Politics

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.

Alarmists Allege Pentagon Worried by Global Cooling

Although the story broke in Fortune magazine on Jan. 26, it was not until Londons Observer publicized it (Feb. 22) that alarmists discovered that the Pentagon had commissioned a study about the possible effects of abrupt climate change.

The study, commissioned by the Office of Net Assessment, looked particularly at the possible effects of rapid cooling following the shutting down of the Gulf Stream as a result of global warming.  The study admitted it was imagining the unthinkable and that its scenario was extreme both in its global reach and its magnitude.  The Pentagon reacted that the $100,000 study did not meet its needs and took no action.

This did not stop alarmist sources from reacting as if the Joint Chiefs had become global warming catastrophists.  The Observers story was titled (and sub-titled), Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.  Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war, Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years, Threat to the world is greater than terrorism.

In fact the report had been made public by the Pentagon, made clear that it was a scenario, not a forecast, and made no mention of the threat being greater than terrorism (that being a reference to the statement by Sir David King see recent issues).

The over-reaction was typified by Robert Watson, former head of the IPCC, who waxed lyrical to the Observer about what this could mean for the administration:  Its hugely embarrassing…. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then [the President] has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon.

The study was written by Peter Schwartz, former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

EU Seeks to Paper Over Kyoto Cracks

EU Commission President Romano Prodi had to intervene personally (Feb. 25) to reiterate the EUs commitment to the Kyoto Protocol in the event of Russian non-ratification.  The Commission then released a document (Memo/04/43, Mar. 4) restating its public position.

Neither of these interventions seems to have stopped the flood of speculation on whether adherence to the protocol is wise.  The influential UNICE business group said in a letter to the presidency that member state environment ministers should ask the European Commission to launch a review of climate change policies for 2008-2012.

Reuters added, While urging the EU to redouble efforts to get the Protocol ratified so it can come into force, the letter added:  The review of the current EU climate-change policies should also be relevant as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in case it does not come into force.

Reservations among member governments continued at the meeting of environment ministers on March 2.   Environment Daily reported, At a ministerial meeting in Brussels [Italian] environment minister Altero Matteoli made a prolonged attempt to force a declaration from his colleagues that future emission-cutting action should depend on the treaty being ratified by Russia and thus entering into force. The move follows increasing unrest in Italian industry circles at the imminent prospect of the greenhouse gas curbs under the EU climate emissions trading system. The Italian government first reflected this last December when it tried to characterize Kyoto explicitly as a threat to business at a summit of EU leaders.
 
Mr Matteoli claimed after the meeting he had been supported by Spain and to a lesser extent Finland, where doubts over EU climate policy have recently surfaced. Nevertheless, the final text was adopted unanimously.

Irish environment minister and council president Martin Cullen insisted at a post-council press conference that ministers remained united in their absolutely determined commitment to the Kyoto protocol and that there had been no debate about alternatives to the global pact.  But he implicitly acknowledged the reservations being expressed: some aspects of Kyoto seem insurmountable in the short-term time frame, he said, but the long-term economics benefits in prompting energy-efficiency were clear.

Stacked Hearing Signals Start of McCain Campaign

Abandoning all pretence of objectivity, Sen. John McCain (RAz.) used his tenuous connection to the climate change issue to hold a stacked hearing on the subject before the Senate Commerce Committee on March 3.

The committee heard only from the alarmist side of the debate, with witnesses such as Robert Correll of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Lee Hannah of Conservation International, Jerry Mahlman and Marvin Gellar (two of the authors responsible for the junk science National Assessment on Climate Change), and Lara Hansen of the World Wildlife Fund.  Dr Mahlman stressed he was testifying as a private citizen, not as a representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The witnesses were, however, mere support for the re-launch of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, which attempts to impose Kyoto-like policies on America. The bill was defeated 53-44 in the Senate last year, having reached the floor only as part of a failed compromise aimed at securing passage of the comprehensive energy bill.

Senator McCain said of his measure, This is an issue of worldwide importance.  We will get another vote and see if there is any temperature change in the Senate this spring.  McCain acknowledged that there is little, if any support for his bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.  (Environmental News Service)

British Government Continues Attacks on U.S. on Climate Change

Following up his attacks on President Bushs position on climate change (see last issue), Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Her Majestys Government, addressed the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle on February 13.  Sir David did not repeat his assertion that global warming was worse than terrorism, but still called on the Bush Administration to change its stance and provide global leadership to confront a very real threat.

Londons Independent commented (Feb. 16) that, [Sir David] is speaking with the backing of the Prime Minister, who has decided that trying to make progress on tackling climate change should be a key priority when Britain both chairs the G8 group of the world’s richest countries and holds the presidency of the European Union next year.

His close adviser, Peter Mandelson, MP, said last week that Mr. Blair regarded climate change as a threat second only to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Downing Street sees differences on global warming as an opportunity to demonstrate that Mr. Blair is not Mr. Bush’s poodle.  However, senior officials are worried that he will nevertheless fight shy of a direct personal confrontation with the President on the issue.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is pressing forward with its ambitious plans to cut carbon emissions.  Reuters reported (Feb. 18) that, Carbon dioxide quotas for [power] generators, the main CO2 polluters [sic], would be 13.2 percent below the sector’s average annual emissions in 1998-2002.   The offshore oil and gas industry, the second largest industrial polluter, would be required to cut its carbon emissions by 37.6 percent from levels in 1998-2002.

The Reuters story ended with the interesting claim that, The government has said it expects the power sector to bear the brunt of the CO2 cuts as it faces little international competition and can recoup the costs through higher electricity prices.  In other words, consumers (including producers of manufactured goods) will actually bear the brunt of the cuts, not the power sector.

European Consensus on Kyoto Cracks Further

Finland has become the latest member of the European Union to deviate from the party line on the Kyoto Protocol, at least speculatively.  The Finnish news organization YLE reported February 18 that, Trade and Industry Minister Mauri Pekkarinen commented on Saturday that Finland had taken on too much by signing up to the treaty.   Pekkarinen added that Finland would demand further talks on redistributing discharge levels more equally if the Kyoto treaty is not ratified in its current form. Finland is already committed to the preliminary stage of the deal from 2005 to 2007.

However, Pekkarinen felt it necessary to deny suggestions that he had suggested Finland should withdraw from the treaty.  Helsingen Sanomat reported (Feb. 18), Pekkarinen roundly denied that he had said anything of the sort, commenting that his only message had been that emission rights trading was to start and that Finland is preparing itself for this.

Nevertheless, Pekkarinen does support the idea that if the treaty is not ratified in its present form in the near future, Finland should become more active within the European Union to seek a renegotiation of the accord and the more equitable distribution of discharge levels.

The entire world should be on board, and not merely the countries that generate 15% of the emissions.  But even this is a matter of negotiations, and not of wriggling out, stressed Pekkarinen.  There has been concern among Finnish industry representatives recently that the implementation of the reduction in emissions required by Kyoto will noticeably increase energy prices.  Pekkarinen himself has earlier commented that in his view Finland may have taken on an overly ambitious commitment to reduce emissions when these matters were decided within the EU in 1997.

Junk Science Group Accuses Bush Administration of Suppressing Junk Science

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a $9 million leftist pressure group dedicated to alarming the public with junk science, has issued a report that strongly condemns the Bush Administration for distorting science in many areas, including climate change.  At the same time, UCS released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking signed by sixty leading scientists, including twenty Nobel Prize winners.

There is nothing new in the report, which merely repeats accusations of political censorship of the EPAs State of the Environment report last year, which found that environmental quality in the U. S. was improving in most areas.  It claims that Soon et al.s work on the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period had been discredited.  By contrast, it bewails President Bushs disparaging remarks about the Administrations Climate Action Report 2002, that relies on models to predict regional climate impacts that are no more accurate than tables of random numbers by the admission of one of the authors.

No mention is made of the administrations use or lack of use of the Federal Data Quality Act, which requires that information disseminated by the federal government must meet minimal standards of objectivity.   The administration settled a suit brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute against the National Assessment (which is the basis for key parts of Climate Action Report 2002) by admitting that the assessment had not been subjected to data quality standards.

The report and statement are available at http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm.  Anyone may become a concerned scientist by sending $25 to UCS.