GLOBAL WARMING CONCERNS MISREPRESENTED BY RIGHTWINGNUTS AGAIN

Stop the right-wing media machine, UIC prof wants to get off!
by Harold Henderson
Tags: Chicago, Global Warming, Research, Climate Change, Heartland Institute, Uic, Antarctica, Peter Doran

http://digg.com/img/badges/10x10-digg-thumb.gif Digg this | http://www.chicagoreader.com/feature...ous_button.gif Post to del.icio.us | http://www.chicagoreader.com/feature...s/envelope.gif E-mail to a friend

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/images/primaries/105.jpg
In January 2002 Peter Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a four-page article in Nature. A contribution to Antarctic climatology, after almost five years it's still newsworthy enough that he wrote about it in the July 27 New York Times. (A fuller free version is available here .)

"My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report . . . found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent [58 percent] had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change."

That's how science works: a theory (or model) makes predictions, researchers check them out and report the results. When they don't fit, it's time to check the research findings, and if they seem valid, to revise the model.

This patient iterative process is too slow for the mainstream media, and too impartial to suit climate-change denialists. Writes Doran, "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear' and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism.'"

Chicago's Heartland Institute, which purports to champion "sound science," joined this company with an article in 2002 that overgeneralized Doran's findings and linked them to unrelated studies, in order to create the impression (well known to be false) that the globe as a whole isn't warming. Much as creationists take any revision in evolutionary theory (no matter how slight) as proof that the whole theory of evolution by natural selection is worthless, these special pleaders misread the very process of science in order to deny its results.

The media echo chamber continues to resound with these misrepresentations. A newspaper in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, fabricated a Doran quote to suit its purposes on June 25. In the on-line comments section June 29, Doran denied ever saying or thinking it, and asked that it be removed. It's still up.

(Which reminds me -- has any denialist outfit ever explained Doran's actual findings and apologized for misrepresenting them?)

Of course, science has been plodding on meantime. Writes Doran, "Climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet."

Doran includes a fuller version of his Times op-ed and additional materials at his UIC web site. One of his side comments pretty much summarizes the whole sorry business:

"It has always amazed me that skeptics of climate warming are quite ready to distrust 99% of the scientific community, but they immediately trust me only because I wrote a paper they 'thought' supported their argument."

Who said the earth isn't warming? I'm saying a carbon tax won't save us, when has a tax ever helped the common person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

Who said the earth isn't warming? I'm saying a carbon tax won't save us, when has a tax ever helped the common person?

---

Exactly. According to scientists, it is the sun that is getting warmer, and in turn, warming all the planets in the solar system.
And one thing I have to say, although I hate the guy. Go look into what Bush's property in Texas does in the way of green power. It's astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

Exactly. According to scientists, it is the sun that is getting warmer, and in turn, warming all the planets in the solar system.
And one thing I have to say, although I hate the guy. Go look into what Bush's property in Texas does in the way of green power. It's astounding.

---

Really??? I'll have to check that out.

In reality, its ridiculous to think that the earth will stay at one standard temperature throughout its billions of years of existence. The earth has always warmed and cooled, that is perfectly natural.

Thats not to say we shouldn't be concerned about these events, especially if they have the potential to cause mankind some serious hardships. But to think we can do something about it with a carbon tax is pathetic.

We have serious environmental problems that we can do something about. Sewage and toxic waste being dumped in our lakes, rivers, and streams. GMO food fucking us up as well as the whole eco-system. Depleted Uranium. Colony collapse disorder of the bee population.

We can do something about all of that, but instead we choose to be mislead by government stooges, all so they can implement yet another tax all the while completely ignoring real environmental issues.

GREEN BUSH??

Were a blackout ever to roll through Washington, DC, and were, at that moment, President Bush luxuriating in the White House spa, he would be mighty glad that the spa, as well as the pool and some of the domestic hot water, is heated by a solar thermal system.

The same would likely hold true if Crawford, Texas—the location of the Western White House (the president’s private ranch)—were ever to experience a blackout when the president was there. The ranch’s passive solar design, in addition to the geothermal heating and cooling system, allow it to reap much of its indoor and poolside climatic equilibrium from renewable energy sources independent of the electricity grid.

Sadly, these renewable and efficient energy technologies do not reflect Bush’s own environmental ideology. The president could appeal to environmentalists by proclaiming the Crawford ranch a model for energy efficiency and an example of “green” building. But this laudable personal achievement pales when compared with Bush’s tarnished environmental record and hopeless pandering to the fossil fuel giants. The president appears uninterested in appeasing environmentalists; as a constituency, he views them as utterly useless.

The Washington White House features 167 photovoltaic solar panels which are situated on one of the maintenance buildings. In late 2002, the National Park Service installed these panels and the White House solar thermal system, as part of its management of the White House grounds. Although it was the Park Service—not the president—who spearheaded the installation of these technologies, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive quickly leapt at the chance to trumpet the president’s “commitment” to alternative energy technologies.

Bush is not the first president to inhabit a White House powered by solar panels. President Carter also installed them, although as soon as he took office, President Reagan wasted no time before having them promptly ripped down.

How the Western White House came to be so “green” may have more to do with the pragmatism of Laura Bush and her architect than any devotion to energy conservation. The First Lady worked with David Heymann—an architect who specializes in cultural and environmental relationships between buildings and landscapes—to design a ranch home that would blend into the landscape. The Crawford home uses efficient passive solar and geothermal energy and captures rainwater in a 25,000-gallon cistern for use in irrigation.

In a 2001 USA Today story about the ranch, Laura Bush downplayed the environmental benefits of the house’s design and attributes. “The features are environment-friendly, but the reason for them was practical—to save money and to save water, which is scarce in this dry, hot part of Texas,” she said.

Indeed, there is money to be saved by installing a geothermal heating and cooling system and collecting rainwater as a source of water for irrigation. The geothermal system employed at the Western White House uses about 30 to 40 percent of the electricity expended by traditional heating and air-conditioning systems. According to Heymann, “It is likely that the system there runs more efficiently because the overall design of the house utililizes passive solar strategies and natural ventilation in its layout, has low-energy glass (the windows transmit less heat), and is well insulated.”

President Bush has achieved relative energy security and economic benefits from his personal use of these environmentally-friendly technologies in Texas and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet, the policies of his administration show no appreciation of these technologies and his administration seems unwilling to make them readily available for the average consumer.

Bush harped on energy supply as the culprit for the Northeast blackout, and used the same excuse for California's rolling blackouts in 2001. The president sees only one path to a stable energy future: developing more coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. To compensate for the imminent depletion of these resources, he throws money at hydrogen, a technologically distant prospect. This fossil-fuel and hydrogen combination doesn't add up, especially since Bush has personally reaped the benefits of much more accessible geothermal and solar energy.

The Senate version of the energy bill, which is currently in conference committee, contains the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, a mandate requiring utilities to acquire a certain percentage of renewable energy sources as a means of diversifying their portfolios. The House version does not feature this provision. The outcome of the conference committee will shape the final bill that is sent to both floors for a vote and then to President Bush. Given his administration’s antipathy toward renewable sources and efficient technologies, however, that provision may well be thrown to the trash bin—like so many other canceled research efforts and incentives since he has taken office.

“We cannot expect energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction to occur naturally as a consequence of private virtue,” notes Devra Davis, an epidemiologist and author of When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution. Nor can we interpret the president’s own household energy patterns as exemplary and universally applicable. Instead, government must create the policy incentives for the average energy consumer and the utility companies which may not have the resources to utilize renewable and efficient technologies. The fact remains that the president is personally saving money because of the energy-smart technologies in use at his two homes. The schizophrenia revealed by his personal pragmatism and his public impracticality can be chalked up to politics. Washington or Crawford could be next if and when our electricity supply starts to falter again. With a blackout, the president might be reminded of the most powerful and reliable source of energy, not fossil fuel. And he might want to reconsider sharing the wealth. </FONT></FONT>