Government accused of rewriting science

monstersandcritics.com ^

[sonsofliberty2000]

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- A renown U.S. scientist says he is limited by the Bush administration as to who he can talk with and what he can say because of Bush`s political strategies.

James Hansen, chief of NASA`s top institute studying the climate, told Scott Pelley of the CBS program 60 Minutes government officials are attempting to rewrite science.

Hansen says global warming is accelerating because of human actions, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

Hansen told CBS he believes humans have approximately 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

'In my more than three decades in the government I`ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,' says Hansen.

Hansen says the Bush administration wants 'to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster.'

60 Minutes noted it had been trying to discuss the issue with the president`s science advisor for months, but was finally told he would never be available.

[sonsofliberty2000]

True, but I try not to change the title of the articles I post. Normally they are as much a part of the issue as the body of the text itself. Here the story might well be that he is shrouding his past short comings in accusing the goverment of doing what he himself is doing.

I also though caution that it is proper in science for a person to revise their earlier finidings. If he has continued to study the subject he should either find more support for his earlier hypothesis, or change his hypothesis. If he did not do so that would make him even worse. I agree with an earlier poster that said the government does hold a heavy hand over scientists in this country, but that comes from most of the money coming from government. Sad, but true.

[Colorado Doug]

Why is NASA even studying the climate when they claim they don't have the budget to run the space program well?

[Right Wing Professor]

--Hansen is the genius whose first "model" of the atmosphere lacked oceans, continents, water vapor and a southern hemisphere--

Please feel free to list the complex systems for which you've built computer models, and asterisk the ones that included all important parameters in the first version.

[syriacus]

True, but I try not to change the title of the articles I post.

I was merely pointing out the irony in the title that was chosen by the author or editor.

I apologize for failing to make it clear that I did not think you gave the article the title.

I usually try to make it clear I am responding to the author, by naming him or her, but I was too lazy to do more than an unsuccessful, cursory search for the author's name.

[MortMan]

Please feel free to list the complex systems for which you've built computer models, and asterisk the ones that included all important parameters in the first version.

Strawman. The incomplete model was used as a catalyst for the declaration of the "fact" of global warming. The leap from hypothesis to "law" is the issue.

Trumepting his results based on clearly inadequate modeling (ignoring the accuracy of the model, for argument's sake) is the cardinal sin being indicated.

[syriacus]

A (Mis)informed Public, February 10, 2006

In the February 8 New York Times, NASA’s Jim Hansen again complained that his ideas on climate change are being suppressed by the Bush Administration, which is destroying our democracy by censoring climate science. According to the Times:

“On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed,” he said. “The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That’s the big issue here.”

On the other hand, Hansen thinks that lying about climate change in order to get attention is just peachy.

He wrote this in Scientific American in March of 2004:

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.

Translation: I buffed this issue in order to get your attention and my schtick was subjective and not scientific.

But, now, he suggests, that the time has come to tell the truth, and he is being censored. Sorry. Once a distortionist, always a distortionist.

Why should we believe him now? What evidence does he have to offer that his opinions and statements about climate change are suddenly true, when he admits that exaggerations were necessary. Was the public being “honestly informed” then?

And it wasn’t just “the public.” He distorted in front of the U.S. Congress.

[excerpt]

[panaxanax]

Read here where 200 scientists were asked to rewrite their findings.

http://cpanel.wispme.com/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/2005-February/000640.html

[Right Wing Professor]

Strawman. The incomplete model was used as a catalyst for the declaration of the "fact" of global warming. The leap from hypothesis to "law" is the issue.

All models are by their nature incomplete. They usually start out simple and become more sophisticated. It is prudent to defer policy decisions until one has some confidence in the models; nonetheless, right now, the modelling and the data are good enough to make a reasonably confident prediction about the magnitude of anthropogenic climate forcing in the next 50 years. We then need to look cool-headedly at the outcome, and decide if it's one we can live with, and, if it isn't, what we can do to ameliorate things. But arguing that because the models fifteen years ago were much worse, that they can't be trusted now, is foolish.

[MortMan]

All models are by their nature incomplete. They usually start out simple and become more sophisticated. It is prudent to defer policy decisions until one has some confidence in the models; nonetheless, right now, the modelling and the data are good enough to make a reasonably confident prediction about the magnitude of anthropogenic climate forcing in the next 50 years. We then need to look cool-headedly at the outcome, and decide if it's one we can live with, and, if it isn't, what we can do to ameliorate things. But arguing that because the models fifteen years ago were much worse, that they can't be trusted now, is foolish.

I disagree. The models support a conclusion, but have yet to be correctly correlated to historical data (to my knowledge). The issue is the bias in the model supporting a desired conclusion... That is the elephant hiding in the living room.

[syriacus]

It's nice to know that Hansen claims to be even-tempered. That doesn't mean he always choses wisely. Like announcing right before the 2004 election, that he planned to vote for Kerry.

Blowing Your Own Whistle

According to the Times, “Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush’s policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign.”

There’s no way he’s going to get fired for this. That’s not the point. It’s just bad form, going to a critical state where the candidates are deadlocked and bad-mouthing your boss in an attempt to influence the election.

And it’s even worse form to criticize the Boss for accepting your science and, as is his responsibility, forming his own policy in light of that science—after having cashed a $250,000 check signed by the wife of his opponent in the Presidential election*.

*One of her Heinz Awards was given in 2001 to James Hansen.

Hansen is beginning to sound like a broken record...

Here's what he said in 2004, shortly before the presidential election:
By Chuck Schoffner Associated Press posted: 27 October 2004

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Here's a quote from Hansen from the article at the head of this thread:

'In my more than three decades in the government I`ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,' says Hansen

[syriacus]

Interesting LAtimes article. Here's an interesting quote from it:

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

I notice, though, that the LATimes article fails to mention that Sally Stefferud helped prepare the study. sfgate.com includes that important detail.

Sally Stefferud, a scientist who worked for 20 years at the agency before retiring three years ago, said that in the past political pressure affected only a few high-profile decisions but that now it is affecting almost all agency actions on endangered species.

Stefferud, who helped prepare the study, noted that field scientists in the Southwest region who study the impact of grazing on federal lands are now accompanied by the grazing permit holders, who she said are unlikely to show researchers any potential harm to endangered species.

"The data can become very easily distorted," Stefferud said.

[RightWingAtheist]

Ping

[syriacus]

Interesting, long article which mentions the Stefferuds (Sally and Jerry) and a rancher that some environmentalists were going after.

The Rancher's Revenge When environmentalists attacked, rancher Jim Chilton used the best ammunition he could find -- and it came from his enemy By Sarah Fenske

[cogitator]

Michaels makes great hay about the low-end prediction that the warming trend for the first half of the twenty-first century will only be twice the rate of warming for the entire 20th century.

In so doing, he artfully spins a number of items. One, the warming is expected to accelerate in the latter half of the 21st century, so that the full warming for the century is expected to be at least thrice the warming in the 20th century, not twice.

The following is from http://www.realclimate.org/ about Michael Crichton's Book "State of Fear".

"At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing."

Furthermore, model predictions have difficulty with strong positive feedbacks, such as total loss of Arctic summer sea ice (predicted to occur by 2100) or abrupt climate change triggers, such as significant reduction of thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic.

In short, Michaels is doing what Michaels does: being a good climate change skeptic. But that doesn't mean we should believe everything he says, and we have to know where he's coming from.

[4woodenboats]

I would agree with Dr. Hansen on one point, although not for the reasons he gives. The federal government does exert too much influence on science. By controlling the money for big science in this country, Congress and the federal funding agencies determine what is studied. I have seen the effects on the universities first hand, and it has not been pretty.

In what manner does the federal government restrict private funding for "big" science?

What effects exactly are you referring to as "not pretty"?

I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, but that's a pretty big swipe you're taking at the government, and I don't know you from a refrigerator salesman.

Hansen babbles on with an astonishing lack of verifiable data, details on the restrictions, or a viable theory, and is apparently a darling of SeeBS & NYSlimes, which is fine, they don't let facts get in the way.

This is Freerepublic. Gotta have facts here.

[4woodenboats]

Here's a snippet from one of the 1st articles I came upon on that site

The most recent abrupt climate change, known as the “Younger Dryas,” took place on earth roughly 11,400 years ago. At that point the earth was warming rapidly, but was abruptly plunged into cold, dry, and windy glacial conditions. It remained frigid for twelve centuries before abruptly warming again.

Warm interglacial periods are generally subject to big swings of temperature lasting for centuries. The last 10,000 years, known as the “Holocene,” has been by far the longest stable warm period during the past half million years.

Obviously, Bush has been f'n up the environment for at least 12,000 years.....

[Logophile]

In what manner does the federal government restrict private funding for "big" science?

What effects exactly are you referring to as "not pretty"?

I am glad you asked. The universities have become addicted to federal research money. This has had at several unfortunate effects.

First, while the federal government does not restrict private funding, universities generally do not lust after private money with the same fervor as they do taxpayer money. Indeed, corporate money is considered tainted, especially if it is intended to address the practical needs of a business. Corporations may not be as generous with overhead money as the federal government is. Also, corporations typically expect to retain intellectual property rights in the research they fund.

Second, because the universities want taxpayer dollars, they must meet the priorities of the federal funding agencies. Consequently, the program heads at places like the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Energy (DoE) largely determine what research will be done in this country. One unfortunate result of this is that politically well-connected institutions have an unfair advantage in getting research money. Worse, the funding agencies tend to support "safe" or "trendy" research; they do not want to fund "risky" research.

Third, the government research dollars have provided incentives for the universities to neglect their educational missions. Undergraduate education is considered a necessary nuisance. Having professors teach would take them away from their primary mission of bringing in research dollars. Consequently, the task of teaching undergraduates is increasingly given over to graduate students and part-time faculty.

The results, as I have said, have not been pretty. For example, I sit on a committee that is charged with re-writing the rules for tenure and promotion in my college. The new rules (enacted over my strenuous objections) specify that a new professor must seek federal funding for his research. Private funding is neither encouraged nor appreciated to the degree that money from NSF, NIH, DoD, or DoE is. High productivity in research (read: lots of research funding) is the only thing that will count in promotion and tenure decisions; teaching need only be "adequate." (And I assure you, the standards of adequacy are very low.)

[sonsofliberty2000]

No worries. Just making sure!