RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

STUCK IN DENIAL MODE.

At what point do they give up? Marc Morano, communications director for Sen. James Inhofe is still tirelessly plugging away at global warming denialism a year after his boss was unseated as the head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and they're still using the EPW site to transmit blatantly false, misleading reports on climate change. The latest: "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007." The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man-made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren't all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem -- many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases. And a good deal of them aren't even climatologists -- there are and abundance of geographers, physicists, and "philosophers of science" in the mix.

It's not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn't too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn't mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn't so bad. There haven't been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world's most-respected climatologists are all in agreement. And other than Inhofe, Morano and a few other stragglers, the Republican party has moved from claiming steadfastly that climate change isn't real, to claiming it's real but not caused by humans, to now just saying it would cost too much to deal with it. Even Bush has left the denial behind for mere obstruction. Inhofe and his minions are the last holdouts of a dying minority, and they're getting increasingly desperate in their attempts to dig up validation.

--Kate Sheppard

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference STUCK IN DENIAL MODE.:

» Farm Insurance Pa State from Farm Insurance Pa State
Pennsylvania’s 2007 Farm Bill Recommendations HARRISBURG – The Department of Agricultu [Read More]

» American Venture Capital Inc from American Venture Capital Inc
Data Based Services Group at American Express Travel Re [Read More]

» Societe Generale Asset Management from Societe Generale Asset Management
[Read More]

» Royal Caribbean Deals from Royal Caribbean Deals
Cruises for the major cruise lines at TravelocityFind cruise travel deals and. Cruise lines [Read More]



COMMENTS

If you agree with me that James Imhofe is both the worst and stupidest U.S. Senator, you should know that he has a viable opponent in 2008:

http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com/

Lest it besmirch the reputations of any of my departmental colleagues, let me just say that there are such things as 'philosophers of science', and many of them are respectable folks who do good work on philosophical issues in the sciences.

The guys who signed this letter probably aren't those kinds of people, though.

Why put "philosophers of science" in scare quotes? It's a perfectly respectable specialization in the discipline of philosophy, alongside such classics as metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc. At some large research universities, the philosophers of science have their own separate departments! (E.g., Indiana University and the University of Pittsburgh.)

Listen folks, I don't think the post in any way means to denigrate philosophers of science -- it's just that they aren't the best people to judge whether CO2 emissions cause climate change. There's nothing wrong with being an art historian either, but same applies to them.

Of course, there's also Alexander Cockburn, who represents himself as a leftist of some kind, who believes that the IPCC is actually a massive conspiracy organized by the nuclear power industry. Cockburn is a "journalist."

If you want to turn up 400 nuts, just post about Ron Paul.

Needless to say, Moon's voice of the Republic Party and conservative movement, the Washington Times, has this up. Moon, in his never ending effort to bring theocratic, anti-science, homophobic, fascist governance to America, has been there smearing environmentalists for years.

here is one:

Former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (3/27/02) condemning "scientific fraud" by environmentalists. His first example: "the December revelation that employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service had planted fake wild lynx hair in states where there were no lynx, so that the areas could be labeled critical habitat, and thus off limits to human use."

Unfortunately, du Pont garbled virtually every aspect of the story. Perhaps he made the mistake of believing what he read in the newspapers--particularly right-wing ones. [...]

The Washington Times turned this incident into a crusade, dedicating 10 articles, two editorials and an opinion piece to this "biofraud" over the course of a month after breaking the story on December 17. Lynxgate illustrates the power of the Times--a newspaper founded in 1982 as a vehicle to promote the right-wing views of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church--to promote a conservative agenda and feed it into the mainstream media environment.

Moon has more to do with our nation going to hell the last 25 years than anyone, and he knew what he was doing.

this was also supposed to be in italics:

Unfortunately, du Pont garbled virtually every aspect of the story. Perhaps he made the mistake of believing what he read in the newspapers--particularly right-wing ones. [...]

The Washington Times turned this incident into a crusade, dedicating 10 articles, two editorials and an opinion piece to this "biofraud" over the course of a month after breaking the story on December 17. Lynxgate illustrates the power of the Times--a newspaper founded in 1982 as a vehicle to promote the right-wing views of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church--to promote a conservative agenda and feed it into the mainstream media environment.

When Al Gore started his 2000 campaign he rightfully wanted to show off his environmental bona fides. Of course there was the conservative's savior and go to guy, Moon and his lying operatives spreading the propaganda for the cult of conservatism to feed off of...Moon molded the minds of today's conservatives.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore

The Press vs. Al Gore
How lazy reporting, pack journalism and GOP spin cost him the election

One month after formally kicking off his presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore paddled down the Connecticut River in New Hampshire on July 22nd, 1999, spreading his green theme of protecting the environment and pausing for a photo op. His message was quickly drowned out, though, when the Washington Times' Bill Sammon reported that local authorities had granted Gore a special favor when they released nearly 4 billion gallons of water from a nearby dam into the drought-stricken river in order to keep the vice president's boat afloat. The price tag on the spilled water was quickly calculated at $7 million. The implication was clear: In a clumsy abuse of power, Al Gore, a supposed friend of the environment, gladly wasted precious natural resources to stage-manage a political event.

Following the lead of the Washington Times, an unabashedly conservative outlet often hostile to Democrats, the rest of the mainstream press pounced, not only upbraiding Gore for his supposed hypocrisy but also suggesting that the campaign miscue was just the latest example of a foundering presidential run. The New York Times detailed the "mishap," the Washington Post ridiculed Gore's FOUR BILLION GALLONS FOR A PHOTO OP, Newsweek dubbed it the "photo op from hell," and CNN covered the "wave of criticism after floodgates are opened on a New Hampshire river to keep Al Gore afloat."

In retrospect, the most notable thing about the whole story was just how murky the facts were. Nobody from the Gore campaign asked for the water to be released. (Concerned about security, the Secret Service did.) As for the amount of water released, it was 500 million gallons, not 4 billion - a fact that Sammon reported a week later, long after other media ran with the original story. And the local utility company that operates the dam was already dumping millions of gallons of water into the parched Connecticut River every day. The routine release had simply been moved up a couple of hours to accommodate Gore's trip. The $7 million figure turned out to be completely inaccurate, since the water was not wasted. Instead, it passed through hydroelectric turbines and generated power that the utility company sold to other utilities.

"I felt like we'd fallen through the looking glass," says Sharon Francis, executive director of the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, who coordinated Gore's visit on behalf of the region and for days fielded press queries about the derided canoe trip. She describes the media coverage as "fictional" and "nasty" and "spun to sound like something corrupt."

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

The following companiesagree with the consensus:

ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo

In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:

A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc

I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

brewski: reference, please?

Sometimes I think the only way certain segments of the population will believe we're actually creating environmental damage is when we're all wearing zinc oxide on every exposed bit of skin in order to avoid becoming giant blisters on our way from our homes to our gas guzzlers.

As a professor of physical chemistry once told me, "every scientist has their own philosophy."

I do like the point of view of Locke and Hume, extended by Ayer and others - on empiricism; they kind of backed away much later from strict materialism.

My own views are probably closest to those of Carnap.

I'm not that familiar with all the branches of ethics, and here again my view is we each have our own.

To me it is more ethical for those who speak or write things that are negative about others, to sign their complete names as their true selves - BUT I am not in the business of judging other people's ethics.

I'm an atmospheric chemist, listed in the Inhofe report, and I disagree with many of the statements about the climate heard today, because I have concluded they are wrong.

I would like to hear if there are any interpretations of the ethics of this


Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2009 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints