Tag: climate science

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

The Day and the Hour

prediction, forecast, fortune telling, climate change, global warming, blue and red

Time is almost up!

“Three years ago, scientists gave us a pretty stark warning: They said we have 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” John Kerry, former U.S. Senator (D-Mass.) and Secretary of State and current US Special Climate Envoy, stated last week. 

“And now we have nine years left,” the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate added, “to try to do what science is telling us we need to do.”

Science speaks to Kerry. Just nine years, though? Not much time. 

But it could be worse. 

And apparently already is.

According to BBC environmental correspondent, Matt McGrath, who reported roughly 18 months ago that “there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis.”

“The climate math is brutally clear,” Potsdam Climate Institute founder Hans Joachim Schellnhuber argued. “While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020.”

“Healed”? Or brought to heel?

That time is running out “is becoming clearer all the time,” McGrath noted then, before quoting the eminent scientist, the Prince of Wales: “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival,” declared his royal highness, speaking at a reception more than 18 months back. 

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor is also considered something of an expert on receptions.

For my part, regarding these prophecies, I’m with Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who advised, “All the time-limited frames are bullsh*t.”

I can follow that science.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly insider corruption moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies porkbarrel politics responsibility

Settled Science?!?

sugar, lobbying, science, corruption, illustration

You probably know that America’s sugar industry is protected, making astounding profits because of high tariffs and artificially raised consumer prices.

And you likely know that government has worked hand-in-hand with agribiz interests to cook up (and regulate) a competitive sweetener, high fructose corn syrup. You understand that there are various types of sugar, and almost certainly suspect that refined sugar is bad for you, with high fructose corn syrup perhaps worse.

In fact, the scientific evidence for the danger of a high sugar diet has been around since the 1950s.

Well, what we now know, Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason, is “how the sugar industry essentially bribed Harvard scientists to downplay sugar’s role in heart disease — and how the U.S. government ate it up.”

Before Reason weighed in, my colleague Eric D. Dixon sent me a New York Times story, which stated the main proposition plainly: “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.” But Reason’s Brown is right: it was government that really made this a nationwide disaster. The imprimatur of government sanctified the anti-fat craze, and the government’s own dietary guidance (and regulations) proved grossly wrongheaded.

Now we’re the ones who are gross.

Scientists and government (bought off by a protected industry) fed us a line that many swallowed. We increasingly swapped fat for refined sugars, causing health to decline as girths went out and weights went up.

So when I hear outrageous claims for the “settled science of climate change,” I look at my middle and doubt that “settled” part. And I nurture an unsettling thought. . . . it’s the political science that’s settled: government lies to us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

sugar, lobbying, science, corruption, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture

Fizzle-Gate

When documents from Heartland Institute went public, showing strategy and funding for various climate-related research and advocacy projects, some folks immediately hailed it as a scandal to compare with the “Climate-gate” email embarrassment of sometime back. “Denier-gate” and even “Heartland-gate” were the hastily suffixed monikers for the news story.

But then it was discovered that the leak was the result of an inquiry made by a major climate-change activist, Peter Gleick, who had been slipped some allegedly damning documents and asked Heartland for more information . . . posing as a member of the group’s board of directors.

Even more discrediting to Gleick is the fact that he published the original anonymously supplied documents — some of which appear to be fabrications — along with documents he obtained from Heartland, as if they all had the same provenance.

Worse yet? His own defense. Saying that “rational public debate is desperately needed,” he confesses that his own “judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”

Absurd: Gleick’s opponents were not preventing debate, they were insisting on real debate rather than automatic, quasi-religious acceptance of “scientific findings.” Worries about who supports what may be interesting, especially in a political context, but are not relevant to the search for truth or to scientific debate. Relying on who supports what and whom commits the ad hominem fallacy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
responsibility too much government

Global Gall

Human cells have 46 chromosomes. So all the relevant evidence tells us.

But suppose persuasive evidence emerged that human cells have, say, 48 chromosomes? And suppose hackers discovered emails by prominent biologists talking about the need to “hide the extra chromosomes”? Or to prevent other biologists from discussing the evidence for these extras?

And suppose after the scandal broke, a government agency asked biologists to sign a petition “defending the integrity of genetic science” against “skeptics”?

Hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Unit confirm that there is more deception and less unity in climate science than many have claimed. Debate about the extent of global warming and of mankind’s contribution to it intensifies. But some scientists have struggled to suppress this debate and even to hide basic climate data.

In response to the scandal, the United Kingdom’s national weather service recently asked climatologists to sign a petition saying everything is hunky-dory in climate research and the official global-warming paradigm.

Hey, I like petitions, but . . . are we doing science here? Or politics?

One anonymous scientist, quoted in The Times of London, explained that UK’s weather service “is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming.”

I think my question has been answered.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.