAT IS COMPLETLEY RDICULOUS !!! GLOBAL WARMING IS SCREWING WITH EVERYTHING IT IS FUCKING UP ECOSYSTEMS DESTROYING HABITAT LIKE CORRAL REEFS AND PLANKTIN WITCH ABSORB CO2 WICH IS A MAIN CAUSE OF WARMING AND IT CHANGES IT TO OXYGEN JUST LIKE TREES AND IT'S KILLING ANIMALS HABITAT YOU CAN CALL ME A HIPPY OR ECOFREAK SO THE ANONYMOUS WHO WROTE THIS WELCOME TO THE NEW REALITY DUMB FUCK
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 4:59pm):
Interesting, yet not surprising. well researched with a good observation. I'd like to see some of your more extreme viewpoints - regardless if they accurately represent your opinions. Play devil's advocate and make some rodeo riding sister kissing midwestern'ers mad.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 6:47pm):
3:35, Eco-moron, cap-lock-tard, why don't you read a newspaper before firing off such enlightened opinions. If you did, you would know, from the Washington Post:
Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials.
New reality, indeed.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 10:32pm):
Dear 3:35pm,
As a UW alum, please tell me that you were not admitted to school here. Please read over your post before clicking the "Post Comment" button. You seem mildly retarded and I pray that the 18th best university in the world did not admit you.
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 5:50pm):
So who's suppressing the fact that burning carbon for power is idiotic?
When all the greenies stop flitting about in their carbon burning private jets I might start taking them seriously.
burning carbon is a lousy idea. Coal and oil are, over the long term, far more valuable as chemical feedstocks than as fuels anyway, and burning them is unacceptably filthy regardless of greenhouse issues. We should replace them as soon as possible with nice, clean, greenhouse-friendly nuclear plants and other environmentally friendly power technologies. Burning less carbon is good planetary hygiene, and good practice generally, regardless of what you think of global warming. So, I suppose, in a way we should be pursuing global warming remedies regardless of what you think about global warming.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2227.php
At any rate, Kyoto -- despite the way it has been misrepresented in the press -- could never pass even when the Democrats were in charge, and wouldn't make much difference even if the U.S. was a party, and if Europe wasn't engaged in rampant cheating. ("In truth, Europe's CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the U.S. since Kyoto, three times as fast since 2000. ") The fastest-growing producers of CO2 are in Asia, and won't slow their economic growth significantly in order to fight the greenhouse effect -- and they would have difficulty in doing so even if they wanted to. Short of Bush nuking the Saudi and Iranian oil fields (defunding terrorism and stopping global warming in one blow!) no single change we can make is going to make a big difference.
Anonymous (February 4, 2007 @ 4:41pm):
5:50, I have to disagree with your divine opinion that "no single change we can make is going to make a difference".. although we may not be the biggest contributors to the sources of CO2 emmissions, we still are the great nation of America! But in all seriousness, if we take the first serious step to reducing emissions and changing our ways of living then other countries are more likely to follow suit. While India and China are polluting faster than they can even burn the fossil fuels, they are doing so to support their barely self-sufficient economies. the US on the other hand should be able to take drastic incentives to changing our ways of lives as we are already a well-established super power. It is people like you that convince others to just not care when there have been scientific reports published that prove global warming will drastically change the world within this generation. so maybe think before you disseminate your idiotic thoughts to all.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
