Scientists Feel Stifled by Bush Administration

[ErikT]

Clear skies from an article published on the Feb 14th ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... AQ9311.DTL ):

The academy report, commissioned by Congress in 2003 after Democrats tried to stall the administration's revision of New Source Review (NSR) regulations, says it is difficult to gauge the effects of that plan because data are scarce.

But the committee, which consists largely of academics, says in its 160- page report that it is "unlikely that Clear Skies would result in emission limits at individual sources that are tighter than those achieved when NSR is triggered at the same sources. ... In general, NSR provides more stringent emission limits for new and modified major sources" than Clear Skies. The panel will issue a final report by the end of the year.

I don't trust sources that use scarce data and call it an informed decision.

Erik

[missy]

Robin wrote:
" In fact we just recently had a paper that took well over a year in all its various incarnations to get published!"

Hey - if it happens to be in J. of Ag and Food Science we could be in the same issue!!! We just had one published that took 2 years!

Missy

[susnfx]

From the National Resources Defense Council’s “Rewriting the Rules – The Bush Administration’s First Term Environmental Record” (yes, the NRDC is an environmental group. I give them money and follow their activities closely. I’ve found them to be extremely accurate in trying to let the public know what Bush is up to—mostly by verification from other sources, newspapers, television news stories, etc.).

“The Bush Administration’s approach to global warming can be characterized by irresponsible inaction and studied ignorance in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.” They call for more research, even as they have consistently turned a blind eye to an overwhelming accumulation of scientific data. “For the majority of Bush’s first term, the administration actively suppressed the growing body of research confirming that the global climate is heating up as a result of human actions. Now the scientific consensus is so strong that the administration can no longer silence the findings. Instead, it ignores them.”

Dr. James Hansen, in a presentation given at the Distinguished Public Lecture Series at the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, said, “On the topic of global climate change, communication with the public has become seriously hampered during the past few years for employees of government agencies such as NASA, NOAA and EPA. I know that such interference with and misuse of the scientific process is occurring now to a degree unprecedented in my scientific lifetime. I speak from a position of having tried hard to work with and advise the current administration on matters relating to climate change. I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disasters.”

Susan

(BTW, some of you might find interesting a page on the NRDC website where they show by date, the environmental policies announced intentionally by the Bush administration on Friday afternoons [called “Black Fridays”] in order to escape notice: http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/fridays.asp )

I don't trust sources I don't agree with either, Erik.

[ErikT]

Touche. However, I do trust sources that I don't agree with as long as they substantiate their claims and present rational arguements. Dr. Hansen is certainly a learned man and even recently received a Heinz Award ( http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients.a ... ipientID=9 and this interesting one on Global Warming: http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementS ... ementID=44 ) but the fact that Bush has not acted upon his advice is not the same thing as Bush not listening to his advice.

The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. In the eye of the storm that swirls around this issue is Dr. Hansen. He calmly pursues his research while scrupulously maintaining his scientific credibility and modifying his views as new data and techniques have become available, all the while acting as a messenger from the esoteric world of computer climate models to the public and policymakers alike.

Hmm. Scientist against scientist? (Edited to remove some sarcasm because I didn't learn from my first mistake - thanks Bloomie for pointing that out)

Edited to add this particularly honest appraisal of the situation from the Heinz Foundation folks. Read here if you like http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementS ... ementID=44:

Conservatives always say that researchers disagree about global warming. That's true, but the disagreements concern the causes and the extent of potential climate change.

On the basic question of whether the artificial greenhouse effect constitutes a serious issue, there is no scientific controversy whatsoever. The world has been getting slightly warmer, by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. The National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that it is "likely" that artificially released greenhouse gases have caused at least some of that warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprising most of the world's top greenhouse researchers, uses the word "likely" as well. And, in the past six months, the science academies of China, France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom have issued statements of greenhouse concern.

Whether global warming will become dangerous is totally unknown. Increasingly complex scientific formulas have widened, not shrunk, the range of uncertainty in computer-generated climate models; over the last decade the IPCC has both raised and lowered its "best estimate" of how much the world may warm. Still, if you take the IPCC's current best estimate -- that the world will warm by 5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century, a number the National Academy has also endorsed -- there's reason to worry. A 5-degree increase would be extreme by natural standards. Cities would not disappear under seawater -- that's a silly Hollywood fixation -- but serious warming could disrupt agricultural production and spread vector-borne equatorial diseases such as malaria and dengue fever over a wider geographic range. The mild global warming we have witnessed so far has harmed no one; a 5-degree warming could be calamitous.

I think that I'll graciously (or not) pull out of this discussion. I've posted way too much for something that I really don't care to argue about. I feel like I've been trying to yell, MODERATE, which is a strange thing for a moderate. I agree that we need to have limits on pollution. I believe that America needs to do its part in the world to control our emissions. I agree that the administration needs to be hearing from experts in the fields in which they create policy. I agree.

I don't necessarily agree in the means nor do I agree that the administration is simply not listening. I'll let everyone else have the floor to figure it all out.

Erik

[ErikT]

One last note... "Every Friday is Friday the 13th". That's pretty remarkable and somewhat funny in a macabre sort of way.

Erik

[jGilder]

A very highly respected environmental activist, Laurie David, wrote an article called, “Snubbing Kyoto: Our Monumental Shame -- As the world celebrates the global warming pact's debut, Bush continues to pander to the energy industry.” I think this article addresses what you've been talking about on this thread very succinctly. Here’s her website where you can easily find the article.

http://www.lauriedavid.com

Here's an excerpt:

Few people bother to deny the problem anymore. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, for instance, noted the "emerging consensus" on climate change at the Davos conference last month.

But the U.S. energy industry continues to spend millions on lobbyists and propagandists in an effort to spread doubt and confusion on the subject. The industry, instead of putting money into research and development to come up with the renewable energy technologies desperately needed to secure both our national security and its own economic future, has mounted a relentless campaign to discredit the truth.

Of course, corporate America would not have the power to torpedo common-sense solutions to an imminent threat were it not for the complicity of our elected officials. Take Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has been so hypnotized by enormous campaign contributions from the energy industry that he actually had the chutzpah to say that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

[Caj]

I don't know the entire truth of the matter, but it is safe to say that this is not as simple a matter as you indicate. This isn't the scientific lock that much of the world has been convinced of. Here is at least one source that does not view the science as indicative of a global catastrophy.

Keep in mind that for every theory, even well-established ones, there is always a vocal minority of people who oppose it. This is especially true when politics is involved.

This, and the fact that individual scientists make mistakes (think cold fusion) is the reason that we put our trust in the consensus view of scientists.

You call for moderation; I would respecfully suggest that going with the scientific consensus is far more cautious and moderate than believing its doubters. The consensus is wrong far less often.

Again, I'm not saying that this person is 100% correct, but I do sense some correctness. I think that probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But then, this is precisely the goal of a vocal opposition---to get you to think that the truth is somewhere in between. Or to get you to think that there is a contraversy or lack of agreement or otherwise hold off on accepting an idea.

In the case of global warming (or previously, ozone depletion), critics don't need to convince you to reject the idea. All they need is to convince everyone to indefinitely adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

Caj

[Wombat]

In the case of tobacco and asbestos, I don't regard these as mistakes. I regard the failure of governments to act sooner as criminal.

The asbestos scare is a perfect example of the danger of taking poor science and applying it liberally (or perhaps taking good science and applying it incorrectly). And yet it is clear that you believe that asbestos is particularly dangerous. Even so far as calling it criminal.

First, asbestos is a rock. While there is friable asbestos out there, it represents such a small amount that the billions of dollars spent on abatement has made it the biggest snipe hunt ever. Furthermore, when actually abating legitamately friable asbestos, the airborn particulate count becomes higher than if it had simply been left alone. The truth is that about 90-95% of asbestos works just fine as an in place material. There are dangers in the manufacture and constant exposure to dust during manufacture or maintenance, but there is in the use of all silicates (ie Rocks) once they become airborn.

What the legislation has done is create a wonderful high paying job classifaction (asbestos abatement) that really has little actual results - though it has made a number of people rich. And all because someone cried fire.

You can read more here: http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/presskit/press_5.html
And here: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/

Erik

I'm not talking about the relative risks of leaving asbestos in place and removing it; I'm talking about the life terminating conditions contracted by those who worked with it and which courts all over the world are recognising to have been the result of employer negligence. These conditions are well-documented.

http://www.vthc.org.au/campaigns/200409 ... ardie.html

Are you going to argue that the fuss about tobacco and lung cancer is a furphy?

BTW, I could have chosen any one of dozens of links on asbestos. Apart from the James Hardie company itself, there isn't a single person in Australia that I know of standing up publically and saying the company doesn't have a moral obligation to pay compensation and even the company seems to have conceded this recently.

[Wombat]

I don't know whether anybody really wants to revive this discussion, but I just want to report that I seem to misinterpret Erik in my last post. (He thinks I did and I'm inclined to agree with him.) He clearly isn't denying that asbestos posed a danger to those who worked with it which was not recognised by employers or governments at the time. Nor is he denying that compensation is appropriate in these cases.

Whilst I regret any misinterpretation, I think that mine was a rather natural one to make in the context of the overall discussion. It looked to me as though Erik were trying to play down the relative importance of misleading many thousands of workers who continued to work in unsafe environments as against spending money unnecessarily on asbestos removal. (I accept of course that this was not his intention.)

Perhaps the asbestos business presents two quite different aspects, one which supports my claims about government tardiness and one Erik's about public jumpiness in the face of scientific discovery.

I mentioned earlier that risk assessment is something that we do not do very rationally, or if we do, the principles are not well-known. If there is a one in a billion chance that blackmailers have contaminated some particular tin of baby food with poison, we would withdraw all items of the kind in question from teh shelves, even though the probablility of our actually buying the contaminated tin is vanishingly small. On the other hand, we continue to eat seafood in full knowledge that we will likely poison ourselves sooner or later if we do so often enough. You might argue that risk assessment is not just a function of probablilities but also of the consequences of being wrong. I agree. But bungee jumping, speeding, drink driving and hang gliding would all be just as lethal as poisoned baby food and the probablility of dying would be considerably greater than in buying a single tin at random. Of course, people who undertake those activities might be thought to be consenting, which a baby wouldn't be, but the victims of speeding and drunk driving are often innocent third parties who did not consent. Yet we tolerate countless deaths every year without making much fuss about them. On the other hand, we frisk people at airports even though your chances of being killed on the roads are much greater than your chances of being killed by a terrorist.

[missy]

Wombat wrote:
"I don't know whether anybody really wants to revive this discussion"

Sure - I'll bite!!!

You bring up some really valid points on "risk management". Besides working in the lab, I'm also safety coordinator for the lab. One of our policies before any new piece of equipment or chemical is brought on site is a "risk assessment".
There's a form of questions to fill out, but basically you look at the absolute worst case scenerio. Next, you see if there is an alternative piece of equipment or chemical if the risk is "high". If there's not, or you still need this, you next look at engineering capabilities to lesson the risk (in the case of a chemical, for instance, working with it in a fume hood). If you can't totally engineer out the risks, then you look at PPE (i.e. nitrile gloves) that will lesson risks. You also have to look at how to dispose of the chemical, etc.
Then, from all that you write a Safe Practice / Safe Operating Proceedure for the equipment or chemical.

When goverments go off "half cocked" and ban things - it's like us stopping at step #1. It's dangerous, so we aren't going to use it. But sometimes you have to use dangerous things. If there's an alternative, sure - use that. If not, see if there's a way to use it with the least amount of harm. If you can't "engineer" it out, then try to find ways to lesson the risks to humans and the environment. And don't forget to look at how you are going to dispose of the thing when it's no longer needed.

Very simple principles, really. I don't understand why it gets so difficult, but we ARE talking politicians here.

Missy

[jim stone]

I know the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge global warming - or at least that humans have exacerbated the problem. I also understand that a large part of this refusal has to do with not wanting to force Bush's friends -- large corporations (oil companies, etc.) -- to take steps to control emissions. An article on CNN.com states that scientists are no longer included in policy decision-making, even on environmental issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

I'm genuinely baffled. Can someone please explain this administration's refusal to acknowledge or address global warming and its refusal to even included scientists in decision-making on that, as well as other issues?? Would they truly refuse to take steps to solve this massive problem just for a political agenda?

Susan

To the contrary, the Bush admin acknowledges
the existence of global warming, that humans have exacerbated
the problem, and that
the USA contributes to it. I've read this several times
on the EPA website, which speaks for the Bush admin.
This has been in place for several years, as best I remember.
Here's (just) the beginning of it, below.

An Introduction
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases ? primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth?s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases.
Our Changing Atmosphere

Energy from the sun drives the earth?s weather and climate, and heats the earth?s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
[Information on how the greenhouse affect effects the earth.] Without this natural ?greenhouse effect,? temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth?s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth?s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today?s levels.
Changing Climate

[jim stone]

I've been talking with
environmentalists lately, especially my next door
neighbour, and I've reached the conclusion
that arguably the most formidable adversaries
of environmentalism are environmentalists.
The fierce partisan bias that many express makes
environmentalism look like a stick with which to
beat Republicans, at which point environmentalists lose
credibility and people stop taking them
seriously. Also no politician is going to
cater to people who will hate him no
matter what he does--something Bush
has learned on this issue from his father.

[susnfx]

Although I appreciate the time and thougtfulness put into posts by all of those interested in this thread, I'm sorry it was revived. In the past week some very ugly things have happened to me here (on the board in general, not specifically this thread) that have caused me to reach the conclusion that, at least temporarily, this isn't any place I want to have "discussions" with folks about off-topic areas of interest. There have always been some surly folks here (and I can be as surly as the rest of them), but there seem to be a couple of people who have taken a dislike to me personally and I don't need that garbage in my life right now. I'm certainly not leaving the board--I've learned a huge amount here and will continue to learn--but I'm not going to start any more off-topic threads or respond to off-topic posts for awhile.

So even though I disagree with you heartily, Jim, that's all the response I'm going to make, and I'd consider it a favor if this thread could be allowed to die.

Thanks, Susan

[Walden]

Although I appreciate the time and thougtfulness put into posts by all of those interested in this thread, I'm sorry it was revived. In the past week some very ugly things have happened to me here (on the board in general, not specifically this thread) that have caused me to reach the conclusion that, at least temporarily, this isn't any place I want to have "discussions" with folks about off-topic areas of interest. There have always been some surly folks here (and I can be as surly as the rest of them), but there seem to be a couple of people who have taken a dislike to me personally and I don't need that garbage in my life right now. I'm certainly not leaving the board--I've learned a huge amount here and will continue to learn--but I'm not going to start any more off-topic threads or respond to off-topic posts for awhile.

I, for one, like you. I apologize about the cinnamon roll hairdo.

So even though I disagree with you heartily, Jim, that's all the response I'm going to make, and I'd consider it a favor if this thread could be allowed to die.

Okay.

[jim stone]

No offence intended, Susan.

I care about environmental issues,
have had experience building mass movements,
and I do wish the environmentalists I talk about these things
with here in St. Louis would begin to rethink
how to actually reach out to people. When you
consider how deep and widespread the love of nature is in
this country, how bipartisan it is among ordinary Americans,
I'm struck by how successful
the environmental movement has been
at turning people off. Night.