Clear skies indeed

[EricMM 0]

U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan

Global-Warming Science Assailed

 

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A01

 

Bush administration officials working behind the scenes have succeeded in weakening key sections of a proposal for joint action by the eight major industrialized nations to curb climate change.

 

Under U.S. pressure, negotiators in the past month have agreed to delete language that would detail how rising temperatures are affecting the globe, set ambitious targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and set stricter environmental standards for World Bank-funded power projects, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Negotiators met this week in London to work out details of the document, which is slated to be adopted next month at the Group of Eight's annual meeting in Scotland.

 

The administration's push to alter the G-8's plan on global warming marks its latest effort to edit scientific or policy documents to accord with its position that mandatory carbon dioxide cuts are unnecessary. Under mounting international pressure to adopt stricter controls on heat-trapping gas emissions, Bush officials have consistently sought to modify U.S. government and international reports that would endorse a more aggressive approach to mitigating global warming.

 

Last week, the New York Times reported that a senior White House official had altered government documents to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding the science on global warming. That official, White House Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Phillip Cooney, left the administration last Friday to take a public relations job with oil giant Exxon Mobil, a leading opponent of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The wording of the international document, titled "Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development," will help determine what, if any, action the G-8 countries will take as a group to combat global warming. Every member nation except the United States has pledged to bring its greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2012 as part of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who currently heads the G-8 -- is trying to coax the United States into adopting stricter climate controls.

 

In preparation for the summit, negotiators are trying to work out the wording of statements on climate change and other issues that leaders of all eight nations are willing to endorse. The language is not final, but the documents show that a number of deletions have been made at U.S. insistence.

 

Although the new statement by G-8 leaders may not dramatically alter the other nations' policies on global warming, what it says could mark a shift for the United States. (The other G-8 members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.) U.S. officials pressed negotiators to drop sections of the report that highlight some problems tied to global warming, warn of more frequent droughts and floods, and commit a specific dollar amount to promoting carbon sequestration in developing countries.

 

One deleted section, for example, initially cited "increasingly compelling evidence of climate change, including rising ocean and atmospheric temperatures, retreating ice sheets and glaciers, rising sea levels, and changes to ecosystems." It added: "Inertia in the climate system means that further warming is inevitable. Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans."

 

Instead, U.S. negotiators substituted a sentence that reads, "Climate change is a serious long term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe."

 

James L. Connaughton, who heads the Council on Environmental Quality, said the United States was in "extremely constructive discussions on preparing leadership text for the G-8 meeting" that would outline the world's climate change problem in a "succinct and strong" manner.

 

"It's very important to view [the deletions] in context," Connaughton said in an interview. "The overall context is one of strong consensus about a shared commitment to practical action, as well as defined management strategies."

 

But environmentalists and Democrats criticized the administration for trying to water down the international coalition's initiative.

 

"The administration is pursuing a dangerous 'ostrich' policy: put your head in the sand and pretend nothing's happening," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said in an interview.

 

Some advocates are urging the seven other G-8 members to adopt their own global warming plan rather than accept a milder statement that they say would provide the Bush administration with political cover.

 

"The U.S. will just not budge," said Hans J.H. Verolme, director of the World Wildlife Fund's U.S. climate change program. "We'd rather not have a deal than have a deal that lets George Bush off the hook."

 

Bush's top science adviser, John Marburger, said he is "impatient and frustrated" with such charges, because the administration is seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through technological advances and other voluntary measures.

 

"From the beginning, this administration has acknowledged the Earth is getting warmer and we're going to have to take responsibility for our emissions," Marburger said. Critics claim the White House believes "climate change is not happening, which is not true."

 

Several officials involved in the negotiations said none of the document's wording is fixed, and it could change before the leaders adopt a final version for the summit. Connaughton emphasized that the administration's suggested changes address the threat of rising temperatures and offer several proposals to mitigate climate change as well as air pollution.

 

"We are looking for economy of expression in a leadership text," he said.

 

The controversy follows recent charges by several climate specialists that Bush appointees are exerting undue political influence on federal global warming documents.

 

Last week, Rick S. Piltz, a policy expert and former Democratic congressional aide who worked until March in the federal office coordinating climate change, released documents showing that Cooney, the White House official, had edited the office's documents to highlight higher temperature's benefits and uncertainties surrounding global warming. Before joining the administration, Cooney was an oil lobbyist.

 

In December, the administration issued new guidelines calling for federal officials to have final sign-off on a series of climate change assessment. Several experts objected that the requirement undermines their independence, and senior scientist Eric Sundquist of the U.S. Geological Survey resigned as lead author on one report in protest.

 

In a May 12 letter from his personal e-mail account, Sundquist said the new rules may make it difficult "to communicate the best independent scientific judgment to decision makers."

 

NOAA Deputy Administrator James R. Mahoney, who is overseeing the government's 21 periodic climate assessments, said these concerns were unfounded because the government will publish the full reports before political appointees have a chance to alter them.

 

The bolded section I thought was interesting because, while every word is technically true, it could be read as meaning "It's a long term issue (so we don't have to act right away) that effects the entire globe (so we refuse to act until China acts too)." Which I think is the entire point. Anyone who cares about the environment and is any sort of republican ought to be ashamed...

[NoCalMike 0]

I love how they cannot dispute the facts and science, so instead they just outright edit the wording to fit their needs. I posted about this subject on another message board, and I will repeat it here; If you don't agree with the science, then bring forth evidence and different SCIENCE to counter the claims of global warming, however changing words, editing scientific findings and simply saying "no it's not" is not a counter-argument.

[Justice 0]

While I do understand and partly agree with Global Warming (Though I think it is continually and vastly overrated right now), Kahran has shown more than a few times that CO2 is a shitty greenhouse gas, despite your own comments. That, and the simple proof that there are no studies that go back more than maybe 10 years here that show it's actually global warming and not a natural temperature shift.

 

Seriously, NoCal, do you have any proof to deny that this could be natural? From what's been said, it was supposedly much hotter during the Middle Ages. There is no definitive proof that global warming is a man-made threat or just a climate shift that occurs naturally because all the studies you love to cite generally don't go over 10 to 20 years.

 

Gosh darn it, I guess science doesn't quite have an answer yet.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm not in the global warming camp. We've gotten way too much junk science and acted too quickly on it, from saccharine to radon. I think scientists drum up scares like this so they'll keep getting grant money, even though they know they're creating a panic over nothing. They know the media will report it in an "OMG WE'RE ALL DEAD~!" fashion, and the rest will follow from there.

[NoCalMike 0]

While I do understand and partly agree with Global Warming (Though I think it is continually and vastly overrated right now), Kahran has shown more than a few times that CO2 is a shitty greenhouse gas, despite your own comments. That, and the simple proof that there are no studies that go back more than maybe 10 years here that show it's actually global warming and not a natural temperature shift.

 

Seriously, NoCal, do you have any proof to deny that this could be natural? From what's been said, it was supposedly much hotter during the Middle Ages. There is no definitive proof that global warming is a man-made threat or just a climate shift that occurs naturally because all the studies you love to cite generally don't go over 10 to 20 years.

 

Gosh darn it, I guess science doesn't quite have an answer yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm not in the global warming camp.  We've gotten way too much junk science and acted too quickly on it, from saccharine to radon.  I think scientists drum up scares like this so they'll keep getting grant money, even though they know they're creating a panic over nothing.  They know the media will report it in an "OMG WE'RE ALL DEAD~!" fashion, and the rest will follow from there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well this is my point exactly. It's not like the Bush administration or his spokesman are up there countering any of the science. They are just simply crossing out language from top U.S. Scientists and Top Scientists from around the world because they simply don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it, then dispute it with evidence, crossing words out is not an argument, hell get Jerry Fauwell up there to say "Christ polluted, so should you" At least say something to counter the scientific theories.

 

This would be like me arguing with Stephen Joseph(of this board) about economics, when he clearly knows something about the subject, and can cite studies and models etc.., by simply saying "No, your wrong, it's junk economics that you are citing" I would get flamed all to hell for trying to pull something like that. That is exactly what the Bush administration is doing, and not being called on it by the media.

[Justice 0]

What can you counter it with? Tom is right: You can pull out tons of junk science that lacks the proper mode and try to prove yourself right, but to defend my point of view requires a study going back around a hundred years or more.

 

You can use quick, very focused studies to show your point of view, but there are no studies for my view because, well, studies that long 'just don't pay off'. Seriously, if there's anything at fault here it's the scientific community trying to jump off to a conclusion almost immediately and rather than trying to prove itself right over a much more expansive timeline they simply continue to repeat the same process and say "I'm right! I'm right! Just look!"

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, we really just need time. We developed the technology too fast.

[Justice 0]

Exactly. It's like meeting a guy who is sweating and immediately deducing he has heat stroke. Maybe, or maybe he just ran a little. It can go either way, we just need to know more about the situation before jumping to a conclusion.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Global warming must be a joke. Just last night, when Summer officially started at 2 am, locally we broke an 80 year record low temperature by like 6 degrees, and with the exception of 1 week, its not been hot at all, and its been really wet here.

[EricMM 0]

Marvin, temperatures fluctuate all the time.

 

We're not talking dramatic 2 or 5 degree increases, we're talking overall one degree over a decade or more. But that extra heat all over the world will have large overall effects.

 

And guys, again, call our claims junk science, but at least we have scientists saying it. Not only can you name call, but you can't bring up as many or even half as many credible scientists. Oil companies, right wing think tanks, and Bush cronies don't count, thanks.

 

When the scientific world is on MY side, you're the ones with the burden of proof.

[Justice 0]

Marvin, temperatures fluctuate all the time.

 

Indeed, Why haeven't you figured this out yet?

 

We're not talking dramatic 2 or 5 degree increases, we're talking overall one degree over a decade or more.  But that extra heat all over the world will have large overall effects.

 

And how do we know this isn't a naturally occuring thing? Again, I'll point to times like the Middle Ages, which were supposedly much hotter than current times. We could just currently be in a 'heating phase'.

 

And guys, again, call our claims junk science, but at least we have scientists saying it.  Not only can you name call, but you can't bring up as many or even half as many credible scientists.  Oil companies, right wing think tanks, and Bush cronies don't count, thanks.

 

When the scientific world is on MY side, you're the ones with the burden of proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First off, scientific proof isn't on your side because, once again most of these are only 5 to 10 year studies. You have no long range studies to prove anything from, which is what is needed to prove a massive climate shift. You act as though we've always had a steady temperature, when science informs us that planets have natural heating and cooling periods.

 

Secondly, trying to make your own sources seem more credible by saying every scientist speaking against it is hired by some sort of interest... so what? I explained this before in another thread: People who have a certain view will be hired out by people with the same view. The scientific community, for the most part, is fairly to the left. These people with differing opinions get pushed out and end up having to sell themselves just to make a living. It's easy for a scientist pushing the same thing the community has said to get published because, well, it's what you want to hear. But the others often get picked up by others.

 

There is no advantage in 'science' here. It's just like the 'EVERYONE AGREES WITH GLOBAL WARMING' study you tried bringing forth last time. It's nothing with substance, just all show.

 

Until you can show me a long-term study showing anything, you don't have any real proof, because that's what showing a real climate change would require. Keep talking about "Well, this five year study shows this!", but as they continue to do those they just show how shortsighted they are.

[NoCalMike 0]

So Justice, let me get it straight on where you stand. You believe "Global Warming" is a real thing and is taking place, you just don't think there is enough evidence that points to man-made factors helping it along and that is all just a natural occurence?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Global warming must be a joke.  Just last night, when Summer officially started at 2 am, locally we broke an 80 year record low temperature by like 6 degrees, and with the exception of 1 week, its not been hot at all, and its been really wet here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Global warming doesn't affect the highs, because those are usually a result of direct sunlight. As such it has very little influence on summer temperatures at all (or equatorial temperatures for that matter). It is the winter temperatures that the greenhouse effect has its major influence on.

 

As for whether global warming exists, it depends on the scale. If you look at the past 10 years, it is about the same or slightly warmer. If you look at the past 100 years, it is quite a bit warmer. If you look at the past 5000 years, the temperature has a downward trend with some spikes like now or during the Medieval Warm. If you look at the past 100 million years than it is substantially cooler, we are in an Ice Age afterall and the earth is going to cool in time anyways because the core is getting cooler. It is all a matter of perspective. If you look at the decade of the 1970s the temperature was dropping pretty quickly, but it is in complete contrast to the rest of the century. The only constant about climate change is that it changes. It either gets warmer or colder, but doesn't stay the same. The 19th Century was unusually cold (it was actually pretty cold overall going all the way back to the 1320s, with a few warm periods here and there such as the mid-18th Century). It is not beyond belief that things would get warmer eventually. Right now for the Holocene we are at about average or slightly above average for global temperatures.

 

I'm not in the global warming camp. We've gotten way too much junk science and acted too quickly on it, from saccharine to radon. I think scientists drum up scares like this so they'll keep getting grant money, even though they know they're creating a panic over nothing. They know the media will report it in an "OMG WE'RE ALL DEAD~!" fashion, and the rest will follow from there.

 

I disagree. I think the big problem is that we are dealing with a lot chemists and biologists who are used to studying something at a smaller scale and then blowing it up to be applicable for something much larger. Like how you take a small section of an ecosystem and study it, and you have a pretty good idea of how the whole ecosystem works. The problem that we are dealing with here is the concept of time. Many scientists in those fields simply have no concept of how big the earth is and how long it takes for things to happen. You can't just take 100 years of history and try to get a grasp of the whole history of the earth. This planet is 4.6 billion years old and the modern alignment of the earth started with the breakup of Pangaea in the Triassic. While studying our current climate we need to go back at least 10000 years to when the last Ice Age ended and we reached our current global climate. Since there are no written records back then and certainly no temperature records, you need a good concept of geology and paleobiology to be able to properly study the geologic record. And it is something that many of the pro-Global Warming scientists have little understanding about. A background in history is pretty helpful too for the historical era. Climate change on a global scale is simply too big and takes place over such a large scale that many scientists have trouble comprehending it.

 

The other problem is that for a long time (for like 15 years) computers weren't powerful enough to run the really complex climate models and so most of the numbers were faulty. This is why in the 1980s there were predictions that the temperature would rise about 10C by 2100, but that has since been dropped to a more realistic and much less significant 1.5-2C.

 

BTW, there isn't much worth arguing about here anyways. It is almost universally accepted that we will be in another Ice Age soon, maybe as soon as the year 3000 (with the most conservative going at an age of about 10000 years from now), so whatever is happening now is going to be a very minor episode in Earth's history. Whatever climate situation we have now is going to be completely obliterated and we will come out of it with something completely different (during the last interglacial of the Pleistocene England had a climate similar to Kenya today).

[Justice 0]

So Justice, let me get it straight on where you stand.  You believe "Global Warming" is a real thing and is taking place, you just don't think there is enough evidence that points to man-made factors helping it along and that is all just a natural occurence?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, mostly. I'm not a 'smog doesn't hurt' guy, I just think that we are being way too quick to point a finger here. We don't have any information on long-term trends. I mean, what if the Ice Caps are cooler than they normally are right now and are going back to equilibrium?

 

I'm not denying that it's not possible for us to be the problem. It very well could be. But I also understand that we are looking at a very small piece of the picture, and we could be seriously misjudging what's wrong here. I just want more than "This five-year study shows that we are hotter than we were before. DOOMSDAY~!" I want something for the long-term and until I see that, science is not on anyone's side to me.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Well, mostly. I'm not a 'smog doesn't hurt' guy, I just think that we are being way too quick to point a finger here. We don't have any information on long-term trends. I mean, what if the Ice Caps are cooler than they normally are right now and are going back to equilibrium?

 

Air quality concerns and greenhouse gas concerns are two different issues because it isn't the same gases involved, even going by the argument that CO2 is the big problem with global warming.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There's also evidence to support that Cenozoic Earth's natural state is that of an ice age and we're just in one of the warm spots we get every now and then.