So the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change has come and gone, and they’re touting it as a “Smashing Success”, and saying:

The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say–over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. But they have lost the debate. Skeptics are the winners of EVERY scientific debate, always, everywhere. Because skepticism, as T.H. Huxley said, is the highest calling of a true scientist.

Yay for science! Game over – the skeptics win.

However, in the talking points about the conference, the Heartland Institute made this statement:

No scientific theory is true because a majority of scientists say it to be true. Scientific theories are only provisionally true until they are falsified by data that can be better explained by a different theory. And it is by falsifying current theories that scientific knowledge advances, not by consensus.

Which is entirely true. But then the Heartland Institute hosts an international conference with the explicit purpose to demonstrate that there is consensus (at least among the conference attendees) that there is no broad scientific consensus that Global Warming is man made nor that there will be any negative consequences from it. Indeed, they state that the existence of the conference they themselves sponsored is conclusive proof that Al Gore and his band are actually a bunch of socialist earth-loving fake scientists that really really want to raise your taxes. And if there’s one thing this climate doesn’t need, it’s higher taxes. Not ever.

Of course, that’s the climate “skeptics” switch in their bait and switch tactic, isn’t it. If they thought the issue was ever really about whether we were actually a threat to the climate of our planet, then why are they raising the boogeyman of taxes? I’ll tell you – because the notion that we might destroy our own planet is something a bit too abstract to contemplate – and the risk of paying taxes isn’t. The goal of the conference was to demonstrate that there is enough skepticism among the wealthy and powerful anti-regulation types such as the Cato Institute, and S. Fred Singers Science & Environmental Policy Project to stake out a position to do nothing and allow all industry to continue without restraint.

At the conference, the notion of the Carbon Tax was supported by Kenneth Green of the conservative American Enterprise Foundation, much to the chagrin (I assume) of other attendees. Mr. Green opposed the leading option popping up in various circles, the so-called “cap and trade” system, on the grounds that it encourages corruption while doing little to address pollution emission:

Companies have incentives both to overstate historical emissions, and to exaggerate the benefits of new technologies to generate bogus emissions that become ready cash. Experience in both the U.S. and Europe shows that firms usually get away with it: validating historic emissions is nearly impossible. And governments won’t look very hard–wanting to appear green, they have strong incentives to turn their eyes away from carbon credit malfeasance. (ref)

So, rather than seeing this as any sort of victory for science and scientific skepticism, I’ll defer judgement on the actual merit of the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change. I’ll wait until I hear and read more. Even so, something about this is reminiscent of the anti-science tactics that conservatives have used for many years. In earlier instances, “skepticism” about scientific claims were raised as part of a concerted effort to block regulation and minimize the impact of cleaner, greener, healthier business and manufacturing practices. This is the same crowd that was skeptical of the hazardous nature of PCBs, DDT, and other dioxins. These were the same folks that were ok with lead paint, asbestos, and red dye. Maybe they’re different now. Maybe they really want to do what’s best for the nation and the world by denying global warming.

Maybe so, but I’m still somewhat skeptical about that.

While science has been something of a plaything for Republicans for years, it is interesting that in 1972, during the Nixon years, Congress created a non-partisan scientific consultancy, called the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that was mandated to assist Congress with understanding

the complex and highly technical issues that increasingly affect our society [ref]

The OTA served for almost a quarter of a century, providing Congress with unbiased scientific advice on a broad variety of topics. It wasn’t always so, however. There was valid criticism early that the OTA was too allied with liberal ideals. So the OTA restructured itself, as Bruce Bimber of UCSD notes in his interesting essay, The Death of an Agency:

After having experimented with other approaches to securing a stable market for its work, the agency adopted a concrete strategy of neutrality that involved balanced solicitousness of Republican and Democratic interests. The agency severed ties between its staff and legislators’ offices, avoided making specific recommendations or endorsing policy alternatives, began consulting with Republican legislators at the very beginning of its studies, soliciting their input and interests, and employing balanced expert review panels comprised of various groups and organizations with an interest in the issues under study.

The strategy of neutrality, which in various forms the other three congressional agencies were also pursuing, paid off very early, silencing criticism by the mid-1980s and earning the agency allies among Republican ranking minority members in the House and Republican committee chairs in the Senate. [ref]

As a result of the conservative sweep of Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich came to power. With that power, Gingrich Republicans needed a symbol of their willingness to keep their “Contract With America”, and thus closed the OTA in 1995. The principal reason given for the closure of the OTA was to reduce the size of the federal budget, although with an annual budget of about $2 Billion, it’s difficult to see how cutting the OTA really saved any money. Of course, conservatives had a special hate for the OTA. It turns out that it’s more difficult abuse science and scientific knowledge for political or ideological gain when the Congress has access to its own, non-partisan, scientific analysis and advice. OTA reports about Acid Rain, Global Warming, Food Safety, and Automobile Pollution for example, provided the Congress with even-handed scientific information that potentially threatened the bottom line for some large energy, agri-business, and manufacturing concerns. In order to leverage science to the best interest of its conservative supporters, Gingrich Republicans couldn’t allow dispassionate, objective scientific advice to be widely available to members of Congress. It had to be their science.

As a direct result of the closing of the OTA, Congress has largely relied on partisan think-tanks to provide scientific analysis and policy decision making. Indeed, this was predicted in an October, 2005 article that appeared in Science News, Bruce Bimber was quoted, saying:

“Congress will have to increase its reliance on people with a stake in the outcome. And that’s bad news.”

Bad news indeed. Congress now has to wade through politically-motivated, think-tank-driven, fringe science in order to make policy decisions. Gone are the days of objectivity and consensus. Instead, we now have a virtual industry of well paid science “advisers” from both the left and the right that must battle it out, mano a mano, to be heard in either the Senate and House chambers. As you might expect, the winner is usually the scientists with the deepest pockets and the most connections. I bet you can also guess who the losers are.

I believe that we should reinstate the OTA. I’m not the first to say this, but I’m in decent company. Ralph Nader said it in 2004,

It is time to reinstate the Enlightenment for a Congress besieged as never before with decisions regarding genetic engineering, missile defense, privacy, citizen surveillance, nanotechnology, stagnant automotive technology, global warming and many other perils and promises. [ref]

In a recent post on the Bulletin Online, Laura Kahn echoes Nader’s call, and puts it as well as anyone could:

In contrast, OTA looked at science and technology from a broader societal context. It investigated the potenial unforeseen social, economic, and environmental consequences of a technology’s widespread implementation and communicated its findings in language carefully tuned to congressional audiences. OTA used a process in which committees of science and technology experts served as advisers rather than as the report’s authors. (NAS does not separate the two responsibilities.) OTA reports did not make specific consensus policy recommendations, but rather, sought the views of all the important stakeholders and then explained the possible consequences of alternative courses of action to help inform congressional debate.

This type of information is critical for Congress to responsibly implement and oversee policies dealing with alternative energy sources, biodefense research, and other complex issues. OTA would provide Congress the broad perspective needed to write the best possible legislation. Given our current domestic and global mess, we need all the help we can get.[ref]

To read any or all of the OTA Reports, check out http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: “It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.

“If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are,” he told delegates in Paris.

In a recent post, I countered the claim that human activity cannot be proven to be a cause of global warming, in part by using data from the previous 2001 IPCC report. The new report goes further, stating:

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Interestingly, they define “very likely” as a 90% confidence level. While critics of global warming science, like those who write letters to my local paper, will likely jump on that statement and say something like, “See 90% isn’t certain – you haven’t proved anything”, the rest of us will remind you that 90% is also the level of confidence that’s called, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the US legal system.

American Enterprise Institute Shenanigans?

The IPCC report comes at the same time as another one that claims:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To my knowledge, the guardian report hasn’t yet been independently verified, although Kevin Drum at Washingtonmonthly.com is having some fun with it:

Seriously? These guys [Exxon Mobil] made $39.5 billion but were willing to pay scientists only ten grand each to whore themselves out writing reports and op-eds pretending there’s some kind of serious doubt about the reality of human-induced global warming? Even though these scientists have kids to feed?

That’s insulting. For this level of simpering I recommend holding out for at least $50,000. That’s the minimum it would take to buy a congressman, after all.

If that second report turns out to be true, I why the EAI didn’t work harder to to keep the report of it’s own shenanigans out of the press.

Global warming claim a ‘hoodwink’

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register (“Environmental battle is about control”) by Kenneth D. Slade of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. Slade is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

Now, Let’s look at some of the specific claims in this letter, and I’ll demonstrate why they are either misleading or just plain false.

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Here the claim is that human activity cannot be proven to be the cause of Global Warming. That is entirely true, since science is an inductive process of discovering truth via discrete observations and hypothesis testing. In fact – science can never prove anything, although science is particularly good at disproving false claims.

The author implies that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and through this, makes two assumptions: that Global Warming is real (which I personally agree with, though it’s generally poor form to contradict the thesis of your essay in its opening paragraph), and that there is just a single cause or Global Warming. This is misleading, and paints an overly simplistic picture of the available data.

It is more accurate to claim that, on average, surface temperatures are indeed rising around the world, and that human activity, specifically the emissions of so-called “green house gases” are playing an increasing role in this temperature increase.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register (“Environmental battle is about control”) by K. D. S. of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

Here there are several misleading claims. First, the author claims there are, “left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington”, which is only 51% accurate since the November elections. Second, the author claims that these politicians have a mantra, and that mantra is “blame warming on humankind.” Finally, the author claims that another letter writer, K.D.S. of Theodore, Alabama was correct is his assertion that those who intone this mantra have a desire to seek control over our lives and livelihoods. Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the first claim is, at best, barely more than half-true, then my guess is that the other two claims that flow from it are somewhat less true. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, we would be best served by assuming these claims are simply false, and ignore them altogether.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The misleading claim here us that global warming is actually part of a natural cycle. The basis of this claim is the authors belief that politicians (presumably the left-leaning, ones chanting the mantra above) are trying to “hoodwink” us. The claim is misleading because warming and cooling periods are indeed seen throughout history. Recent evidence, however, indicates that, natural fluctuations were responsible for most temperature changes through the first half of the 20th century, but since the latter half of the 20th century, we have moved outside the bounds of normal, natural temperature fluctuations.

As to Thomas’ belief that, “global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time”, I would humbly submit that the original case for war in Iraq might be a hoodwink on par with any in history.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. S. is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Here’s the crux of Thomas L. M.’s argument – he disagrees with the position taken by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen, and former US Vice President Al Gore, and claims that they cite “climate experts” but do not reveal their identities, nor have them debate climate experts (sans quotations, signifying greater credibility) who see things differently.
This is not entirely true. First, neither Teepen nor Gore are scientists, so they’re not actually required to outline their sources. Their central claim, that the vast majority of environmental scientists have concluded that the data for Global Warming is compelling, and that human activity is, at least in part, responsible for this trend is well documented – even within various agencies of the US government. For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several recent, informative articles on global warming (here). In addition, the National Climate Data Center Has a Global Warming FAQ that refutes Thomas’ arguments, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Further, a recent article by Science Magazine reviewed 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change, and concluded that 75% agreed with the consensus view that human activity is responsible for most of the warming seen in the past 50 years. The remaining 25% did not take any stance on the issue, and the article stated, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Now, this is also where the author takes a cheap shot at the “eco-left” by conflating and equating their goals and methods with those of Joseph McCarthy. While the eco-left most likely has its own agenda, it’s not likely that it’s anything like that of the infamous Republican Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

Here’s where the author tugs at your heart strings. Be afraid of the scary, tree hugging Democrats. They want to take your job away and bury you under an avalanche of propaganda.

Ironically, the part where he says, “Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed”, is actually true.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

Again, the suspenseful theme music plays in the background as liberals start to rise from the political netherworld of near complete powerlessness, and Nancy Pelosi leads the way toward the utter destruction of Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

Thomas, I appreciate your fear. Your government has been telling you for years to fear change, and to fear your Democratic neighbors. You’ve been played, however, since Democratic Americans are at least equal to Republican Americans in all things.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

OK – here’s where Thomas goes for the big finish. Not only are evil Democratic Americans out to “hoodwink” the good Republican Americans, but they’re actually trying to subvert the very core of our democracy. Up until the last couple paragraph, this actually seemed like a reasonable, though naive and poorly executed, argument that global warming is a myth. Instead, as we see the Thomas’ scientific argument collapse, he relies more and more heavily on the Democratic bogeyman, claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow un-American and against workers..

More importantly, about one half of Thomas’ arguments are based on his belief, and his agreement with someone else’s beliefs. If we were discussing a religious point, then this might add strength and credibility to his case. Since, however, he’s arguing what is essentially a scientific point – about the existence of global warming and the role human activity plays in it – his beliefs are beside the point. They’re irrelevant, and simply cloud the issue at hand. Science, my friends, isn’t a democracy. There are certainly debates among experts, often about subtle nuances of various theories. In many cases, there isn’t any such thing as a “fair and balanced” view. Beliefs aren’t particularly valuable. Science is about evidence, and global warming is one of those cases in which the vast majority of the evidence is irrefutable – it exists, and we are playing an increasing role in it.

Please, don’t simply take my word – I’m no climate expert. Instead, look at the evidence yourself. It’s all over the place for anyone who cares to read it.