August 31, 2007
Category: General
This is the last post for the Pacific Institute's Integrity of Science blog. We've really enjoyed our time at ScienceBlogs and think this is a great community. To quote a walrus, "You're such a lovely audience, we'd like to take you home with us, we'd love to take you home."
At this time, the Pacific Institute is going to be refocusing its blogging effort to go beyond the work of our Science Integrity program and incorporate all the work we do: from securing safe drinking water in Africa to cleaning up diesel truck traffic in Oakland to making sure that international corporate social responsibility standards are meaningful. Look for a mid-fall release of the new Pacific Institute blog at www.pacinst.org.
We will continue to work to defend science from political and corporate assaults. You can keep abreast of our work on this issue at www.integrityofscience.org.
To keep abreast of all of the Pacific Institute's work, I encourage you to sign up for our e-mail newsletter.
Much thanks to Katherine and everyone at ScienceBlogs and Seed Media for giving us the opportunity to blog here.
Happy trails,
Ian Hart
Editor, Integrity of Science blog
Posted by ianhart at 2:41 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 14, 2007
Category: Spin
In her Aug. 12 column, "Paralyzing fog of certainty on climate" Debra Saunders asserts many things, including that money flows to climate scientists as well as climate skeptics. No argument there. However, she neglects to distinguish between the quality of research this money funds, asking, "Why not posit that there is such a thing as honest disagreement on the science?" The problem is, much of the disagreement is dishonest, hiding under a veil of science.
Multinational fossil fuel corporations have billions of dollars riding on U.S. inaction on climate change. These corporations are behind a number of analyses that do not hold up to peer review: not because of inherent biases of the peer reviewers, but because the science is junk.
In Saunders's world, however, there is no such thing as junk science. Just honest disagreement.
Defending the integrity of sound science from the attack of propaganda is not a "muzzling of dissent." Rather, it is the mechanism through which this fog of uncertainty will clear, and science will triumph over ideology.
Posted by ianhart at 7:29 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 7, 2007
Category: White House
Something else is bothering me about yesterday's USA Today article Science vs. politics gets down and dirty. It's the implication that scientists are speaking out because of political bent.
Science policy professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University in Tempe says: "I think the opportunity to use science as a political tool against Bush has been irresistible -- but it is very dangerous for science, and for politics. You can expect to see similar accusations of the political use of science in the next regime." [...] And because polls show that scientists tend to be Democrats, Sarewitz says, their complaints should be viewed cautiously.
First off, assuming our next president is a Democrat, Sarewitz's observations would seem to contradict themselves. Aside from that, consider how Vergano closes the piece:
"The danger comes when (science) gets to be seen as simply politics by other means," (Harvard science historian Steven) Shapin says. "Why trust it then?"
Posted by ianhart at 7:24 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
August 6, 2007
Category: White House
This morning, hotel guests across the country this morning woke up to a chronicle of the divide between science and poltics in USA Today's "Science vs. politics gets down and dirty." There's no need to hit the complimentary continental breakfast for a second cup of coffee when your morning news starts
The relationship (between the Bush administration and the nation's scientific community) hit a new low last month when Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, lashed out at his former colleagues in testimony before a House committee.
Normally, I'd think the nation's most circulated paper covering attacks on science integrity is a good thing. Unfortunately, throughout the article author Dan Vergano consistently confuses political interference and political considerations.
Read on »
Posted by ianhart at 10:23 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 26, 2007
Category: Humor
Jesse Springer of Eugene, Oregon is the new Union of Concerned Scientists Science Idol His entry was our pick as well:
Established last year, UCS's "Science Idol" is an annual editorial cartoon contest on the theme of science integrity. Last year's winning cartoon is here.
Check out all of this year's finalists.
Posted by ianhart at 12:18 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: White House
In a nutshell:
"This administration's political appointees might be unique in their contempt for government scientists and the empiric process that shapes their work."
Read "Frog by frog." Hat-tip to Michael Halpern
Posted by ianhart at 9:53 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 24, 2007
Category: General
A number of voices have weighed in following this months revelation that Surgeon General Richard Cormona had been subject to widespread political restrictions from the White House during his 2002-2006 tenure. Many have held up the story as another example of politics and bias getting in the way of reality-based problem solving -- the Kaiser Family Foundation has even collected some of the editorials, and provides summaries.
Of course, the Washington Machine being what it is, we now have the inevitable backlash. Accordingly, Fox News is attacking the messenger.
It may, indeed, be a fair point to accuse the Bush administration of politicizing science. But Richard Carmona isn't the person to make it. Carmona's entire term as surgeon general has been marked by embracing every last hobgoblin promoted by the public health movement, generally above and beyond what the science says. Sometimes in spite of it. ...
The critique is fairly libertarian: negative effects of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol are overhyped, and were overhyped by Carmona.
Read on »
Posted by ianhart at 7:00 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 23, 2007
Category: General
The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby had an interesting thought-piece in yesterday's paper.
Did you hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.
Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation.
The man in question is Sir Isaac Newton, whom Cambridge nominated to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in 1668.
Read on »
Posted by ianhart at 12:35 PM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
July 2, 2007
Category: Think Tanks
Would the oil and gas industry underwrite research that makes the plight of the polar bear seem, well, less dire? Does a polar bear swim in the Arctic? From NewScientist:
Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict (Ecological Complexity, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002). Soon, who receives funding for this and other work from Exxon-Mobil, has been attacking climate change science for several years. Three of the six other authors also have links to the oil industry.
If the polar bears' habitat disappears later than predicted, is that a valid excuse to delay implementing a solution? How does this study jibe with the ExxonMobil Foundation's s biodiversity efforts ("Protect Tomorrow. Today")?
Posted by ianhart at 12:44 PM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 30, 2007
Category:
It's been a while since we checked in with Flamy McGassy, but here's a toon from a couple months ago. Despite the Supreme Court ruling on C02, Flamy is unabashed in this episode: "Feeling the Heat."
The takeaway message is that despite the Court's intervention, enemies of science-based decisionmaking still lurk in the EPA. However, it is admittedly dated: the two officials featured in this cartoon Willia "Kids <3 Lead" Wehrum and Alex "Kids <3 Rocket Fuel" Beehler had their nominations withdrawn the week after this cartoon originally ran in April. Connection? Probably not.
Still, Flamy has a point: getting anything through the EPA will continue to be a struggle until January 20, 2009, at which point the oil and gas lobbyist market will be flooded. Good thing for those guys (and gals) that minimum wage got a bump up!
Posted by integrityofscience at 10:34 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 27, 2007
Category: White House
Earlier this week we noted that the Bush administration is continuing its efforts to rewrite history with regard to its stance on global climate change. From E&ETV:
Monica Trauzzi: We've seen a change in tune of sorts from the president recently relating to climate change. Beyond this latest proposal, he also mentioned climate for the first time in this year's State of the Union address. Would you characterize this as a major shift in his position on climate change?
Jim Connaughton: No. I would characterize it as a continuing advancement of the president's strategy on climate change. He issued a very strong statement on climate change in June of 2001, reiterated it in July of 2001, and then launched our 10-year policy in June of 2002. I think the greater weight of the shift has been more of the public is actually paying attention to what it was the president laid down. (My emphasis)
Now this assertion has been refuted eight ways to Sunday. Interestingly, whoever's playbook the Administration is following, it's not that of conservative spinmeister Frank Luntz (of Luntz memo fame, among other things).
Read on »
Posted by ianhart at 7:15 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
June 25, 2007
Category: White House
In an interview with E&ETV last week (subscription required) White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton managed to get through the entire interview without touting the much-used but much-cherry-picked claim that the US has been beating Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
That's not to say that there wasn't some fuzzy math-talk and a bit of revisionist history.
Monica Trauzzi: You mentioned the near-term goals, what steps will the U.S. take to limit emissions in the next 10 to 20 years?
Jim Connaughton: Well, in the next 10 to 20 years we are currently working to achieve the president's goal of improving the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent by 2012. That's how much you emit per unit of GDP. I'm pleased to say that we are well on track to meeting that goal. In fact, last year, stunningly, America saw a 3.3 percent increase in our GDP, but we actually had a net reduction of CO2 of about 1.3 percent. So this was the first time that America has seen a real reduction in CO2 in the wake of substantial economic growth. The only two other times we've seen that in recent history have been in relation to a recession. And certainly nobody is suggesting that we should make progress on climate change by putting our economy into a recession. So this is a very positive indicator that we can become leaner, more efficient, start investing in new technologies, while still growing our economy.
It's laudable that U.S. CO2 emissions went down last year. But Connaughton basically admits here that the whole concept of "greenhouse gas intensity" is deceptive, because it obfuscates actual emissions levels. If emissions go up slower than GDP, this statistic suggests progress on greenhouse gas emissions. That might look good in a soundbite, but it won't get us where we want to be. Note also that CO2 is only one greenhouse gas -- the administration has been touting CO2 emissions a lot this year, which suggests that the complete picture may be less rosy.
The interview later turns to a familiar laughable point.
Read on »
Posted by ianhart at 8:26 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 30, 2007
Category: Think Tanks
Here's a nugget to start the week: MediaMatters, an organization that works to expose bias, discrimination, and misinformation in the news, has put together a Global Warming: Misinformation Action Center. Bookmark it!
Posted by integrityofscience at 5:06 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 25, 2007
Category: Spin
John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality are still peddling their Feb. 7 Open Letter on the President's Position on Climate Change, a letter that plays fast-and-loose with the historical record. Despite having portions debunked cherry-picking data and misquoting President Bush, it showed up yesterday as an op-ed in the Leading the News section of The Hill under the headline President Bush consistently has addressed climate change issues.
First off, note the difference between "consistently has addressed" and "has addressed consistently." At least the headline was honest, since the President's may consistently address the issue without addressing it consistently (as has been the case). Headlines aside, here's what's wrong with this open-letter-turned-op-ed.
These responsible policies are working. America's emissions performance since 2000 is among the best in the world.
According to the International Energy Agency, from 2000 to 2004, as our population increased and our economy grew by nearly 10 percent, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by only 1.7 percent. By comparison, during the same period, European Union carbon dioxide emissions grew by 5 percent, with lower economic growth.
On March 12, the Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick shows why this is a deceiving case of cherry-picking data.
Between 2000 and 2001, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions temporarily declined because of the modest recession, and the dramatic drop in air traffic and travel following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Thus, the only way to support a statement that the U.S. is "doing a better job of reducing emissions" is by choosing a starting date of 2000.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 2:01 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 12, 2007
Category: General
For those of you in the Bay Area, look for me on TV tonight. I just taped an interview serving as a counterpoint to the AEI and Pacific Research Institute-backed documentary "An Inconvenient Truth ... or Convenient Fiction?" Tonight is its World Premeire in San Francisco.
Click here for the official line on the documentary.
Barring breaking news, look for the story on San Francisco's KGO-TV ABC 7 at 11 tonight. If it makes the web, I'll be sure to blog it tomorrow.
The documentary is presented by Dr. Steven Hayward. By reputation, it does not refute global warming, just humanity's role in it -- by nitpicking the science in "An Inconvenient Truth."
Update
The story ran. Unfortunately, it did not make the cut of stories featured on-line, so if you missed it, you missed it. Most of the focus was on Dr. Hayward, who talked of objecting to alarmism although no specific scientific criticism made the story. I'm happy that I was able to interject two ideas into the story: that this kind of film creates more confusion than knowledge in the public sphere; and that PRI's and AEI's funders should be taken into account (the reporter asked him whether having oil backing may have influenced the film; such scrutiny was absent from a competing broadcast's coverage).
For a story that ran earlier on the day that includes lclimate change analysis from both Envirnonment California and the Pacific Research Institute, click here.
Posted by integrityofscience at 5:20 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category:
The Seattle Post Intelligencer editorial page didn't hold back in opining on Monday's federal appeals court rejection of a Bush Administration salmon restoration plan.
In strong and appropriate terms, a federal court has rejected the false ways the administration tried to revise science and the law to ignore the role of four lower Snake River dams in destroying salmon runs. The administration claimed the dams had to be treated as part of the natural landscape. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the feds had indulged themselves in "sleight of hand," manipulation and a uniquely "cramped view" of their ability to protect endangered species.
Thanks to reader TER for sending the editorial, which you can read in full here. I visited Seattle for the first time in February. It is a fantastic city. And from Native American carvings to the Pike Place Market to top-notch restaurants, there's no denying salmon's role in city's culture, so I'm not surprised that the PI wasn't pulling punches on this one.
And the trip from Opinion to Comics takes us from salmon to polar bears. Today's Sylvia (definitely one of the more underrated strips out there) muses about not talking about the polar bear (hat-tip to Michael Halpern at UCS) Click the cartoon for the punchline.
Posted by integrityofscience at 9:42 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 6, 2007
Category: General
With a calculator in one hand and a red pen in the other, the White House Office of Management and Budget is in an ugly light when it comes to scientific integrity and policymaking.
The calculator hit yesterday with a recess appointment that is directly related to January's OMB rule change (see "New Oversight Policy Bad for Science-based Decisionmaking"). With Congress out on Easter break, President Bush appointed Susan E. Dudley to serve as director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB. Dudley is considered to be the main influence -- if not the author -- of the January amendments to Executive Order 12866. Those amendments greatly enhanced the regulatory oversight of political appointees in federal agencies. In other words, if the EPA wants to implement a new carbon dioxide regulation, they must not only clear the normal stretch of hurdles, but a new appointee and and Dudley, who is notably anti-regulation.
President Bush on Wednesday appointed as his top regulatory official a conservative academic who has written that markets do a better job of regulating than the government does and that it is more cost-effective for people who are sensitive to pollution to stay indoors on smoggy days than for the government to order polluters to clean up their emissions.
[...]In congressional testimony, Dudley has favored dispensing with costly air pollution controls and initiating a pollution warning system "so that sensitive individuals can take appropriate 'exposure avoidance' behavior" -- mostly by remaining inside.
She opposed stricter limits on arsenic in drinking water, in part because she argued that the Environmental Protection Agency's calculations of the costs and benefits overvalued some lives, particularly those of older people with a small life expectancy.
She has argued that air bags should not be required by government regulation but requested by automobile consumers willing to pay for them.
[...] Her nomination stalled because the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which held the hearing (in November 2006), didn't vote on it.
Source
Her reliance over what she, by reputation, narrowly defines "market failure" and cost-benefit analysis means that efforts to regulate pollutants, no picnic for federal agencies in the first 6+ years of this administration, just got tougher. We don't know Dudley personally, but the tunnel-vision Microeconomics 101 thinking she expresses suggests that she has never gone jogging on a smoggy day, been involved in a car crash, or argued with a libertarian. It also assumes that everyone has ready access to air conditioning.
Cost-benefit analysis has its place in policymaking. But any notion that it is without bias is foolhardy. The definition and quantification of costs and benefits is inherently biased, and as such, should never prove to be a sole determination of a policy's viability -- regulatory or otherwise. Just as science can not and should not be the sole determinant of a policy decision.
With this appointment and its rule changes, the administration is changing the rules to devalue science in rulemaking.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 5:44 AM • 2 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 29, 2007
Category: Humor
In attempts to find climate changing culprits aside from greenhouse gases, numerous suggestions have been made. Some have been plausible but didn't match the data. Others were dubious. One, however, is downright devious.
We're talking, of course, about Lex Luthor.
The plays on "Inconvenient Truth" keep coming. In the tradition of "Brokeback to the Future" and "Must Love Jaws," some bright folks have mashed up the theatrical trailers for "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Superman Returns." Throw in a few Al Gore overdubs and you get "An Inconvenienced Superman," a movie where Lex Luthor is the menace behind global warming, Al Gore is the messenger, and Superman would rather not be bothered. You can check out the short here.
How much easier would fighting climate change be if it was just like fighting a supervillain? Or any singular source that can be vilified? Who might defend Luthor? Would it be any weirder than this bizzaroworld?
Posted by integrityofscience at 6:26 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 27, 2007
Category:
Last week, Tom the Dancing Bug introduced us to a parallell universe, where Al Gore never won the Best Documentary Oscar. Click below for the full cartoon.
Posted by integrityofscience at 10:17 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 26, 2007
Category: General
It's taking all weekend to sort through everything that happened last week, a banner one if you're concerned about scientific integrity. Thankfully, we can stream the past.
The biggest science integrity news of the week had to be the House Committee on Government and Reform's continued investigation on political interference with climate science. From Chairman Waxman's opening comments:
Since our first hearing on January 30, we have received over eight boxes of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The document production is not yet complete. But some of the information the Committee has already obtained is disturbing. It suggests there may have been a concerted effort directed by the White House to mislead the public about the dangers of global climate change.
It is too early in this investigation to draw firm conclusions about the White House's conduct. But today's hearing will help us learn more about those efforts and provide guidance on whether further investigation is warranted.
A video of the hearing and transcripts of testimony can be found here. The highlight is the testimony of Philip Cooney, former Council on Environmental Quality Chief. He's best known as the non-scientist who watered down three major climate change reports, then skittered off to work at Exxon Mobile immediately after these actions came to light. A PDF of his testimony is available here. E&E Daily reported on this portion of the hearing.
Cooney said he believed his White House duty was to "align executive branch reports with Bush administration policy."
Cooney repeatedly said that his edits were based on a government-requested 2001 report on climate science by the National Academy of Sciences.
"I had the authority and responsibility to make recommendations to the documents in question, under an established interagency review process," Cooney said. "I did so using my best judgment, based on the administration's research priorities, as informed by the National Academy of Sciences."
But Democrats questioned Cooney's remarks, based on internal administration documents they obtained during their ongoing probe and on Cooney's 15 years of work for the American Petroleum Institute before he joined the administration.
"When I look at the role you played at API and at the White House, they seem virtually identical," Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. "In both places, you seem to seed doubt on global warming."
Waxman and other Democrats went line by line through Cooney's edits, comparing them with the NAS text they said offered a far different view of climate science. Source (subscription required)
This was Cooney's first time testifying publicly since leaving CEQ.
Arguably as big (and certainly commanding more media attention) was Al Gore's testimony before the House Science and Environment Committee.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 6:59 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 14, 2007
Category: General
From Union of Concerned Scientists:
WASHINGTON (March 14, 2007) - The House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would, for the first time, grant federal scientists and contractors the right to expose political interference in their research without fear of retribution. The bill passed by a 331 to 94 vote, with 229 Democrats and 102 Republicans voting in favor.
The House soundly rejected an amendment from Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) that would have stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation. Instead, the legislators included an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) giving scientists the right to present their research at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 5:21 PM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 12, 2007
Category: General
In Friday NCAA men's hoops, Arkansas beat Vanderbilt 82-81, advancing the Razorbacks to the SEC Semi Finals and sending the Commodores back to class for now. Now imagine, if following his team's defeat, Vanderbilt coach Kevin Stallings had had this to say in the post-came news conference:
"If you look at the score since half time, we actually beat Arkansas." Despite the fact that Vanderbilt did, in fact, outscore Arkansas in the second half (42-39), Stallings would be the laughing stock of the league.
Yet that's essentially what the White House did last month when Press Secretary Tony Snow said in a press conference,
I would point out that the carbon -- that there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe. We are doing a better job of reducing emissions here. Source
The White House later cited emissions data comparing the U.S. and E.U. that would seem to support this assertion. But they were covering up two-thirds of the scorecard. The Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick explains how in "The Political and Selective Use of Data: Cherry-Picking Climate Data in the White House."
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 6:04 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 7, 2007
Category: Humor
It's been more than 3 weeks, 6 flights, 4 states, 2 presentations, 1 AAAS meeting, 1 new nephew, and more than 1500 new e-mail messages since our last post. Sorry 'bout the lapse. It's a busy time in the world of scientific integrity, but we hope to be back up to pace shortly.
In the meantime, here's a nugget from last week's
This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow. You can view the full cartoon over at
Working for Change. It's a little ham-fisted, sure, but we love our weekly Tom Tomorrow fix, and we'll take his rants on science politicization any way we can get them.
Given all predicted hub-bub over the two Oscar wins for An Inconvenient Truth, the constant derision of Al Gore is as topical as ever.
I think the greatest strength of this comic is its punchline.
Posted by integrityofscience at 4:03 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 13, 2007
Category: Congressional Oversight
Two House Committees are currently running a concurrent hearing to discuss revised Executive Order 12866, the January 18 Order that looks to delay and constrain several federal agencies' abilities to implement new regulations and provide guidance to businesses, doctors, and others. E&E Daily (subscription required) reports that the official in charge of implementing the new rule will testify.
Steven Aitken, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will testify before the (House Judiciary Committee's) Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee at 2 p.m. The hearing is scheduled hours after a House Science and Technology subcommittee convenes its own discussion on Executive Order 12866.
Details on the Judiciary Committee's hearing can be found at "Amending Executive Order 12866: Good Governance or Regulatory Usurpation?"
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 12:40 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 8, 2007
Category: Congressional Oversight
Political distortions of the scientific process have undergone a dramatic rise in Washington over the past six years, according to the Senate testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick's testimony (download - PDF) was provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity Wednesday. Misuse of science and attacks on scientists, Gleick finds, have been pervasive and categorical.
Good, independent science - indeed good information in general - is crucial to making good political decisions. ... It is difficult enough to make intelligent policy choices given the complexities of today's political, environmental, economic, and social challenges. It is almost impossible when good science or data are ignored or distorted, or when bad science is sought out to support pre-determined political conclusions.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 2:54 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 7, 2007
Category: Congressional Oversight
Bill Brennan, acting director of the Climate Change Science Program, was spinning the White House's treatment of scientists at this morning's Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity.
"The administration takes the concerns of its scientists very seriously, and each department and agency is reviewing -- and modifying, if necessary -- its policies to ensure government scientists do not face censorship on any scientific matter," Brennan said. Source (subscription required)
Brennan's written testimony is available here (PDF). It does not address any allegations of interference head-on, but toward the end it takes a turn for the absurd:
"The Administration has been clear that climate change is a serious problem, the Earth is warming and humans are the leading cause."
Unless he is referring to the past month exclusively, that statement is untrue on its face. The Administration's sheer lack of clarity is well documented -- you don't need a Freedom of Information Act request -- just watch the Daily Show.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 11:09 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Humor
The Daily Show is reporting that Punxsutawney Phil has been reassigned for statements he made during last week's Groundhog Day celebration in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.
After attempting to use media attention to warn against the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, Phil was put back in his hole. Not a week later, he has been reassigned to a Whac-a-Mole machine. Oh the indignity. You can view the video here.
Phil's fate is, of course, parody of the not-so-funny experiences of some federal agency scientists. Those real stories will likely come up at the Senate Hearing on Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity taking place later this morning.
Posted by integrityofscience at 3:00 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
February 2, 2007
Category: Think Tanks
The American Enterprise Institute offered British and American scientists cash for critique of the just-released IPCC report, according to UK's Guardian newspaper.
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).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.- Source
Given that these letters appear to have been distributed widely, there must be a copy out there. Anyone?
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 10:58 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category:
In Wednesday's column, Boston Globe opinion writer Derrick Z. Jackson draws an interesting contrast between two presidents' handling of the nation's body of science in the face of adversity.
Publicly, President Eisenhower downplayed the significance of Sputnik. A "useless hunk of iron." Privately, he rallied his cabinet under its guidance created NASA and expanded the NSF.
On the eve of the latest IPCC report and in the face of increasingly dramatic evidence of climate change, President George W. Bush has, well, done the opposite. From the column "Bush spaces out during Sputnik moment":
The attitude toward science in the current White House has palled into the most appalling state since Eisenhower. Scientists feel so isolated that it barely registered that Bush said he would "confront the serious challenge of global climate change" in his State of the Union address.
One reason is obvious. Bush responded to climate change with chump change for climate science. Eisenhower responded to a Soviet satellite with NASA. Under Bush, NASA satellites are fading into useless hunks of iron.
The symbolism of NASA's climate satellites paints a sharp contrast between two presidents. Ike knew when to lead and when to listen to expert opinion. Bush, meanwhile, is the Decider, tying up NASA's resources in a low-priority, highly expensive manned mission to Mars. Where the earlier president put out fires, the later chooses inopportune times to clean out his junk drawer.
Posted by integrityofscience at 6:45 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 30, 2007
Category: Congressional Oversight
The reports from today's hearing, "Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists," are coming in. Hosted by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing will be the first of many such investigative hearings. Part of the story is that documents demanded from the Council on Environmental Quality were not delivered on time, and then failed to meet the criteria of documents that were requested. So, in short, the Administration got off on the wrong foot ...
We're still digesting everything that happened today, but here's what we're chewing on:
Primary Material:
Hearing home page. This is the mother load on today's hearing. Waxman's statement, notice and witness list, testimony, and more. From the Committee's letter to CEQ Chairman James Connaughton:
We are writing to express our concern over your failure to provide the Committee with the documents we have requested in our inquiry into whether senior Administration officials edited scientific reports and took other actions to minimize the significance of global warming.
Over the past six months, we have had numerous communications with CEQ about this document request. [...]
In a letter sent yesterday evening, however, you indicated that you would produce nine of (39) documents to the Committee. [...]
The Committee must be able to take custody of the documents in order to make a thorough and complete review. During this review process, we will give due consideration to the concerns you have raised. But unless the President is prepared to assert a constitutional claim of executive privilege, the documents sought by the Committee should be provided without further delay.
Yowza.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 3:06 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 29, 2007
Category: General
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be releasing the first of four reports on Friday, including a 12-page summary of policy recommendations. In its first report since 2001, it finds that the planetary warming observed since 1950 is 90% likely to be due from human activities.
Predictably, climate science deniers are already throwing stones. More surprising is the story that some scientists are predicting the report will be too optimistic. From the Associated Press:
Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:
They "don't take into account the gorillas - Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century." [...]
The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.
This minor controversy seems to run in the opposite direction of the newly-dubbed non-skeptical heretic movement.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 3:16 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: General
A Congressional hearing on politicization of science will take place Tuesday morning.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), will be holding a hearing on "Allegations of Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists." For a preview of some of the material that will be discussed, check out the information that the Committee is requesting from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (letter - PDF) regarding editing of scientific reports and "other actions to minimize the significance of global warming." The hearing will begin at 10 a.m.
In an interview with E&E Daily shortly after the November elections, Rep. Waxman said of political interference in science, "Democrats are not going to sweep this issue under the rug. If the administration tries to censor scientists or sweep science under the rug, they're not going to get away with it."
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 1:09 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 25, 2007
Category: Australia
Recently, Australia's leaders seem to have been second only to the Bush Administration in their denial of the consensus around climate science. Just in case anyone thought being a researcher in Australia was all toast and Vegemite (not that we've actually heard that anywhere), the Sydney Morning Herald paints a picture of Aussie scientists who look a bit like some of their beleaguered Yankee counterparts. From "California dreaming, to stop an environmental nightmare":
"Those of us who inherited this idea of Australia as a team player in the world have had to adjust over the last couple of years. We are no longer perceived as being supporters of the UN or the world scientific enterprise. To meet someone for the first time and have them badmouth Australia, whether justified or not, is not easy" (said Dr Tony Haymet, former chief of marine and atmospheric science at CSIRO, now at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography).
At CSIRO Haymet was responsible for reviewing the organisation's guidelines on scientists speaking out publicly, after several scientists said they had been gagged by the Government from speaking out about global warming issues.
As the director of Scripps, Haymet has found himself at the forefront of climate-change research, and at the forefront of a political debate that is being fostered by government, not stifled.
The article is worth reading for both the experiences of Australia's climate scientists and for Sydney's take on climate research in California.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 5:30 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 23, 2007
Category: Spin
Spinmeister Frank Luntz spoke with Salon recently, touching on a number of Washington buzz topics. If you're not familiar with him, check out the infamous Luntz memo, and you will understand why he is a chief enemy of transparent policy and scientific debate. At the end of the print interview, they touch on global warming:
(Salon) Bush plans to outline a global warming policy in his State of the Union address this week. The GOP spent years spreading doubt that there was consensus in the scientific community about global warming, but in recent years Bush has changed his position. So, considering the doubt that he's helped spread, how do you think that he should talk about it to get Americans engaged in the issue?
(Luntz) He has to be straightforward. Those on the left will condemn him for waiting so long, and those on the right will criticize him for selling out, and the answer is to stand up for your conviction and his beliefs. If his opinion has changed, say so.
(cont.)
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 11:35 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: Pop Culture
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has nominated "An Inconvenient Truth" for an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. The announcement was made this morning. Prepare yourself for savage overuse of the phrase "liberal Hollywood elite" and its permutations between now and the February 28 awards show.
Al Gore, unsurprisingly, is thrilled that the 3rd highest-grossing documentary of all-time has been recognized by the academy.
"The film ... has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world," Gore said in an e-mail statement. "I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference." Source
"An Inconvenient Truth" will compete against such light fare as "Deliver Us From Evil" (Catholic church sex abuse scandal), "Iraq in Fragments" (Sunni-Shiite conflict), "Jesus Camp" (just what it sounds like), and "My Country, My Country" (the 2005 Iraq elections). And while Hollywood can get nasty with its Oscar campaigns, we wonder if the science muddiers will join this fray.
The documentary actually got a second nomination. But to earn two Oscars, Gore will have to take down Beyoncé.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 10:25 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 19, 2007
Category: General
President Bush signed a whole heap of bad yesterday. Amendments to a Clinton-era executive order will substantially increase the influence of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over federal agencies such as NASA, the EPA, and the FDA. From Greenwire (subscription required):
Under revised Executive Order 12866, each agency must install a presidential appointee as its "regulatory policy officer," reporting to the agency head and involved "at each stage of the regulatory process." The Clinton order created the policy officer post but did not specify what type of agency employee should fill it.
Agencies will not be able to begin developing any rule without the approval of the political appointees, who will also oversee a yearly listing of their agencies' "best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits" of all planned regulations.
Agencies must also submit to OMB the "specific market failure" that each proposed regulation would address, to determine "whether any new regulation is warranted."
The order also changes the way agencies handle guidance documents. They will now be subject to pre-publication review by the White House through OMB, which already had the power to review proposed federal regulations.
The order divides guidance documents into two classes, creating a new group of "significant" documents for which OMB could demand "additional consultation" before allowing their public release.
"Significant" documents include those that would "lead to an annual impact of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities."
The original Clinton executive order applied that definition only to proposed regulations, not guidance documents.
If you suddenly taste a little vomit in the back of your mouth, you're entitled.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 2:44 PM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
January 17, 2007
Category: General
On October 1 of last year, the EPA closed the libaries in its headquarters and several regional braches (Federal Record notice). The penny-pinching Bush Administration policy is now on hold, pending congressional review. According to Greenwire (subscription required):
Responding to a request from Democratic lawmakers, EPA will put on hold its plan to shutter facilities and destroy materials it deems to be duplicates or obsolete. EPA deputy press secretary Jessica Emond said the agency is waiting word from Congress on how to proceed.
The White House is seeking to cut $2 million from EPA's Library Network in order to trim the overall national budget. Thus far, EPA has shut down five regional libraries and limited access in four others.
Supporters of the plan have said patrons have been increasingly requesting library materials electronically in recent years, making the physical collections less necessary. However, library advocates have warned that the cutbacks will cripple the research system.
Could the administration's effort to further divide scientific knowledge and the public be more plain, particularly given that it was closing library doors before plans for digitizing material were even solidified? Congress hadn't even provided the EPA funds with which to digitize those materials.
Read on »
Posted by integrityofscience at 12:04 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
Category: General
Some stories we're reading but won't have time to blog:
"Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies" from today's Washingotn Post
"Exxon meets green groups as climate focus surges" from Reuters
"
Founded in 1987 and based in Oakland, California the Pacific Institute is an independent, nonpartisan think-tank studying issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.
