Skip to main content
The largest online newspaper archiveArchive Home
The Cincinnati Enquirer from Cincinnati, Ohio • Page 58
A Publisher Extra® Newspaper

The Cincinnati Enquirer from Cincinnati, Ohio • Page 58

Location:
Cincinnati, Ohio
Issue Date:
Page:
58
Extracted Article Text (OCR)

F4 SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2009 THE ENQUIRER tolen e-mails embolden climate-change skeptics That hasn't stopped Senate Republicans. More than two dozen sent a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Thursday demanding that he launch an independent inquiry into the e-mails. GOP lawmakers say they will loundly and often raise questions about what they consider a corruption of climate science at the Denmark conference, where delegates from 192 nations are trying to forge a political agreement. It all began when hackers broke into a computer system belonging to a highly respected climate research center at Britain's University of East Anglia, stole several thousand e-mails spanning a decade between some of the world's leading climate scientists, and three weeks ago put some of the spiciest ones on the Internet One referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide the de doing something about this problem, the more shrill and the more dogmatic the skeptics become because they are trying their hardest to stand in front of a train essentially," said Claussen. Earlier this week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the agency had concluded, based on science, that greenhouse gases are a public health threat and should be regulated.

Rep. Ed Markey, and the co-author of the house-passed legislation, said the hacked e-mails scandal was being perpetuated by a "paid-for" coalition of deniers who are using it to distract people from the action the U.S. and world should be taking. These small number of deniers are out there still trying to derail something the rest of the world sees as an imperative for action," Markey said. cline" of temperatures.

Another disparaged the skeptics, and a scientist said "the last thing I need is news articles claiming to question temperature increases." Opponents of legislation before Congress to cap heat-trapping emissions and cut them as much as 17 percent by 2020 have seized on the e-mail disclosures and are likely to use them not only at the Copenhagen talks, but in the Senate debate of climate change early next year. "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy," insisted Rep. James Sensen-brenner, a longtime climate skeptic who is among a group of GOP lawmakers heading for Copenhagen. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said she's not surprised by the recent e-mail uproar. The closer you get to actually litical momentum when former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Obama should boycott the negotiations in Denmark and "not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices" a clear reference to the purloined e-mails from computers belonging to scientists at a British research center.

Obama is going anyway. Former Vice President Al Gore, the most recognized U.S. voice on climate change, quickly rebutted Palin and accused the climate deni-ers in an interview with CNN of "taking tilings out of context and misrepresenting" what the e-mails actually said. On Thursday, more than 1,700 British scientists released a statement saying they continue to have "the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." By H. Josef Hebert The Associated Press WASHINGTON At a critical time, the uproar over stolen e-mails suggesting scientists suppressed contrary views about climate change has emboldened skeptics -including congressional Republicans looking to scuttle President Barack Obama's push for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

The e-mail brouhaha, dubbed "Climategate" by doubters, comes as U.S. delegates to the international climate conference in Copenhagen are trying to convince the world the United States is determined to move aggressively to rein in heat-trapping pollution. To counter the delegates, a group of GOP lawmakers is going to Copenhagen to argue against mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. The climate skeptics gained po Analysis: New debate adds new challenge The Associated PressBikas Das Villagers walk on parched land south of Calcutta, India. Scientists have warned of an alarming rise in temperatures in the Bay of Bengal because of climate change, which could affect 1 million people in the region.

Does it seem warmer Yes, it is considered a wide range of data from other sources. Science, by its nature, is about probability, not certainty. And the persisting uncertainties in climate science leave room for argument. What is a realistic estimate of how much temperatures will rise? How severe will the effects be? Are there tipping points beyond which the changes are uncontrollable? Even climate scientists disagree on such questions. Both sides also have at times been criticized for overstatement in characterizing the scientific evidence.

The contents of the stolen e-mail messages and docu- ments have given fresh ammunition to the skeptics' camp. One widely discussed file extracted from the unit's computers, presumed to be the log of a researcher named Ian Harris, recorded his years of frustration in trying to make sense of rate data and described procedures or "fudge factors," as he called them used by scientists to eliminate known sources of error. The research in question concerned attempts to chart past temperature changes by studying tree rings and other indirect indicators, an area of research that has long been fraught with disputes. An influential study that drew in part on the British data was challenged in 2003. In 2006, a review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded, with some reservations, that "an array of evidence" supported the broad thrust of the research.

Whichever views prevail, the questions will undoubtedly linger well after the negotiators leave Copenhagen. From Page Fl itself is a reflection of the increasing acceptance of the scientific arguments: The negotiations leading to the talks were conducted by high-ranking officials of the world's governments rather than the scientists and environment ministers who largely shaped the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. For many, the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a marker of a shift in the global-warming debate. In it the panel concluded that no doubt remained that human-caused warming was under way and, if unabated, would pose rising risks. Over the last several decades, other reviews, by the National Academy of Sciences and other institutions, have largely echoed the panel's findings and said the remaining uncertainties should not be an excuse (or inaction.

Greenhouse gases warm the planet by letting in sunlight and blocking the escape of some resulting heat The physics of the greenhouse effect is so basic that instead of asking whether it would happen, it makes more sense to ask what on earth could make it not happen," said Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian. "So far nobody has been able to come up with anything plausible in that line." In reaching its conclusion, the climate panel relied only partly on data like that collected by the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, whose circulated e-mails set off the current uproar. It also Some climate pledges U.S.: President Barack Obama has pledged cutting emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. That represents a 3 to 4 percent cut from 1990 levels the benchmark used by most countries. Aims to reach a 41 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

Requires that Congress passes complex climate legislation. EU: Has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels. Willing to increase target to 30 percent if other developed countries make comparable commitments. Japan: Has set goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 if other developed countries make similar commitments. Vague about how it will achieve the target Australia: Wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

Russia: Has signaled to EU that it is ready to slash emissions by as much as 25 percent by 2020 if other developed countries do the same. Previously Russia had said it was willing to cut emissions by 10 to 15 percent from 1990 levels. Canada: Plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020. That is roughly a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels. By Charles J.

Hanley The Associated Press It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on recorded global temperature charts. Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead. Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere faced one threat together the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia. Over the decade's first nine global temperatures aver- aged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 grees Fahrenheit) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported.

And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth. The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans. On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too. TWO VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE Failing to act is irresponsible I A scientific double standard "rp "TV" of uncertainty attached? 1 I Likewise, modeling can- not usec to orm soun(' conclusions.

Government mous profits of many corporations and their lobbyists (as well as the campaign coffers of many politicians). The corporations and the skeptical scientists, whom they often fund, are able to sow doubt in the populace and block change. But even if the skeptics are correct, shouldn't we be aggressively seeking to change our energy system so that we are much less dependent on fossil fuels? John Metz is coordinator of geography in the department of history and geography at Northern Kentucky drug-approving authorities only accept it as supportive. A decade ago, all of the major climate models predicted an increase in temperature, but temperatures have remained flat. Climate scientists readily admit being unable to account for this but insist that more aggressive warming will come.

How can certainty be expressed about the future when the present isn't understood? Human bias also generates uncertainty. It is common in the general scientific community. At the same Ray D'Alonzo of Blue Ash, a visiting professor at the University of Massachusetts and a Procter Gamble retiree, has a doctorate in analytical chemistry and spent 22 years in industry managing medical Drug agencies worldwide, particularly our own Food and Drug Administration, demand the best scientific standards. Applying high standards is essential given the risks. Drugs that kill a small number of people have been withdrawn from the market even though they provide a significant benefit to millions.

Since global warming is anticipated by some to pose great risk if not death to millions of people by the end of the century, it would seem prudent if not mandatory to apply the same standards. But are they? Or is there a double standard? Government agencies require pharmaceutical companies to provide valid and reliable data subject to audit from well-designed prospective studies. Retrospective and modeling studies are not accepted because they cannot reduce uncertainty to an acceptable level. Medicine and climate research are similar in this regard. Retrospective studies depend on data often collected for a different purpose.

These data are subject to validity and reliability issues. For example, temperature data collected before climate science was in question was not collected for the purpose of determining if the planet was cooling or warming. These data may be official meteorological records, but this does not make them reliable and valid for such an analysis. How was the high temperature in Flagstaff, determined in 1900? Did someone stand in front of a thermometer all day long? Climate scientists know this. This is why adjustments (like those mentioned in Climategate) are made.

But that, can't obscure the fact that the results cannot be used to form conclusions with an acceptable level of uncertainty. Rather, it showcases the need to express conclusions with a high level of uncertainty. So why have conclusions about climate change been made with no expression Controversy surrounds the meeting in Copenhagen, not so much in the scientific community, but certainly within the broader society. In 1988 the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, an assembly of hundreds of atmospheric scientists from around the world, reviews and summarizes the scientific literature on patterns and hypothesized causes of global warming, producing reports at approximately five-year intervals.

These reports have identified, with increasingly probable evidence, human releases of greenhouse gasses as the primary cause of the warming that weather stations around the world have recorded. Even though the IPCC represents the conclusions of at least 90 percent of the world's atmospheric scientists, a minority see non-human factors, like solar radiation fluctuations, as the cause of observed warming. At the least, they argue, the claims are exaggerated and we don't know enough to take the drastic steps mainstream scientists and environmental groups argue we must Scientific results are always probabilistic, and the IPCC reports are careful to indicate the relative certitude of their conclusions. Some environmental groups and some scientists seem to forget that the projected impacts are probabilistic. But make no mistake, if we fail to act on these warnings, we are acting irresponsibly.

Yet society at large has no such consensus, and this is hardly surprising because the proposed solutions will be costly, will profoundly change our way of life and, more importantly, will reduce the enor- Fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive in dollars, environmental degradation and human lives. Coal destroys landscapes and communities and produces 50 percent more C02 than natural gas. New technologies have made the natural gas stored in US shale available, but how long gas will meet our needs is unclear, especially if we use gas to replace other fossil fuels. The easy oil is gone and new sources, like deep ocean extraction and oil sands, are only profitable at high crude prices. Most importantly, our dependence on oil has induced terrorism, killed thousands of our soldiers and created wars that consume trillions of dollars.

We must create a new energy system based on renewable sources and greatly enhanced efficiency. Change is coming: We can act proactive-ly to adjust to it or wait until crisis forces unplanned and chaotic responses. Based on the likely results of the Copenhagen conference, we will do little until crisis forces our hand. time, most researchers drawn into the clutches of bias are not dishonest Twenty years ago, all of medicine believed ulcers were caused by stomach acid in response to stress. Everyone was on the bandwagon except a few dissenting critics who felt bacterial infection was being dismissed as a cause.

The critics were right Today stomach ulcers are cured with antibiotics. Unlike medical research, climate research relies primarily upon retrospective studies and modeling while proclaiming results with absolute certainty. Why is it that governments who demand the application of the best scientific standards to medical research totally dismiss their application to climate science where the uncertainty, cost and alleged consequences are comparable, if not grear?.

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 300+ newspapers from the 1700's - 2000's
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Publisher Extra® Newspapers

  • Exclusive licensed content from premium publishers like the The Cincinnati Enquirer
  • Archives through last month
  • Continually updated

About The Cincinnati Enquirer Archive

Pages Available:
4,580,058
Years Available:
1841-2024