My jaw dropped. I simply couldn't believe what I was reading.
As a journalist who has written extensively about how the Bush administration has misused, distorted, and in some cases suppressed scientific information about global warming over the past six years, I never thought I'd find a statement like this coming out of the White House: "Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem."
The quotation came in a letter signed by two high ranking White House officials, Office of Science and Technology Policy director John Marburger and Council on Environmental Quality chair James Connaugton. And with these words, both of them--public servants whose salaries you and I are paying--were lying to the public.
In the year 2006 alone, it's quite easy to document not one, not two, but three instances in which President Bush publicly questioned the fundamental scientific finding--the subject of broad and ever-growing expert consensus--that humans are driving the ongoing global warming trend through their greenhouse gas emissions.
Bush in March: "First of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural."
Bush in June: "I have said consistently that global warming [is] a serious problem. There is a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused."
Bush in July: "I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate."
How this can be deemed "consistently" acknowledging that "climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem," I cannot conceive.
But another element of the White House's letter was even more audacious. "Beginning in June 2001," Marburger and Connaughton claimed, Bush had acknowledged the human contribution to global warming. As evidence, they offered this quotation from a speech the president delivered on June 11, 2001: “First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.”
But ellipses are tricky things. You can use them to make almost anything sound like almost anything. You can even use them to misquote and misrepresent the president of the United States.
Here is what Bush actually said on that occasion, quoting the relevant part in full without any ellipses:
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.
You will note that the "increase" being referred to here is in greenhouse gas emissions, not in temperatures (as the White House's misquotation of the president tried to make it appear). Indeed, nowhere in Bush's statement does he clearly embrace the National Academy of Sciences' fundamental and inescapable 2001 finding that "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising." At best, Bush dances around acknowledging this result. You could also say that he was obfuscating.
So in sum, the White House deceived the public, trying to rewrite history and erase Bush's indelible record of skepticism on the subject of human-caused global warming. It's pretty outrageous behavior. And I must say, I'm really glad to see it happen.
The White House's dubious repositioning can really only mean one thing: It's just not acceptable any more to doubt that the planet's warming. Previous "skeptics"--like Bush--are embarrassed and backing away. They're trying to pretend that they never actually said what they said.
In an ideal world, we'd have a president who both a) accepts the science of global warming and b) doesn't misrepresent his record on this or any other subject. But considering the world we actually live in, I'd say that one out of two isn't bad.
Now, we can only hope that Bush's six years of skepticism about human-caused global warming--about which he's now in denial--won't prove too disastrous a setback when it comes to actually dealing with the problem.
----
Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Storm World. For more information, check out his bio, scheduled events, articles archive, Wikipedia entry, and YouTube speeches.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 54
I think a bit more of it needs to be posted (rather than Mr. Mooney's cherry picking)
This quote directly follows Mr. Mooney's quote:
"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
A significant "but" in the implication of man as the reason the planet is warming.
reputable, honorable, truthful, and trustworthy presidents say its so...
so it must be so, right?
we all know, presidents don't lie...
psst Mr. Gore...shout LOUDER!
The 2001 report from NAS is ancient history at this point. the recent IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" just about rules out the idea that the observed temperature rise could be natural in origin. This may be what is tempting the White House to attempt a revision of Bush's past position.
But Bush still remembers that lovely oil industry cash that helped put him in the White House in the first place. So the one thing you will NEVER get from Bush is a proposal for real action to combat climate change.
And, while we're at it...someone please explain the climate model from the Middle Ages, and how strikingly similar it is to present day. Where, pray tell, were all the cars, factories, etc.? CO2 levels were high then, too. Perhaps it was the exhalations of all of algore's ancestors as they shouted to the (thatched) rooftops.."the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!"
Or, could it be that those similarities might be due to similar sun activities then and now? Hmmmmmmmmm?
"the recent IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" just about rules out the idea that the observed temperature rise could be natural in origin."
You mean where previously claimed it likely that man had contributed to global warming and currently they claim it very likely?
Is that what you mean by "just about rules out the idea that the observed temperature rise could be natural in origin."
Yah, that's how I would interpret that language change, NOT.
As for Chandra: We are talking rises in the area of one to two degrees in sea temperature over years. Precise measurements of this type were not even possible in the middle ages. Similar is not the same. The parts of the world where the rise in sea temperature contributes to this phenomenon were not yet discovered during the Middle Ages so exactly how were those temperatures taken in the first place and where are they preserved for science to consult today?
Then again, I suppose having your head in the sand isn't a bad thing when it comes to filtering those pollutants out.
Since all but a very few people realize that man contributes to pollution (this is an undeniable fact since you can actually see it in the air when it's bad enough) why are they so resistant to trying to fix the part we make? Even if natural cycles contribute to part of the phenomenon (which nobody denies) it's pretty obvious that if we as humans reduce our emissions it will make a difference.
1) Any new environmental laws could have negative effects on U.S. businesses.
2) The evangelical Christians who put Bush in the White House believed that the word would soon be ending anyway.
There is nothing new here really, and Bush's comments echo an awfully lot of people, right or wrong. The Earth is getting warmer now they say, as it has naturally before for unknown reasons, we are probably contributing to the current rise, but nobody knows how much, etc., etc.
Yes, we should look at cutting back on greenhouse or any other gases; anything we put in the air can't help it, and must to some level be bad news. Now, what does everybody want to do........? Kyoto is a dead duck, signatory countries have actually increased their emissions, we need some new ideas.
Thanks.
I can not disagree with most of what you have posted.
What I resist is the posting of articles that misconstrue the facts as to imply that if we do every thing the greenies suggest that we can avert global warming. Which the fact simply don't support.
Even the Kyoto accords imply a lack of urgency in their planned implementation, (despite their chicken little publicity campaign) Why would they suggest technologically challenged countries be allowed to continue to pump far more particulate matter into our atmosphere and create an ingenious pollutant credit trading scheme if the situation was so dire?
Answer? The situation is not that dire and they know it. And they also know that they don't know if the implementation of all their climate change programs will work to stop or delay global warming.
I for one believe we should strive to protect our environment, research and implement alternative energy, restrict the production of greenhouse gasses but in order to do these things we need to have a vibrant economy something the Kyoto accords would have severely restricted.
It's cyclic, as is all this warming (and cooling) of the Earth. And no one has any definitive answers. Why? Because our verifiable data only covers the last 100 years.
Thanks for all the replies to my piece. I'm going to get in here and answer some of them in detail, but first I'd like to point out that this story is already moving, and has changed even since I wrote this piece. Cheney is now backing away from the scientific consensus on global warming and a White House spokesperson seems to be following his lead. The White House may not have accepted the latest science after all. Details at my website (I don't know how links work at Gather so I've tried to hyperlink and posted the basic link):
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/
Dan E.'s second post is also misleading. The current IPCC summary for policymakers increased our confidence that *most* of the warming is human caused. They're not merely talking about humans *contributing* to global warming; they are saying there is a 9 in 10 chance that we are the dominant force driving most of the global warming that we've seen so far. Here is the full relevant quotation from the latest report:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.' Discernible human influences now
extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"
The report can be read in PDF here.
All due respect, how do we KNOW it's us puny humans doing all the damage?
And don't give me a "consensus of scientists" answer. If a consensus of scientists decided the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese would we change all the scientific texts to reflect same?
Scientific facts should be presented as FACT. Black/White - there is no grey...that is if you want us to believe what is happening is our fault.
Chris? The bottom line is that extreme pollution deniers will never budge an inch on the assessment that some of what is going on with global greenhouse gasses has anything whatever to do with any climate change. They can look at the Los Angeles basin and not see the thick brown layer of pollution that hangs there, they can look at London since coal ceased to be the major source of heating and deny that there are no longer the killer fogs there used to be. They can look at the soot that used to cover many east coast cities and flatly denied that were it in their lungs rather than on the ground that it could possibly cause any problems.
You can tell they are working hard to maintain their denial by the fact that they believe that global warming is a black and white issue. Either mankind is contributing 100% to it or they contribute nothing and it's all natural and the gunk we pump into the air by the ton doesn't exist. It simply vanished the instant it hits the atmosphere.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
Now, the thing is that in science, you can never rule out other explanations for an observed phenomenon. Arguing the existence of *a* cause for something you observe is much harder than proving it's *the only* cause. But over the course of the past 6 years, scientists have gone from greenhouse gasses being the "likely" dominant cause (66-90% certainty) to it being very likely (greater than 90%), according to the IPCC.
The bottom line is, that competing explanations just cannot compete with the best and most obvious explanation, that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming:
"Some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we don't yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But "perhaps" is not evidence."
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21348
This is why so many Republicans have for several years agreed that the debate is over. And major US corporations (General Electric, for example) are coming around as well. The Bush administration is far behind these people...
"They're not merely talking about humans *contributing* to global warming; they are saying there is a 9 in 10 chance that we are the dominant force driving most of the global warming that we've seen so far."
Ahh… The quote you posted directly after your above statement made no reference to a 90% chance that man is the reason for global warming, I also briefed through the 18 page summary and found no reference to man being 90% responsible for global warning. (as you post implies)
Chris tell me this, there was a warming trend that began in the year 1000 it peaked in 1200 and had dissipated by 1400. According to the historic C02 chart there was no appreciable increase at the time, so how do the global warming theorists explain a warming trend without rising C02 levels?
"In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%."
And there are many, many things that can cause a warming trend without rising CO2 levels. The planet has gone through dramatic cycles of warming and cooling in the past due to anything from orbital changes to volcanic eruptions....I don't know how to attribute all past changes but that's not the point. Whatever caused past changes, *we're* now the cause of current changes, which is new and troubling.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/221054/33
And here's something more technical on why the Medieval Warm Period happened:
"Uncertainties (as recently outlined in the NAS report) increase as you go back in time, and that applies to our knowledge of the climate drivers as well as to temperatures. So much so that even a medieval period a couple of tenths of a degree warmer than today would still be consistent with what we know about solar forcing and climate sensitivity within the commonly accepted uncertainties."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/
In other words, scientists are not surprised that it happened, given what they know about climate, but they don't know the exact cause.
I reviewed a book called The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 by Brian Fagan (Basic Books, 2000) on my Science Shelf website.
The point of the book is that relatively small decreases in temperature during that period had major historical repercussions in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Irish Potato famine. The book is exceptionally well researched and well written. It goes on to point out that we need to pay attention to the possible social and geopolitical impacts of the coming climate changes.
In other words, climate is about to make history again, and our actions now can determine what that history will be.
To read the review:
http://www.scienceshelf.com/LittleIceAge.htm
I understand that you deny-ers consider the world science establishment to be corrupt, crazed, and beyond redemption. Tell me, when you go down to the doctor's office to get a prescription for some life-preserving medication, do you worry that his misguided political delusions will result in your death? No? Why the hell not, what's the difference.
You realize of course that you represent a small minority of public opinion. Did you notice that the state governments of California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona are working together on an emissions cap project for their states? Did you notice that the government of Australia is now banning incandescent light bulbs? Did you notice that Ted Stevens, the incredibly conservative Senator from Alaska, is now expressing his concern about what global warming is visibly doing to his State?
Mount St. Helens is considered the greatest polluter in Washington State. Mt Pinatbo's eruption lowered the earth's mean temperature for a year or two. There are natural causes and man made. Why not change what we can change and recognize the inevitablity of Mother Nature? The concepts are not in conflict.
btw chris mooney, your burn of Dan E was virtually certain with a >99% probability of occurence
I don't like having to "burn" people...but it's amazing some of the arguments you get on this subject. I've heard much weaker ones than the ones Dan E was making. Indeed, I've done so many radio shows in which, once the call lines get opened, all kinds of off-the-wall anti-global warming arguments start cropping up, with no basis in the scientific literature. To me, the fact that people just want to argue on this subject--no matter the argument--is proof most of all of how unfortunately politicized it has become. I mean, even Jerry Falwell has an opinion about it....don't hit the link if you don't want to get angry, though. He should have stuck with Teletubbies.
I do not exaggerate here, much, about the thought processes of the so called sceptics.
If natural global warming caused the oceans to rise, we could move inland, or build floating cities. So what. We could figure something out if another ice age hit, too.
The real problem is the poison we spew into the air, which increases asthma, cancer, etc.
His utility bill for his 20 room mansion is $30,000 last year. He consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. Plus he has 2 more homes. Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
He's a hypocrite.
Lera M.- who is talking about al gore? What does that have to do with the reality of climate change? I understand that crap goes over real big on sean hanity.Hurry, go secure your place in his Q,hurry now.
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2366&language=1
Supporting data. There used to be lakes in the Sahara 7, 000 years ago During the Holocene Climate Optimum, but when the temperature dropped, they dried up. During the Medieval Climate Optimum, there was a flourishing civilization in the American Southwest called the Anasazi. Around the world, there were lakes in China, Australia, and the Arabian peninsula that were at record levels. When the MCO ended, the Anasazi were wiped out, and the lakes in Arabia dried up.
I know we want our elite to have their beachfront property values protected, but when did scientists get so corrupt that the concept of "Optimum" must no longer pass their lips even when the concept is so clearly supported by present day trends and the paleoclimatological record? Now its ONLY looming disaster, with not a single word in the "debate" about the very wonderful things that could come to pass.
The poor destitute suffering people of Africa are faced with inescapable looming RELIEF! My God, we have to stop this from happening!
Idiots.
Maybe you are right about Al Gore, maybe you're not, all I know is that he made one hell of a documentary and I'm glad he won...whom-ever was voting for him. Regardless of what you feel he's done in the "past," with this documentary, he's done something for our "future!" I for one am going to help him out a little more, by purchasing this DVD "twice." I bought it once for myself and now I'm going to buy it again for my grandchildren to watch...as apparently they will be the one's who have to keep the ball rolling for the rest of us, as I can see from some of the posts on this issue that there are still many out there that negate global warming. Apparently those people don't care about their future generations. If you haven't watch his documentary yet, I suggest you do so...then ask yourself "why" is it that only the US and Australia are the only countries that don't back the Kyoto Treaty? We have way more people covering our country per sq. inch than Australia does, but even with that aside...both countries are "wrong," and we as a caring people need to be saying so, otherwise...we will affirm what the rest of the countries think about us. In blaming Gore for doing what you think he is doing wrong, only means that you can justify to yourself, your own contributions to the problem.
Heather E. Thank you for the website info. Will visit that shortly.
As for the hypocrite Al bore, his movie is so flawed and manipulative in it's use of "science" it should be put in the Sci-Fi section at blockbuster. All anyone needs to do is see how much of this polluting energy he uses to see where he truly stands. Ed Begley, he at least acts on his beliefs.
I agree with Sam : Mount St. Helens is considered the greatest polluter in Washington State. Mt Pinatbo's eruption lowered the earth's mean temperature for a year or two. There are natural causes and man made. Why not change what we can change and recognize the inevitablity of Mother Nature? The concepts are not in conflict. I would insert God , the creator in the place of Mother nature.
Are you a scientest?