Energy Secretary Defends Administrations Commitment to Sound Science
Responding to a Washington Post op-ed by former American Prospect Online editor Chris Mooney that repeated allegations that the administration had ignored the scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham issued a strong defense of administration policy in a letter to the newspaper.
He wrote, In “Beware ‘Sound Science.’ It’s Doublespeak for Trouble” [Outlook, Feb. 29], Chris Mooney engages in more than a little doublespeak himself and does what he accuses the Bush administration of doingtwisting reality to fit his preferred hypothesis.
Mr. Mooney claims that the 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change embarrassed the administration that commissioned it. This is nonsense. The administration is well aware of the scientific consensus that temperatures have warmed partly due to human activity.
But acknowledging consensus is a far cry from implying, as Mr. Mooney does, that our understanding of climate change is complete. Indeed, the same report also noted that “a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established,” and it identified a number of scientific areas that need further study to advance our understanding of climate change and support policy decisions.
The administration’s Climate Change Science Program strategic plan, released in July 2003, addresses many recommendations from the NAS report and is designed to accelerate research on the most important uncertainties in climate science. An extensive review of the plan just published by the NAS, and ignored by Mr. Mooney, commends the program for seeking input from a broad array of scientists and stakeholders and concludes that advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will be of vital importance to the nation.
British Government Reprimands Alarmist Scientist
Despite supposedly having the backing of Prime Minister Tony Blair, UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King earned a dressing-down from senior civil servants after claiming that global warming was worse than terrorism (see previous issues).
According to the Independent (Mar. 7), Ivan Rogers, Mr. Blair’s principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister’s chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush’s policy on climate change. Since Sir David’s article in Science was published, No. 10 has tried to limit the damage to Anglo-American relations by reining in the Prime Minister’s chief scientist.
In a leaked memo, Mr. Rogers ordered Sir Davida Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministersto decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4’s Today. To accept such bids runs the risk of turning the debate into a sterile argument about whether or not climate change is a greater risk, Mr. Rogers said in the memo, which was sent to Sir David’s office in February.
Sir David, who is highly regarded by Mr Blair, has been primed with a list of 136 mock questions that the media could ask if they were able to get access to him, and the suggested answers he should be prepared to give. One question asks: How do the number of deaths caused by climate change and terrorism compare? The stated answer that Sir David is expected to give says: The value of any comparison would be highly questionablewe are talking about threats that are intrinsically different.
If Sir David were to find himself pushed to decide whether terrorism or climate change was the greater threat, he was supposed to answer: Both are serious and immediate problems for the world today. But this was not what Sir David said on the Today programme on 9 January when the Science article was published.
Asked to explain how he had come to the conclusion that global warming was more serious than terrorism, Sir David replied that his equation was based on the number of fatalities that have already occurredimplying that global warming has already killed more people than terrorism.
Sir David does not appear to have repeated his contention since the Madrid outrages on March 11.
McCain Wants New Studies to Support His Legislation
Senator John McCain has somehow overcome his long-time opposition to wasteful government spending in order to promote two costly new studies on global warming. Since he believes that the science is settled on the issue, his purpose appears to be to provide support for his energy rationing bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139. First, he has asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to study the likely effects of global warming on federally managed lands.
Bluewater Network, an environmental pressure group, boasted in a press release, Prompted by a request from Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based environmental nonprofit organization, Senators McCain and Hollings asked the GAO to identify the losses and stresses on all of Americas public lands (including coastal and ocean resources) that will result from global warming. The GAO report would inventory the impacts of global warming and predict the timing of their environmental and socio-economic consequences. In addition, the Senators are asking the GAO to identify the resources that can be saved by adaptive measures such as construction of sea walls to protect coastal lands, and improved networks of reserves to protect species. Bluewater Network point out that global warming is a direct consequence of industrialization.
Second, McCains Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed out a bill that would spend $60 million to establish a research program for studying abrupt climate change within the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The bill was passed out by voice vote and with little discussion on March 8. The sponsors are Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Vermont Independent Senator Jim Jeffords.
Lomborg Case Quietly Dropped
It escaped the attention of most of the worlds press that had earlier gleefully reported the news of his conviction for scientific dishonesty, but the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty on March 12 dropped their case against Bjorn Lomborg, author of the international environmental best-seller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, following the quashing of its initial verdict by the governments science ministry.
The Environmental Assessment Institute, headed by Dr. Lomborg, issued a press release that quoted him as saying, The committee decision is as one would expect. More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation.
Lomborg continued, DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events. The release concluded, The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today’s announcement is only available in Danish.