Science magazine 21st September:
Extracts from: Panel Gives U.S. Program Mixed Grades
An expert panel says the Bush Administration deserves “a pat on the back” for advancing the science of climate change. But the scientists assembled by the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) have serious concerns about the management, funding, and emphasis of the $1.7-billion-a-year Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). President George H. W. Bush created the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 1990 to bring under one umbrella the government’s efforts to understand climate change. In 2002, his son reshuffled the climate deck to create CCSP. Last week, the NRC panel took the first outside look at that program and concluded, says chair V. Ramanathan, an atmospheric scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, that its efforts to understand how and why climate has changed and to make predictions are “proceeding well.”
Ramanathan says he’s troubled by the program’s limited success in “assessing [climate change] impacts on human well-being and adaptation capacities.” Those assessments would require reliable forecasts of climate change at the regional if not the local level, Ramanathan notes, a capability the world’s climate modelers are still struggling with. But gauging impacts on humans and figuring out how humans might adapt to climate change will take far more than the $20 million per year now spent within the program on social science studies, the committee said. It will also take better communication between the program and business interests, other agencies, and the general public. For starters, 21 synthesis and assessment reports were due from CCSP by now, but only two have been delivered.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Sounds to me like a classic science gravy train.
It is worth noting that while the USA bashers are criticising the USA for not ratifying the Kyoto protocol, the USA is committing far more resources to understanding climate than any other country.
The US congressional committee on Energy and Commerce took Mann et al to task re the hockey stick and found major flaws in the algorithms, statistical methods, data, and peer review process.
So the Americans collectively know more about the science than anyone else.
Maybe this is why they have not ratified the Kyoto protocol.
It is also interesting to note that despite the fact that the democrats now control both houses of congress, they have not rushed to ratify the protocol either.
Pirate Pete
Good points you make.
Now wait for the usual suspects to criticise it.
The US did better at reducing CO2 emissions than most of the countries that signed Kyoto.
Interestingly, although 172 countries have signesd the Kyoto protocol, only 35 have imposed CO2 reduction targets. Almost all of these belong to the European Union, which signed and set reduction limits on behalf of all members.
The last that I read, probably none will meet their targets for reductions, and many will actually increase their emissions output.
Australia is doing very well compared with those countries which have accepted CO2 reduction targets.
It is also interesting to note that the European Union member countries also account for most of the nuclear power plants in the world.
On the day that Japan announced that it would sign the Kyoto protocol, it also announced that it had commissioned 13 new nuclear power plants. And of all countries, Japan is the worst place to build a nuclear plant because of geological instability.
‘Maybe this is why they have not ratified the Kyoto protocol.’ – Pirate Pete
No, we know exactly why Bush claimed he didn’t ratify it (his family’s business interests in the oil industry and the massive financial backing that industry provided for his presidential campaigns are of course well documented):
‘President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job’
– James Connaughton. Associated Press, 6 November 2004.
Politics therefore not science.. Apparently Dubya has no such scruples over globalised corporations out-sourcing their manufacturing from the USA…
‘So the Americans collectively know more about the science than anyone else.’ – Pirate Pete
Sweeping and erroneous generalisation designed to back straw man rhetoric that conveniently ignores the fact that only some US scientists are sceptics.. and the fact that scientific research evolves and improves precisely because equipment and software models improve and scientific peer review encourages biffo which leads to new and improved theories.. go Darwin!
‘Sounds to me like a classic science gravy train.’ – Davey
Seems Mr Gam is not quite so keen on US scientific research, now its no longer firmly in the sceptic’s camp about climate change.. no worries Davey, you will always have Greenie Watch…
‘The US did better at reducing CO2 emissions than most of the countries that signed Kyoto.’ – Paul
Peer reviewed source for that claim please Biggsy otherwise I’m just going to say no it didn’t, with equal conviction and sweeping generalisation…
Lamna, you say…
“No, we know exactly why Bush claimed he didn’t ratify it (his family’s business interests in the oil industry and the massive financial backing that industry provided for his presidential campaigns are of course well documented)”. Then you mention Bush doesn’t want to sacrifice one US job.
Please explain and cite sources for the first of those two remarks.
As for my own take on the report about CSS, I figure that V. Ramanathan can hardly be regarded as an impartial chairman because the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, where Ramanthan still works, has been on the climate change gravy train for years. In fact I think his statement can easily be understood as being “we need more money”.
John please explain your sweeping generalisation that there’s a gravy train with misspent funds.
What would you suggest the quantification of the risks would be given human society’s present exposure to climate variation and extreme weather and what would be the cost/benefit of having better seasonal forecasts for phenomena like El Nino and the Madden Julian Oscillation.
Also PP – Australia isn’t doing well at all if you remove the one-off swifty dividend fortuitously delivered from Queensland STATE government banning of broadscale tree clearing for grazing. Otherwise if the balance sheet was simply electricity and transport it would look vastly different. That’s why they call it “The Australia clause” and why we get a proposed Kyoto target of 108%.
Lamna – since when have CO2 emissions been peer reviewed – you know as well as I do the EU countries that are over their Kyoto target?
‘Please explain and cite sources for the first of those two remarks.’ – John
John are you seriously trying to suggest that the Bush family has not worked in the oil industry!?
‘Biggest industry donors to Bush campaign
Enron $1.8m
Exxon $1.2m
Koch Industries $970,000
Southern $900,000
BP Amoco $800,000
El Paso Energy $787,000
Chevron Oil Corp $780,000
Reliant Energy $642,000
Texas Utilities $635,000’
– BBC, 8 May, 2001.
Anyone suggesting that donations of this magnitude do not influence policy, is frankly either astoundingly naive.. or being economical with the truth…
‘President George Bush’s decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world’s most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month’s G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy…
In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.
Other papers suggest that Ms Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto.
Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government’s rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.
“Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition],” says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky’s meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.
The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon “among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions”.
But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon’s head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: “I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto.”
Exxon, officially the US’s most valuable company valued at $379bn (£206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House’s unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change.’
– The Guardian 8 June 2005
‘A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the “climate team leader” and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in economics, he has no scientific training.’
– New York Times, 8 June 2005.
ExxonMobil announced record breaking quarterly profits in 2005. Despite that, Congress gave the oil and gas industry, including ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion in tax breaks.
‘Oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and utility owners such as Southern spent $367 million over the past two years lobbying Congress on energy legislation, according to data from PoliticalMoneyLine and the Center for Responsive Politics.’ – Bloomberg, 29 July 2005
‘last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.
“The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. “Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”
– The New York Times. 27 March 2006
Lamna.
Quite a good run-down of the numbers of donations to the Bush presidency.
Now why don’t you run the numbers comparing what’s paid to pro-AGW scientists vs. “skeptics?”
I know you want to be a “balanced” kinda guy…
Of course, you won’t post those numbers, because everyone knows the big money goes to pro-AGW scientists. You would embarrass yourself, and you only do that by accident (albeit daily).
Schiller – “Now why don’t you run the numbers comparing what’s paid to pro-AGW scientists vs. “skeptics?””
The difference is that research grants are not paid to a scientist. They are paid to a research program which is reported on usually to the last dollar. If a scientist misuses research funds he/she is subject to the law.
Slush funds from corporations are subject to no similar checks and balances and are usually paid to individuals.
Ender,
Thank you for pointing out that Lamna’s numbers are meaningless. I was hoping he, she or it would do that spontaneously.
‘Now why don’t you run the numbers comparing what’s paid to pro-AGW scientists vs. “skeptics?”- Thurkettle
A completely valueless exercise if non-scientific White House staff are deliberately amending documents concerning the science, released by the government of the only Superpower on the planet (which is already pro skeptic) in the skeptics favour.. because its impossible to put a number high enough on that…
“Now why don’t you run the numbers comparing what’s paid to pro-AGW scientists vs. “skeptics?””
– what you want funds paid to the equivalent of “creation science”. This is about science not making sure two sporting teams get a go.
Ender,
I didn’t know that presidential election money was spent on scientific research. You are quite a sleuth!
Lamna, I didn’t know White House staff got money from the IPCC. Wow!
Luke, you’re the only one who gets this about half-assed right. It’s on the level of “creation science,” and more like competitive sports.
Unfortunately, there are people who take this crap seriously.
problem with the comments on this thread; its the same old people talking to themselves.
my bets are on the general public
Gavin,
There’s many that come and read, and leave without saying a word, but they take with them a sense of who cares about what, and who speaks falsely for the sake of their cause.
Our efforts are not worthless.
Too true Schiller ! (well on your first sentence)
“No, we know EXACTLY ( my emphasis) why Bush claimed he didn’t ratify it …”
Any source peer reviewed , implicit or explicit for THAT claim Lamna?
Or is it a sweeping generalisation?
Incidentally , wasn’t it actually the US Senate ( 99/1 as I recall ) that wouldn’t ratify Kyoto?
Were they all captured by eviloil as well?
Luke , this constant framing of AGW scepticism as “equivalent to creation science” needs to be clarified lest it give the appearance of just another sneer at the anti-establishment.
Should scientific research into any alternative theories about global warming or Darwinian evolution or plate tectonics or GMO be banned/prohibited because it challenges the dominant, establishment position?
How do we progress and learn and adapt with that limitation?
What’s this – sensitivity to reverse “framing”.
Funding for new ideas is good but science shouldn’t just throw money about like seeds in the wind. Normally new ideas are demonstrated in small ways intially and a case is built. Once the case get some momentum more money can follow – and at some point it becomes “an initiative” if it gets really big.
The 4AR leaves plenty of areas to be explored. But how do we divvy up valuable research resources. If it’s simply to provide “a rebuttal” to AGW that isn’t very scientific.
There really should be no “teams” – there is only one right set of answers – we need to find them.
This “evening things up” notion is not sensible if what you’re evening up is poorly thought out rubbish.
On the other hand if someone has a reasonable hypothesis, that is not easily refuted and the scientist can demonstrate some plausible connection/process/mechanism – OK let’s investigate it.
Lamna,
Going back a few posts, I think much US science is excellent. The existence of a science gravy train in the USA, and in Australia, is quite a separate issue. Try to keep your thinking untangled, or you will have unending trouble with scientific issues. For example you might confuse climate with religion, and science with media consensus.
It appears that funding for science is OK, unless it is for AGW research, at which point it necessarily becomes a gravy train.
It seems that SJT has the same problem with mental muddles. Shouldn’t funding be simply for climate research, whether caused by humans or not, whether warming (like the Arctic), or cooling (like most of the Antarctic)? I bet SJT and Lamna both confuse Luke with the Messiah, when, in fact, he’s just a naughty boy 🙂
Or a frivolous waste of valuable dollars on creationist ( or whatever smear is in vogue ) type research which doesn’t conform with the stablishment position.
‘Lamna, I didn’t know White House staff got money from the IPCC. Wow!’ – Louis
Apologies Hissink that was rather a lot of material for you to read in one go…
‘A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the “climate team leader” and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in economics, he has no scientific training.’
– New York Times, 8 June 2005.
“No, we know EXACTLY ( my emphasis) why Bush claimed he didn’t ratify it …”
Any source peer reviewed , implicit or explicit for THAT claim Lamna?’ – Jim
‘President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job’
– James Connaughton. Associated Press, 6 November 2004.
Which part of the White House statement was unclear to you Jim?…
‘you might confuse climate with religion, and science with media consensus.’ – Davey
You are projecting again Gam Esq…
“Shouldn’t funding be simply for climate research, whether caused by humans or not, whether warming (like the Arctic), or cooling (like most of the Antarctic)?”
yep it should and it is.
Lamna,
I think you are projecting about me projecting. They didn’t cover that one in Psychology 100.
Luke,
Glad to see you agree on funding – and on the cooling in Antarctica. It’s a real penguin-poo day, here in southern WA. It was so cold overnight that one of my resident bandicoots came out of a fern clump fighting hungry this morning, and pushed the cat (that merciless slayer of biodiversity) off her breakfast. She is sulking by the wood stove – oh my God – greenhouse gas again? Will I ever get it right.
While there is a concerted blast at Bush for not signing the Kyoto treaty, the point that I made has been carefully ignored by the Bush bashers.
It is that the democrats now control both houses of the congress.
And they have done nothing about signing or ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Nor do they look like doing so.
I guess we should find a list of petroleum and energy companies which have donated to the democrats,, and the democratic contenders for the coming presidential election. That would be as interesting, or more so, than donations to Bush.
Can anyone provide such a list?
PP
I went to Kyoto last September. The temples were lovely, but the traffic fumes toxic. Has Kyoto signed the Kyoto treaty?
P.S. I spoke to some Japanese punk rockers on the train. They had never heard of the Kyoto Treaty.
Yes Lamna – the part I couldn’t find which said that the reason Bush “claimed he didn’t ratify it (his family’s business interests in the oil industry and the massive financial backing that industry provided for his presidential campaigns are of course well documented”
The reason you’ve sited above is ensuring workers didn’t lose their jobs.
So presumably you were just indulging in some comfortable, simplistic, prejudice reinforcing BS?
Apologies to Hissink, I attributed a quote to him in my last post which actually came from Thurkettle.
‘I think you are projecting about me projecting. They didn’t cover that one in Psychology 100’ – Davey
Unless of course you are projecting me projecting about you projecting, they cover that in Psychology 101..
‘the part I couldn’t find ‘ – Jim
Politics therefore not science.. Apparently Dubya has no such scruples over globalised corporations out-sourcing their manufacturing from the USA…
‘Biggest industry donors to Bush campaign
Enron $1.8m
Exxon $1.2m
Koch Industries $970,000
Southern $900,000
BP Amoco $800,000
El Paso Energy $787,000
Chevron Oil Corp $780,000
Reliant Energy $642,000
Texas Utilities $635,000’
– BBC, 8 May, 2001.
Anyone suggesting that donations of this magnitude do not influence policy, is frankly either astoundingly naive.. or being economical with the truth…
‘Incidentally , wasn’t it actually the US Senate ( 99/1 as I recall ) that wouldn’t ratify Kyoto?
Were they all captured by eviloil as well?’ – Jim
‘There’s no denying both political parties in Congress are now owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. Our nation’s elected officials in Washington have formed a partnership with the corporate supremacists and special interest groups in an effort to drive profits to the bottom line of U.S. multinationals at the expense of hard-working Americans.
Congress over the past few months has all-too-willingly approved corporate-friendly — and often corporate-written — transportation and energy bills, as well as so-called bankruptcy reform that further rents the middle class’ social safety net. And not surprisingly, there’s a serious correlation between the dramatic increase in money spent by special interest groups on lobbying and corporate America’s taking over the deed to Capitol Hill.
Let’s be clear about this: Calling these greedy people “lobbyists” simply because they convene in the hallowed lobbies of Washington is akin to calling parasites “bodyists” or viruses “blood-streamers.” What they’re really doing is selling out American workers and hastening the decline in our nation’s standard of living and quality of life.
Corporations, entire industries and other special interest groups spent a record $2.14 billion on lobbying members of Congress and 220 other federal agencies last year, according to Political MoneyLine, a nonpartisan research service that tracks campaign contributions. That figure represents a 7 percent increase over 2003 and an astonishing 34 percent jump from the amount of money spent on lobbying in 2001.
Interestingly, while many major news stories tend to focus on campaign finance reform, twice as much money has been spent on lobbying Congress than on federal elections since 1998. All told, corporations and special interests have spent more than $12 billion on lobbying efforts over that time, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
Congressmen Rahm Emanuel of Illinois and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts have introduced legislation that would, among other things, strengthen lobbying disclosure requirements, slow the “revolving door” between public service and lobbying and make it easier for Americans to learn about who is lobbying members of Congress. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced a similar version in the Senate.
But Congressman Emanuel says he thinks the leaders of Congress aren’t interested in changing the way it operates, or even the way lobbyists operate.
“When the Speaker’s gavel comes down, it’s intended to open the People’s House, and lately it’s looking like the Auction House,” says Rep. Emanuel, “Whether it’s an energy bill that gives more $8 billion to the oil and gas interests while oil’s at $64 a barrel, whether it’s a corporate tax bill solving a $5 billion problem with a $150 billion solution, whether it’s a pharmaceutical, prescription drug bill where the industry gave $132 million and walked away with $135 billion in additional profits.”
The corporate lobby has become more effective recently because it’s hiring more experienced players, in effect creating a “revolving door” between Capitol Hill and K Street. In fact, 43 percent of the eligible congressional members who departed government during that time have become lobbyists, while half of all eligible departing senators have become lobbyists. Nearly 250 former members of Congress and federal agency chiefs have become lobbyists since 1998, while more than 2,200 former federal employees have registered as federal lobbyists.
The striking rise in money spent on lobbying also increases the chances for abuse. Lobbyists are required to report who pays them and how much they’re paid, but nearly 85 percent of the top 250 lobbying firms have failed to file one or more required forms, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The biggest abuses, however, stem from lobbyists’ paying for politicians’ dinners, trips, golf outings and more. Members of Congress over the past five years have received more than $18 million to travel the world at the expense of private organizations, PoliticalMoneyLine reports. Those expenses include 6,242 trips for 628 lawmakers from both political parties.’
– CNN, 12 August 2005.
Whew Lamnus,
If you say so … what’s that poem by Walt Whitman about statistics?
Sorry Lamna,
It was an astronomer, not a statistician.
When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer
by Walt Whitman
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Hello my friends 🙂
😉