Sadly, this recent paper on global warming (PDF) from the Senate Republican Policy Committee, which is chaired by Kay Bailey Hutchison, demonstrates that too many in the GOP still refuse to cop to the scientific consensus in this area. Many aspects of the document's discussion are judicious and well informed. Yet at the same time, the conclusions are completely skewed:
There are three general areas of scientific agreement on climate change.
⢠Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm over the last century due in large part to fossil fuel consumption.
⢠The Earth's average temperature has risen approximately 1.3 degrees F over the last century.
⢠Carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other trace gases exert a warming influence on the climate.
⢠Beyond these areas of general agreement, there is considerable uncertainty.
⢠Although rising greenhouse gas concentrations should warm the planet, it is difficult to determine how much of the past warming is due to human activities.
⢠It is even more difficult to determine whether human activities will have a relatively benign or catastrophic effect on the climate in the future.
Actually, the latest IPCC summary (PDF) said we know a lot more than that; most notably, that we have 90 percent or higher confidence that most of the recent warming is caused by humans.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee goes on to criticize climate models (a standard trope) and imply that we shouldn't trust the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers because it might be different from the full report (another standard trope). There's also questioning of the water-vapor feedback loop, the suggestion that Arctic melting might be part of a natural cycle....and on and on.
Why they can't just state the latest science--without putting their own misleading spin upon it, and without having the arrogance to think that somehow they're in a position to reinterpret and outthink the IPCC--I fail to understand.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I am running into this in planning a climate change program for our congregation centered around a showing of An Inconvenient Truth, and I'd appreciate hearing from any other reader of this blog on how to handle this without becoming contentious. (Click my name and find the e-mail link.)
I plan to discuss how the movie illuminates both the IPCC consensus and two of the more worrysome uncertainties: the global warming/hurricane connection and the dynamic melting in Greenland and West Antarctica.
I will make clear the difference between solid consensus and possible scenarios. I'll have to watch the movie again to see how well it makes that distinction. Those who accuse Gore of being alarmist cite the sea level visuals, but I think he made clear that this was a worrysome scenario and not a firm consensus.
The other area often criticized is the possible link between global warming and hurricanes. Again, I think the movie is clear that this is an open question with some tendency toward support of the link.
In both cases, the emotional impact of the images and diagrams may overwhelm the statements of caution relative to the science. Critics will seize on that to cast doubt on the IPCC consensus, especially if they've been reading the Senate Republican Policy Committee report.
Any concrete suggestions are welcome. Chris, do you think replies should also be posted here for the other readers rather than sent privately to me?
Chris, your bulleted points are a concise statement of what should be the foundation of any arguments about anthropogenic global warming. The first three are essentially statements of fact, but some deniers actually argue against even these.
I doubt that we can do much about it given the profit driven choices of most of main stream media and the lack of factual rigor in the reporting of alternative media. In the first instance, as soon as I hear the phrase "the public wants" in any discussion of media I know that we are going to get another reason why they have to interrupt their story on Brittany Spears to tell us that Anna Nicole Smith's body is now being flown to the Bahamas.
The second case is more difficult. The general raison d'etre for alternative media is NOT to report, but rather to influence. The are a few who manage to adhere to fact driven reporting (even with the editorial commentary wrapped around it) but most are not going to let facts stand in the way of making their point. For every one like Chris, or the blogger known as dengre at DailyKos or Josh Marshall at TPM, there are thousands who have no discipline and we readers have to make up our minds.
Interesting: dengre, Josh and Chris are / were all professional journalists.
"Why they can't just state the latest science--without putting their own misleading spin upon it, and without having the arrogance to think that somehow they're in a position to reinterpret and outthink the IPCC--I fail to understand."
Do you really fail to understand? Look, for reasons both financial and ideological, Republicans outside the Northeast are going to be dragging their feet as much as possible. Kay Bailey is actually fairly open-minded on this issue for a Texas Republican.
Kay Bailey, esquire, is trained in tropes as a lawyer (U. Texas). There are more than sixty lawyers troping in the Senate. These professionals stand and deliver according to their training in tropes. Kay Baby, learned to trope, frame, and reframe long before there was a so-called framing science. Hilary, esquire, is troping and framing now.
Why would anybody be surprised?
Chris - any good links on a rebuttal or analysis to the water-vapor issue? I have an associate who is a ditto-head who brings this up. I'd like to understand how Science understands water-vapor relative to climate change and care little what Rush Limbaugh states.
Loved the paperback by the way, also reviewed it in Amazon.
No disrespect intended, but I'm a bit beyond being convinced that climate change is happening, is human induced, and requires some stark changes in behavior. I'm looking for a site that doesn't necessarily focus on the science (i.e. proving the above) but rather on the solutions (what can be done - and by whom - to optimize the outcome for all). If anyone has any links to such blogs or discussions - I would be very grateful.
Thanks
- Ed
Ed,
Your question is a good one. My answer is to start by deciding which talents you have that are most applicable to addressing the problem.
Are you an educator? What community organizations are you active in? How can you make a difference on this important issue?
As for me, I find this site very useful, not so left-of-center that it precludes a variety of views. It keeps me informed about the latest science and the political activity.
I am using my talents professionally in my writing for children ( http://www.fredbortz.com ) and in my book reviewing ( http://www.scienceshelf.com ). But I have recently decided to do more grass-roots stuff, such as organizing and developing a presentation of An Inconvenient Truth in our (Reform Jewish) congregation. The purpose is to educate others about the issue and to discuss it in the context of the Jewish value (shared by most religions) of stewardship of the world.
If you want to act politically, then look for websites that fit your political activism. If you want to educate, then look at how schools address the issue.
The important thing, and the reason you raised the question, is that you want to get actively involved. I can't recommend what sites will be best for you, but perhaps I've given you some useful food for thought.
We can't help the GOP accept climate change if the GOP (or at least one of their fairly strong constituencies) can't help itself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR20070…
Big trouble in river city.
Kate wrote:
"We can't help the GOP accept climate change if the GOP (or at least one of their fairly strong constituencies) can't help itself..."
As I read that article, Dobson and Falwell are fighting to keep their leadership on this issue, while the position of the National Association of Evangelicals is beginning to take hold. I think it's only a matter of time before the Evangelicals start calling for both parties to take positions on "our" side of this issue.
I can only imagine what will happen when the political realities force Dobson and Falwell to backtrack. Perhaps Falwell will have another of his famous conversations with God, who will forgive him for not paying attention to the signs.
I give them three years to give up their denialism, maybe less. Anyone care to make a friendly wager? I'll put up a copy of one of my books. You name your stake.