On top secrets and climate change

July 23, 2010

TOP SECRET:

The Washington Post has done a great job with its series showing that in the wake of 9/11, hundreds of private companies and nearly 854,000 people have gone to work in classified areas. Are they doing a great job? Maybe. There hasn’t been another 9/11. Are they trampling civil liberties? Maybe.

From years of observing Washington, my worry is that the new security bureaucracies are just like other bureaucracies — featherbedded with five people for each one who’s needed, groaning under the weight of senior managers who do little but fight over the signing of memos, dedicating 75 percent of daily time and effort to the staff’s own comforts and sinecure.

But we’re not allowed to question them because everything they do is secret! Set aside that federal agencies long have stamped TOP SECRET on newspaper articles or commercial airline itineraries. Federal personnel love the word “secret,” and all its variations, because it makes them seem more important.

In the post 9/11 reality, calling offices and companies TOP SECRET exempts them from scrutiny of need or cost-effectiveness. Where there is no scrutiny, there is overspending, empire building and fraud. How much of the last few years’ run-up in the national debt may trace to waste and featherbedding in the numerous new agencies and contractors hiding behind a claim that they are tracking down terrorists?

CLIMATE CHANGE:

It was sad to hear on Monday of the death of climate researcher Stephen Schneider, 65, of Stanford University, whom I knew slightly and debated on two occasions. Schneider was a true believer in the dangers of global warming. He was a warm and broadminded man, open to the opinions of others. He exhibited none of the shrillness that colors the climate-doomsday crowd.

Schneider thought greenhouse gas regulation would not happen until a reasonable middle ground is found between the doomsday left and naysayer right. No such middle ground is in view on any current horizon — this week’s acrimonious collapse of talks in the Senate about a greenhouse gas bill is evidence. Harsh, strident ideology on both sides is a reason the Senate bill failed. If all players in the climate change debate had even half the personal grace and geniality Schneider possessed, progress would be proceeding apace.

A small sidelight of Schneider’s career was that he played himself in the 1993 CBS miniseries Fire Next Time — nothing to do with the great James Baldwin book. The show depicted a United States reduced to ruins by global warming. Plus, survivors were in constant danger of exposure to bad dialogue! Set in the year 2017, the miniseries was classic Hollywood galimatias, showing a post-apocalyptic landscape unlike anything projected even by worst-case analysis. In the miniseries, Schneider appears as an aging scientist, lamenting that nothing was done while there was time. I wish he had been given the chance to live until 2017 and see that the world will be mostly fine.

Though scientific evidence of climate change continues to accumulate, polls show public belief in global warming is softening. A minor reason is the Climate-gate nonsense — the posting, on the Web, of hacked emails showing that prominent scientists on the global warming left were using data gimmicks while trying to shout down skeptics. Perhaps, but whoever did the hacking was violating the confidentiality of the correspondence of others, and we ought to be suspicious of the motives of unethical people.

Why hasn’t there been a backlash against the Climate-gate hacker — would we applaud someone who stole letters from a neighbor’s mailbox? The University of East Anglia, the place that was hacked, also looks bad, since its much-publicized “vindication” of the researchers involved was conducted by a committee paid for by the school. Of course the hired hands “vindicated” the organization that signed their paychecks! But enough already of Climate-gate.

More important to rising disbelief in climate change is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations agency that produces global warming studies, allowed itself to be hijacked by Al Gore and a few other phonies. When the IPCC shared the Nobel Prize stage with Gore, it consented to being equated in the public mind with Gore’s relentless self-promotion. A decade ago, the IPCC was apolitical. Now it’s a marketing organization, selling the climate-doomsday brand. A new authority on climate change is needed to supplant the IPCC.

Also diluting belief in climate change is high-and-mighty behavior of some – surely not all — in the science community. Recently the environmental radio show Earthbeat ran a segment in which Susan Hassol, who’s in the instant-doomsday camp, claimed that scientists researching global warming are subject to “McCarthyism.” McCarthyism? Most climate scientists enjoy academic tenure, while being darlings of the P.C. cocktail-party circuit.

Last year the federal government awarded $7 billion in climate change research grants, making life cushy for climate scientists. I don’t recall Joe McCarthy giving billions of dollars to State Department China hands! One climate pessimist, Michael Mann of Penn State, has indeed received unfair treatment from the far right, but then again Mann is a holier-than-thou type who is quick to denounce those who disagree with him, and one reaps what one sows.

Crying McCarthyism merely because scientists who make political claims receive political criticism — what else would you expect? — is self-righteous. This is the sort of behavior Stephen Schneider would have nothing to do with, and yet another reason his loss is felt.

14 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

[...] journ-uh-list (and global warming believer) would be Gregg Easterbrook, blogging for Reuters, in a longer post that for the most part is an eulogy to the recently passed Stephen Schneider. As [...]

The danger of politicizing climate change is that it leads people to thinking of political-style solutions (compromises) instead of physical actual real solutions (fix it). If we need to reduce CO2 to 350ppm, and we’re currently at 500ppm (or whatever), then reducing it to 425 is NOT A SOLUTION.

Posted by Thalya | Report as abusive

“A small sidelight of Schneider’s career was that he played himself in the 1993 CBS miniseries Fire Next Time — nothing to do with the great James Baldwin book. The show depicted a United States reduced to ruins by global warming. Plus, survivors were in constant danger of exposure to bad dialogue! Set in the year 2017, the miniseries was classic Hollywood galimatias, showing a post-apocalyptic landscape unlike anything projected even by worst-case analysis. In the miniseries, Schneider appears as an aging scientist, lamenting that nothing was done while there was time. I wish he had been given the chance to live until 2017 and see that the world will be mostly fine.”

And this is why the naysayers stay naysayers. Doom and gloom scientists are always wrong until we have an extinction event. How about instead of fighting climate change, we fight polution, work on cleaner burning fuels and cars, everything that everyone would agree we should do because of our immediate health, and energy independence. Side effect, reduce the greenhouse emissions. Don’t predict things that probably aren’t going to happen cause we see that the earth is in no danger to be post apocolayptic in 2017.

Conservatives should jump on board for programs for oil independence, conserving our natural resources, providing a clean and healthy environment for everyone. Instead the doom and gloom scientist try to push for immediate changes, the politicians use the doom and gloom forecasts to create new taxes and industries that fills their own coffers (Al Gore anyone?) and pushes industries and jobs overseas where the net effect is no reduction in emissions on a planetary scale.

Posted by Trooth | Report as abusive

I love how global warming changed its name to climate change when it realized its initial premise was flawed.

http://storyburn.com

Posted by STORYBURN15 | Report as abusive

Climate change is happening. And a high school level of knowledge in basic chemistry is enough to be able to understand what’s going on.

When something is burned it uses up oxygen and creates C02 and water. Over the years scientists have seen an overall drop in the oxygen content of the atmosphere and an increase in C02. Some will argue that volcanoes put out more C02 than fossil fuels do. But volcanic eruptions do not remove oxygen from the atmosphere. That’s because the heat from volcanoes comes from the magma down below. There is no burning of anything so oxygen is not depleted.

Those vehemently against the idea of climate change also don’t want to change the way we manage our energy production/consumption. But in truth, even if global warming was not an issue, why is it so bad to want to be more responsible with our environment and create non-polluting technologies? Such a thing would benefit everyone. Global warming is happening. And the time to act was about twenty years ago.

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive

[...] Gregg Easterbrook: “But enough already of Climate-gate. More important to rising disbelief in climate change is [...]

Worst thing about throwing billions of dollars at climate change is, it’s a huge excuse for doing nothing about what’s staring everyone in the face: aggravated pollution.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

[...] Easterbrook has very nice things to say about [...]

Benny, O2 makes up 28% of our atmosphere. Nitrogen makes up the other 72%. Anything else is a rounding error.

There has been no measured drop of oxygen.

Posted by drewbie | Report as abusive

Drew, I think it’s 78% N and 21% O2 and 1% enert gases and suspended particles. Never heard about the drop in oxygen levels personally, but given that CO2 (and other oxides eg SO2, NO3, CO etc) have risen from .035% to .051%, I would imagine a corresponding drop in O2 – so from 21% to 20.984%. Could call that rounding error, but still shouldn’t preclude wanting to try to reduce pollution (recycle more, composting, reusable bags etc).

Posted by CDNrebel | Report as abusive

(Topomax Weight Loss) *SECRETS* You Have Never Heard Of!…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Social Hold’em Secrets – Guide For Playing Poker Without Deposit…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Flea Control Secrets: How to Get Rid of Fleas & Live Flea Free!…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Hedge Fund Trading Secrets Revealed-300+ page insider trading eBook…

I found your entry interesting and I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Scuba Diving in Thailand – the Secrets of One of the Worlds Most Popular Diving Destinations…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Make Money With AdSense – is There Any Secrets to it to Make the Extra Cash?…

I found your entry interesting and I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Make Money With Adsense ? is There Any Secrets to it to Make the Extra Cash?…

I found your entry interesting and I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

Pay Per Click Advertising Secrets Exposed :: Make Over $25 Per Sale!…

I found your entry interesting and I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

CDN – I wasn’t really going for accuracy, but since you brought it up…

CO2 isn’t .051, it’s still holding strong at .0390%, as of June 2010
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends  /#mlo

Posted by drewbie | Report as abusive

“A decade ago the IPCC was apolitical.”
Absolutely, not true. It was used in its earliest days (like 1990 or so) by the Euro policitos to placate their green parties.

Posted by nadie | Report as abusive

Effective Email Marketing Secrets…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

[...] guess is that the “doctored data” to which Perry refers is probably Climate-Gate – a real but trivial scandal which has assumed conspiracy-theory status on the right. The researchers who sent the Climate-Gate [...]

[...] guess is that the “doctored data” to which Perry refers is probably Climate-Gate – a real but trivial scandal which has assumed conspiracy-theory status on the right. The researchers who sent the Climate-Gate [...]

Related to Merck Individual Care The modern Merck is a international clinical alpha dog fitting in with profit the environment be. Merck Individual Care is a part for Merck Company., Inc. Each day, large numbers trust in a number of our own industry leading makes which help eliminate or perhaps treat many common types of conditions.

You made some nice points there. I did a search on the topic and found a good number of people will consent with your blog.

layout to get people’s focus,with fair price and original package deal! thanks for visiting store shopping along with us! less costly Longchamp Eiffel Tower Hand bags outlet may be worth you buying!

stylish, restrained and easy

This can be a really good read for me personally, Have to acknowledge that you’ll be among the best blog writers We previously observed. Thanks regarding putting up this informative article.