To provide you with an update on our last postE Magazinehas coverage from the second-round of the Inhofe-led Senate assault on the Associated Press.
The AP fired back with its own release, claiming that its methodology “was simple, straightforward and clean: We contacted more than 100 of the nation’s top climate researchers, including those who have been vocal skeptics of climate change theory. But we quoted only climate scientists who had actually viewed the documentary or read the book upon which it was based. As we learned in the course of our reporting—and as our story noted—most scientists have not seen the movie or read the book. And those who had seen it or read it were generally positive toward Gore’s scientific presentation.
“The Senate Committee Majority’s press release was headlined ‘AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE.’ That headline is wrong: The story was completely accurate and met AP’s high standards in every way.”
Marc Morano, a spokesperson for the Senate majority on the Environment and Public Works committee, responded that “our headline dealt with their misleading headline.” He added, “Seth Borenstein cannot be proud of that article; it won’t be included in his clip file when he goes for a promotion. He didn’t get the goods, and he could have done much, much better.” Morano also denied, however, that the press release was “an official government action,” implying subpoenas or hearings. “This was not from a senator, but from the Republican majority,” Morano said. “It’s up to others to decide if it was unusual or not. I’d be surprised if there was no precedent, because many congressional committees are highly partisan and political.”
Be sure to check out the rest of the story here. As far as we know, a third-round has yet to commence, and where this fight will go next is anyone’s guess. The long holiday weekend will hopefully offer the Environment Committee a cooling-off period. We hear the Senator will be enjoying the annual Inhofe Family 4th of July snipe hunt. Don’t come back without bagging a snipe, Senator!
Kidding aside, the Senate Majority’s odd step of issuing such a critical and factually-challenged press release had its desired effect in the skeptic blogosphere, and in the general media. For whatever disservice it does to the progress of enacting global warming policy, it unnecessarily does more damage to citizens’ trust of the press.
An Associated Press story finding that scientists who saw the movie say that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” gets it mostly right has raised the ire of Senator Inhofe.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Then, to watch things heat up, check out this press release from the Inhofe-chaired Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie.” The letter is pitch-perfect Inhofe:
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The Senator has a history of demanding reams of data when he’s cornered. From Environment Committee Staff Director Andrew Wheeler: “And all we’re asking for the IPCC to do is to take a look at the comments they received from their peer review process. And then just comment publicly on whether or not they took the comments and if they did not, why they didn’t.” Call it bullying, a delay-tactic, or hand-waving. Just don’t call it science.
But back to this press release. When it does attack the science …
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
… it quotes non-existant studies (hat-tip to Deltoid)
The “study” is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the “experts” are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim. Source
More than anything else, this press release does more to raise questions of the Environment Committee’s own “bias and methodology.”
While climate change threatens the extinction of thousands of plant and animal species, it seems to have brought beer-swilling-everyman-robots out of extinction.
In a creative ad for “An Inconvenient Truth,” Bender (of “Futurama” fame) shares the stage with, and provides belligerant response to, Vice President Gore.
It’s nice to know that despite the gloomy message of “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the science snuffing that continues to stall action, that VP Gore’s sense of humor is not extinct.
When it comes to sea level rise and its potential impacts, expert and EPA project manager James Titus has nothing to say. Not that he isn’t knowledgeable – he’s the author of the 2000 essay “Does the U.S. Government Realize That the Sea Is Rising?” for the Golden Gate Law Review. However…
Reached by telephone, Mr. Titus said he was no longer allowed to discuss such issues publicly and referred questions to the agency’s press office, which would not allow him to speak about it on the record. Instead, requests for on-the-record information were referred to Bill Wehrum, the agency’s acting assistant administrator for air and radiation.
This exchange is an aside in Monday’s New York Times story “Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches.” Unfortunately, as the victims pile up, the policy continues to be one favoring research, followed by the official/unofficial suppression of that research. Unfortunately for future victims, action is nowhere in the playbook.
If this was a murder mystery, we’d have serious suspicions that the chief of police was somehow tied to the killer …
Between games of Frisbee golf with Dick and Condi at his Crawford Ranch, President Bush took time off to issue a “very serious” statement on global warming.
“For centuries the rays of the sun have warmed the surface of our earth’s crust. And a apparently those rays are intensifying in such a way that … uh … it’s increasing lava flows. And a …
“I’m not gonna lie to you. I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.” You can view the Quicktime video at OneGoodMove
OK, so it’s Saturday Night Live alum Will Ferrell portraying President Bush. The message is pretty much the same, though.
“I’m sure by now you’ve all heard what liberal scientists are trying to say. It seems that, uh, liberals and godless tax-raisers are trying to make me look bad by using such things as facts … and scientific data.”
The good news: Senator Lieberman has a bee in his science integrity-defending bonnet.
WASHINGTON – Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) Wednesday called for an investigation into allegations that four federal agencies have sought to cover-up or edit scientific information related to climate change, suggesting that top Administration officials may have asked for the information to be suppressed. […]
“Allegations that four federal agencies have sought to withhold climate change research are deeply disturbing and suggest an Administration-wide attempt to restrict scientific openness on climate change. These allegations need to be addressed urgently,” Lieberman said. “Climate change is a grave problem facing our country, and it is imperative that our top scientists and researchers are sharing information, not hiding it.”
You can read more about Lieberman’s call to action, including his letters to Dr. John Marburger III, White House Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, the Administrator of NOAA, on the Senator’s web site.
The bad news: The House struck down a pro-science amendment to the NOAA Organic Act introduced by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC). From a Union of Concerned Scientists press release:
The Miller amendment would have prohibited the following:
Federal employees from tampering with or censoring federally funded scientific research or analysis or directing the dissemination of false or misleading information;
Supervisors from threatening or taking action against an employee who is developing or disseminating appropriate scientific research or analysis;
Political litmus tests. The amendment would require all appointments to science advisory committees be made without regard to political affiliation.
“We are deeply disappointed the Miller amendment failed along party lines. Scientific integrity should not be a partisan issue.” said Lexi Shultz, Washington Representative for UCS’s Scientific Integrity Program. “Reduced pollution, sustained economic growth, and medical research all depend upon science free from political interference.”
A bigger loss than a win, but time will tell. A salute to both Representative Miller and Senator Lieberman on their continued efforts to defend science-based decision making . You can learn more about UCS’s efforts to defend scientific integrity here.
Yesterday’s Washington Post covered the battle between local residents and national and multinational bottled water companies. The story focused on a fight in Fryeburg, Maine between local citizens and Poland Springs, whom they accuse of overdrawing from local resources.
In response to all this, bottling companies have said they’re being targeted unfairly, noting that agricultural irrigation and city water systems extract far more water from the earth than they do. A recent survey by a University of Maryland researcher found that only about 0.019 percent of all the groundwater removed in the United States winds up in bottles.
We take issue with this 0.019 percent statistic on three fronts. First, the UM study was funded by the bottled water industry. Second, the study has not passed peer review. Third, it’s an essentially meaningless statistic: the impacts of bottling water are always local, and comparing local withdrawals to total U.S. groundwater withdrawals is meaningless.
As for the industry claiming unfair targeting: We need irrigation and municipal water. We have quality tap water in the U.S., some of the best water in the world. We don’t need to buy it at 7-11. And we certainly don’t need to suck communities’ resources dry in the process.
The president, for whatever reason, hasn’t shown that he respects what’s going on in what one of his aides so hilariously described as the “reality-based community.” The “Bush is anti science” meme carries political weight because it underscores why so many Americans (including previous supporters) are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Bush: They don’t think he’s fit to lead, and they don’t believe many of his appointees are competent administrators of various branches of the government, virtually all of which require some form of scientific or other expertise. Bush’s recently-exposed decision to meet with television producer and novelist Michael Crichton to discuss global warming—rather than heeding the advice of the National Academy of Sciences on this subject—epitomizes the president’s disregard for the critical role of legitimate expertise in decision-making, whether it’s about global warming, educational policy or nation-building.
Ouch. Stephen Colbert’s roast wasn’t nearly as biting. Share this article with your friends, and enemies.
From Yahoo! News, “The Weather Channel is the first cable television network to take a formal position on global warming — to say not only that it’s real, but also that it’s a result of human activities”
Bad news for those Weather Channel meteorologists, though: “NASA shelves climate satellites” from Friday’s Boston Globe
The changes come as NASA prioritizes its budget to pay for completion of the International Space Station and the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020 — a goal set by President Bush that promises a more distant and arguably less practical scientific payoff. Ultimately, scientists say, the delays and cancellations could make hurricane predictions less accurate, create gaps in long-term monitoring of weather, and result in less clarity about the earth’s hydrological systems, which play an integral part in climate change.
And on that subject, in Newsweek, White House science adviser Dr. John Marburgeranswers reader questions. No knowing whether he answered the first two questions with a straight face.
In a letter to Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), NASA has confirmed that an internal investigation revealed wrongdoing with regard to the handling of Goddard Space Flight Center Chief Dr. James Hansen. “[A]n internal inquiry has revealed that one recent media request to interview Dr. James Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was inappropriately declined,” wrote a representative from NASA’s Office of Legislative Affairs. You can read the letter here (PDF). NASA denied that the Hansen incident was part of a larger effort.
Lieberman, however, was hardly placated.
“In the time it took NASA to acknowledge that the censorship of Dr. Hansen was inappropriate, new charges of suppressing climate science have arisen at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Forest Service,” Lieberman said. “Reports of this disturbing practice have now arisen at four federal agencies: EPA, NASA, NOAA, and the Forest Service. It is time for the White House to stop suppressing important climate change information that the public has a right to know and needs to know.” Source
We know the junior staffer and resume-fudger who denied Hansen’s interview request has been sacked. However, NASA’s new media policy (PDF) still runs afoul to the law and lacks efficacy, according to the Government Accountability Project.
