The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative -- even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests.
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make concessions. The report released last Friday for example, was shorn of the warning that "North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events."
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the rightwing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures.
In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues.
This is just one aspect of a story that is endlessly told the wrong way round. In the UK's Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Mail newspapers, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley, the allegation is repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to "shut down debate." Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: valid examples.
The closest any of them have been able to get is two letters sent -- by the UK's Royal Society (of elite scientists) and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe -- to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who deliberately distort climate science.
These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes. They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.
In a recent interview, Martin Durkin, who made UK TV's Channel 4's film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed he was subject to "invisible censorship." He seems to have forgotten that he had 90 minutes of prime-time television to expound his theory that climate change is a green conspiracy.
What did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programs had been upheld by the UK's Independent Television Commission. It found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programs when they agreed to take part." This, apparently, makes him a martyr.
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58 percent of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agencies who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints:
One, pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming" or other similar terms from their communications.
Two, editing of scientific reports by their superiors that "changed the meaning of scientific findings."
Three, statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings.
Four, the disappearance or unusual delay of Web sites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.
Five, new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.
Six, situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station and said that Knutson was "too tired" to conduct the interview.
The official explained to him that the "White House said no". All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes.
Last year NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and Web postings. He was told by NASA's public relations officials that there would be "dire consequences" if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand "the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
At hearings in the US Congress last month, Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the administration.
He had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting there was serious scientific doubt about global warming.
The guardians of free speech in Britain aren't above attempting a little suppression, either. I have now received several letters from the climate sceptic Viscount Monckton threatening us with libel proceedings after I challenged his claims about climate science. On two of these occasions he demanded that articles be removed from the Internet. Monckton is the man who wrote to Rockefeller and Snowe, claiming that their letter to ExxonMobil offends the corporation's "right of free speech."
After Durkin's film was broadcast, one of the scientists it featured, Carl Wunsch, complained that his views on climate change had been misrepresented. He says he has received a legal letter from Durkin's production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.
Would it be terribly impolite to suggest that when such people complain of censorship, some projection is taking place?
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS