Fullscreen
Loading...
 
Print

Denial

Scientists and climate policy advocates around the world say they are watching the administration’s global warming actions and statements with deep worry. Many reacted with deep concern to Mr. Pruitt’s remarks this month that he did not believe carbon dioxide was a primary driver of climate change, a statement at odds with the global scientific consensus. They also noted the remarks last week by Mick Mulvaney, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, in justifying Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts to climate change research programs.

“As to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Mr. Mulvaney said at a White House briefing.
- CORAL DAVENPORT, Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama’s Climate Change Legacy, NYT, MARCH 21, 2017


As a businessman, President Trump was a frequent and scornful critic of the concept of climate change. In the years before running for president, he called it “nonexistent,” “mythical” and a “a total con job.” Whenever snow fell in New York, it seemed, he would mock the idea of global warming.

“Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again,” he wrote on Twitter in 2012. In another post later that year, he said, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” A year later, he wrote that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” ...
As he opened his presidential campaign, he told Hugh Hewitt, the conservative radio host, that the weather changed naturally over time and that there was not a major problem. “I’m not a believer in global warming,” he said. “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming.”
- PETER BAKER, Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change Is a Hoax? No One Can Say, NYT, JUNE 2, 2017


The Environmental Protection Agency’s chief of staff pressured the top scientist on the agency’s scientific review board to alter her congressional testimony and play down the dismissal of expert advisers, his emails show.

Deborah Swackhamer, an environmental chemist who leads the E.P.A.’s Board of Scientific Counselors, was to testify on May 23 before the House Science Committee on the role of states in environmental policy when Ryan Jackson, the E.P.A.’s chief of staff, asked her to stick to the agency’s “talking points” on the dismissals of several members of the scientific board. ...
Dr. Swackhamer’s testimony came two weeks after the dismissals, which were met with fierce pushback from a scientific community that saw it as evidence that the Trump administration is seeking to weaken the role of academic science in environmental policy.

That criticism has sharpened in recent weeks, after the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the energy secretary, Rick Perry, openly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change, and as the E.P.A. has taken down websites about climate change. Scientists have also expressed concern that Mr. Pruitt has staffed his senior offices with several former senior staff members of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent denier of human-caused climate change. Mr. Jackson also came from Mr. Inhofe’s staff.

Among other requests in his May 22 emails, Mr. Jackson asked Dr. Swackhamer to note that “a decision had not yet been made” about whether to dismiss her colleagues on the agency’s scientific review board. However, at that time, several scientists on the board had already received notices that their terms would not be renewed. Since that testimony, the E.P.A. has sent out dozens more notices to academic scientists that their terms on the board will not be renewed.

“The Board of Scientific Counselors had 68 members two months ago. It will have 11 come Sept. 1,” Dr. Swackhamer said. “They’ve essentially suspended scientific activities by ending these terms. We have no meetings scheduled, no bodies to do the work.”
- CORAL DAVENPORT, E.P.A. Official Pressured Scientist on Congressional Testimony, Emails Show, NYT, JUNE 26, 2017


Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it is insensitive to discuss climate change in the midst of deadly storms. ...
“We know that as humans, we are all too good at pretending like a risk, even one we know is real, doesn’t matter to us,” Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, wrote in an email as Harvey lashed the Texas coast.

“When we try to warn people about the risks, there’s no ‘news’ hook. No one wants to listen. That’s why the time to talk about it is now,” Dr. Hayhoe said. ...
It’s unclear whether experiencing powerful storms will change minds. A 2015 study published in the journal Climatic Change found Americans experiencing extreme weather events are not necessarily more concerned about climate change. Last week E&E News interviewed several Republican lawmakers whose constituents were hit by Hurricane Harvey and most said they had not considered the issue of climate change.
- LISA FRIEDMAN, Hurricane Irma Linked to Climate Change? For Some, a Very ‘Insensitive’ Question, NYT, SEPT. 11, 2017



According to Donald Trump, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." and "Global warming is an expensive hoax!"
- David Emery, Did Donald Trump Claim Global Warming Is a Hoax?, Snopes, updated May 31, 2017 [see also http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/]


The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed. ...
Nor is there even any theoretical support for a dangerous future. The central issue is ‘sensitivity’: the amount of warming that you can expect from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. On this, there is something close to consensus – at first. It is 1.2 degrees centigrade. Here’s how the IPCC put it in its latest report.
‘In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating. . . the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2◦C.’ Paragraph 8.6.2.3. ...
Talking of Greenpeace, did you know that the collective annual budget of Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth was more than a billion dollars globally last year? People sometimes ask me what’s the incentive for scientists to exaggerate climate change. But look at the sums of money available to those who do so, from the pressure groups, from governments and from big companies.
- Matt Ridley, Scientific Heresy, Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts, Edinburgh, 31 October 2011


Matt Ridley’s attempts to be a genuine sceptic is the same fake scepticism that has been churned out by deniers for over two decades. Climate Change is happening- but ‘even the IPCC say they are only 95% certain that 50% is man-made, the rest is natural’, there has been no warming for 16 years, the models don’t work, they can’t explain the lack of warming, a warming world is good, CO2 is plant food, spending money on preventing carbon emissions is a waste, wind turbines are bad, combating climate change will make the poor poorer, and fuel bills more expensive, climate scientists are doing it for the money, sceptics cannot get their sceptical papers published, and the list continues.
- Jules Bollocks, Matt Ridley in denial about being in denial, Bollocks2012, 20 Oct. 2013


Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F 5°C to 6°C warming over most of the U.S. (see literature review here).

The Wall Street Journal, however, has published a piece, “Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change,” that (falsely) asserts observations suggest global warming will be so low as to “be benificial.” [sic] This risible piece by Matt Ridley is so riddled with basic math and science errors it raises the question of how the Journal can possibly maintain its reputation as a credible source of news and financial analysis.
- JOE ROMM, Error-Riddled Matt Ridley Piece Lowballs Climate Change, Discredits Wall Street Journal. World Faces 10°F Warming.: Leading Scientists Debunk Ridley Piece, Even Climatologist Cited By Ridley Says He “Is Just Plain Wrong About Future Warming”, ThinkProgress, DEC 20, 2012


For about a decade, archaeologists have known that widespread drought in the Mediterranean was a culprit in the fall of civilizations there in the Late Bronze Age. But it is only in this latest study that evidence of the pharaohs’ prescience has emerged: In anticipation of a crisis in their empire’s southeastern arid zones, ancient leaders ordered increased grain production in its greener parts, and crossbred local cattle with zebu, or humped cattle, to create a more heat-resistant plow animal, the researchers found. ...
These agricultural feats managed to extend the life of the Egyptian empire about half a century longer than it might otherwise have lasted, according to the archaeologists. The lesson for our own civilization — which is likely to face increasingly severe droughts as humans change the climate far faster than nature has ever done — is to plan ahead.... ...
Yet many countries are still behind on goals set as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “This is the tragedy,” said John F. Haldon, a historian at Princeton University who studies how ancient civilizations coped with climatic upheaval. “Everyone’s aware of the problem but there’s a massive stasis in the system.” ...
Present-day humanity may have the resources and tools to deal with climate change, Dr. Haldon said, but action is often stifled by those who have a vested interest in denying the reality of human-caused climate change.
- Livia Albeck-Ripka, Faced With Drought, the Pharaohs Tried (and Failed) to Adapt, NYT, March 30, 2018


Show php error messages