A Commentary from Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick:

My kids deserve an apology from the global warming “skeptics.” For longer than my kids have been alive, these skeptics have intentionally muddied the climate change debate, confusing the public, misleading policymakers, and successfully delaying any meaningful action to develop solutions. Thanks to their actions we are now at the point where my children – not to mention the rest of the world – are committed to a radically changed planet.

Their world is going to be hotter than our world, unbearably so in some places. The weather is going to be more violent and less predictable. Precipitation patterns will be different, leading to increased flooding in some areas and droughts in others. Snowpack in the mountains is going to shrink and glaciers are going to disappear. It will be harder to grow enough food or provide enough fresh water for all. Entire ecosystems will be threatened; with humans, animals, and plants struggling to adjust. Indeed, global climate change is already here and it looks worse than we anticipated. more

We’re still editing away, so while we won’t have a chance to comment on them, we wanted to highlight some interesting pieces covering on scientific integrity:

British:
From The Guardian: “Scientists fear new attempts to undermine climate action”

Popular:
From USA Today: “A green Christian conservative“

and Wonky:
Scientific American: “Legislating Integrity: A small attempt to prevent political misuse of science”

Tonight’s episode of NOVA (“Dimming the Sun,” 8 PM, PBS) suggests air pollution has masked the full impact of global warming. On the NOVA Web site, producer and filmmaker David Sington shares his theories on why Americans tend to be more skeptical about global warming than their European counterparts. Our favorite of his theories: “people tend to believe what is convenient to them. Faced with a choice between an awkward fact and a comforting fiction, most people will take the fiction any day. And global warming is certainly inconvenient.” This choice provides ample kindling to those who would benefit from a little fire.

Speaking of theories, Prometheus suggests that when a majority of Congress answers “yes” to the question “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?” the time for arguing science in Congress has passed, and the only excuse for inaction is politics.

Finally, thanks to Amy Baker, yesterday’s guest-author.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is seeking a summer intern for its Science Integrity Program. The position is in its Washington, D.C. office. More details here.

The Institute is busily preparing two reports for release this spring – one on desalination with a focus on California, the other on the Salton Sea – which is why we have not gotten around to commenting on today’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed “Climate of Fear” from Richard Lindzen.

For one thing, we note that Lindzen fails to note or explain-away any of the numerous visible signs of climate change.

For a hundred other things, see the RealClimate for its “Lindzen: point by point” by Daniel Kirk-Davidoff (U. Maryland and one-time Lindzen co-author) and their “Open Thread,” as well as Chris Mooney’s two cents.

Scripps Howard News Service is reporting on the continuing story about how cuts in federal discretionary spending will have a toll on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies. NOAA programmatic budget reductions of 30 to 50 percent will have myriad impacts (to say nothing of the people who work there). From a climate science perspective, cuts are expected to diminish the nation’s ability to model hurricanes, predict storms, monitor carbon emissions, and record climate data. Whether these cuts are politically motivated or simple budget realities given the rising national debt, the effect will be the same: a reduced understanding of what is happening in our natural world. For some, that will be convenient. For the rest of us, a sad reality. Read “NOAA climate-study projects hurt by federal earmarking”

Footnote: In other areas, such as fishery monitoring, advocacy organizations aren’t waiting to see what impacts budget cuts will have on vital federal programs. They’re suing.

In the past two days we have read some excellent writing on balanced reporting as it relates to the subject of global warming.

Christopher Shea takes a neutral approach to the subject of balancing journalism and scientific consensus in his musing “In the balance” for the Boston Globe’s Ideas section.

In “Has balance warped the truth?” the Society for Environmental Journalists’ Paul Thacker looks at the effort to discredit Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” climate model. A social science journal article penned by a businessman found its way to front page of the Wall Street Journal, which found its way to Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton, who launched an investigation into Mann’s research, data, and funding. (Hat tip to A Few Things Ill Considered).

We have been talking about the need to match journalistic coverage to scientific consensus for some time (the Globe has a nice illustration on the subject). Kudos to these authors for their well-considered prose.

Update: Representative Barton was just “honored” with a Muzzle Award from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The Congressman’s nomination concludes:

This Muzzle should not be seen as taking a position on the issue of the effects of global warming or any other scientific dispute. Rather, it is directed at actions that have the effect, whether intended or not, of chilling scientists from presenting the findings of their research without concern for, or fear of, political backlash. For taking action that appears to blur the line between scientific research and politics, a 2006 Jefferson Muzzle is awarded to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton.

As far as we know, Ranger Rick has not yet produced an exposé about the impacts of junk science on endangered species listing. But when Glamour runs a 5500-word article on the impacts of political tampering in the federal science agencies (“The new lies about women’s health“), we have to imagine that the gig (muzzling scientists, doctoring reports, etc.) is almost up. (Warning: article includes picture of an exposed bottom).

What do you get when you mix a sea volcano eruption, a meteorite shower, and a freshwater spring? If you answered “Super Powers,” SuperNariwa would like to sell you a $100 bottle of water.

The Water Connoisseur reports that SuperNariwa claims their concentrated and magnetically energized water will help you resist disease and slow the aging process, making you a veritable Wolverine. From the SuperNariwa Web site:

Research has been conducted on the effects of the uniqueness of SuperNariwa on the body’s response systems. Studies indicate that SuperNariwa can help the body resist disease and slow aging by: Increasing intracellular hydration; Replacing the depletion of essential minerals; Stabilizing and protecting cells; Helping to maintain normal blood flow and pH; Flushing out wastes, and preventing their accumulation in cells; and Eliminating harmful free radicals

The Water Connoisseur goes on to debunk the science and health claims made by SuperNariwa, concluding:

To a chemist, “magnetized water” is laughable nonsense, but to a number of companies, it is a bonanza— a wonderful opportunity to extract revenue from the notoriously science-challenged “alternative health” crowd.

The moral of the story: a Benjamin will not buy you a seat with the X-Men, but drinking tap water will save you some Benjamins.

More scientists have come forward with tales of the Bush Administration’s tampering with science reports, blacking-out news releases, stifling conversations between agencies and the press, and intimidating scientists. Today’s Washington Post exposes numerous instances that have occurred in NOAA and USGS.

In one of the many examples, a USGS hydrologist reported that DOI officials killed a news release on climate impacts on water in 2002. Then in 2005, they issued a release that might have been taken from the board game Taboo:

[T]hey agreed to issue a release on a different climate-related paper, (Christopher) Milly said, but “purged key words from the releases, including ‘global warming,’ ‘warming climate’ and ‘climate change.’ “

Administration officials and staff had different opinions on the mandate that NOAA interviews be given in the presence of a public affairs officer. One officer claimed that it was a benign step to ensure “that the leadership knows something is coming out in the media, because it has a huge impact.” Scientists saw it differently.

The need for clearance from Washington, several NOAA scientists said, amounts to a “pocket veto” allowing administration officials to block interviews by not giving permission in time for journalists’ deadlines.

Ronald Stouffer, a climate research scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, estimated his media requests have dropped in half because it took so long to get clearance to talk from NOAA headquarters.

Suppressing information is a tactic of fear. Just what the Bush Administration is afraid of – the impacts of climate change or the real steps needed to combat it – is unknown, since they will not engage in an honest or open discussion on the topic. We hope that House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert got this morning’s Post.