MICHAEL CRICHTON, ANN COULTER CALLED OUT BY NAME
Another Climate Change Scientist Tells Skeptics: Stop Misusing My Research
By Todd Wilkinson, 7-27-06
A prominent American scientist studying the possible effects of climate change in Antarctica has written a strongly-worded opinion piece in the New York Times telling skeptics to stop using his name and that of other researchers to prop up their claims that global warming is a hoax.
Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois-Chicago, is the latest scientist to say that climate change deniers are misusing the conclusions of his data to try and create a false impression of the science.
Writing in The New York Times Thursday in a piece titled "Cold, Hard Facts", Mr. Doran expressed dismay that skeptics have prolifically circulated the work of his team to suggest the Earth, overall, may actually be cooling rather than warming. While his study documented localized cooling in one region of the Antarctic Continent over four years from 1996-2000, he said the skeptics seized upon it and created a legend of doubt that has only grown in magnitude.
Indeed, Doran's work has been cited by right-wing thinktanks associated with the fossil-fuel industry, members of Congress, and others ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Crichton to refute the thickening and already substantial body of evidence confirming that, overall, Earth is heating up.
"Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear' and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism,'" Doran writes. "Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that 'the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.' I have never thought such a thing either."
In fact, Doran notes (capitalization used for emphasis): "The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.
"IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE MY NAME FROM THE LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO DISPUTE GLOBAL WARMING," he said. "I KNOW MY COAUTHORS WOULD AS WELL."
In a related matter, 60 supposedly-independent and objective scientists wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to bring the terms of the Kyoto Protocol out into open debate. The so-called experts also informed the Prime Minister that calls for drastic actions on climate are sensationalistic. "Climate changes all the time," they wrote, and insisted that it is currently impossible to distinguish potential human-caused atmospheric changes from natural ones.
Such a letter might otherwise be compelling. But guess what? Many of those lending their signature to this letter also signed their names to an earlier document that is part of the "Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" based out of LaJolla, Calif.
Viewed as a front for the oil, gas, and coal industries, "The Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" has made some eye-opening pronouncements that while they may be trumpeted as fact by U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, they have met with widespread incredulity from hundreds of leading scientists in every nation on Earth. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Inhofe has refused to consider any action on legislation that would address U.S. contribution to greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere. Moreover, he is part of a particular line of thinking that portrays concern over climate change as a plot by the rest of the world to hamper the U.S. economy.
Ironically, some of these so-called scientific authorities have pointed to Peter Doran's work, above, to back their cause.
In a future article, New West will publish the entire list of scientists, on a state by state basis, who have signed onto the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project.
Here is one of the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project's controversial statements (and which, apparently, some scientists are willing to risk their professional reputations and credibility for):
"Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
"As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
"Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I have pointed out before that I don't think most "global warmers" truly believe it, or they wouldn't be driving and flying all over the place. Just think of the millions of gallons of fuel that have been used by thsow who made and saw Al Gore's little inconvenience.
The "driving and flying all over the place" comment is tired, unoriginal and overused. I would guess Al Gore has made the calculation that the good done by spreading his message outweighs the bad he is doing by adding more CO2 to the world. And if he were able to flap his arms and fly from place to place, I'm sure he'd do it.
For starters if Mr. Gore were really interested in just telling his story and he really believed what he was saying, he could have presented the movie on TV, even for pay TV if he needs the money. It seems to me that environmentalists as a whole tend to believe that anything they do has no adverse effects, only what other folks do.
I remember back in the days when almost every soap, deodorant, hygiene, or skincare product on the market was loaded with hexachlorophene and the soap and chemical companies had platoons of overhyped secondrate ne'er-do-well "experts" convincing the more gullible elements of the public to drench themselves in the stuff or risk the acne of doom. They even had people bathing newborns in it to stifle diaper rash. A lot of these slimeballs were still preaching their crap and seducing people into doing more damage to themselves and their hapless offspring months and months and months after the neural lesion evidence was clear. I also remember the days when Carson and Commoner were fighting the DDT battle and the chemical companies had armies of scientostitutes denying that it had any human impact even after the breastfeeding data was in. Then, I recall all those slimy, overdressed, moustachioed scum who worked for the tobacco companies telling the public that smoking cigarettes would boost your lung capacity. That old saying about "follow the money" is sure true and nobody has more money than the oil companies, which is why they call it the oiligarchy.
For Brad, I would remind you of another old saying... "Never waste your time wrestling with a pig; you both get all dirty and the pig likes it."
It is hard to take doom and gloom seriously when those preaching it are driving hundreds or thousands of miles to their favorite vacation spot, hiking trail, or biking location.
I don't own a car. I commute to work by train. I bicyle or walk to places I need to go. If I need to go farther, I am a member of a carshare program that uses hybrids.
At home, I have all energy saver bulbs and appliances installed. I unplug all electronics that are in constant "on" mode when they're not needed. I only turn on lights and electronics as they are needed. I try to buy fresh groceries locally produced as opposed to those shipped from halfway around the world.
I donate a portion of my income monthly to an environmental preservation organization. I also write letters to my Congresspersons about environmental legislation to express my point of view.
I haven't had a real vacation in years, but if I were to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to a vacation spot, I'm more likely to use a hybrid than a Hummer.
I practice most of the things you mention, except the driving, I couldn't afford the hybrid so I drive one of the "little tin cans" that gets better than 30mpg. I do it not because of global freezing which was looming on the horizon a few years ago or because of global warming which is the in thing now, but becasue it seems a prudent thing to do.
Unfortunately as I'm sure you are also aware, getting American ranchers off leased land is one of the goals supported by environmentalists, which could increase the amount of food shipped in from around the world. Even some wheat farmers in Wyoming and Colorado are restricted on the land they can use for production due to the Preble mouse. Some of the land has to be set aside for them.
But all that's beside the point.Even if you think global warming might possibly be a fabrication, why not be safe rather than sorry, and conserve, reduce, resuse, recycle and please! don't reproduce more than one person.
Rather than scorning Al Gore (and "the believers"), who's doing something he passionately believes in, and trying to make a difference, why not do something proactive, for yourself, your fellows and the beautiful planet we call home?
All most of us (who aren't Al Gore) can really do is our little bit, but if we all did that, imagine the difference!
There are millions jsut like myself who do a multitude of things small or large to "make a difference" jsut because it is the right thing to do.
As for reproducing, at 70, I seriously doubt I will reproduce even one. However I do have 4 sons, 15 grandkids, and 8 great-grandkids, and I hope each of them, not only are willing to protect and care for their little spot of this earth, but that they don't squander large amounts of it trying to figure out a way to make others do the hard stuff.
Environmental groups could accomplish a great deal more if each person worked really hard to improve things where they are instead of worrying about forcing others to do their will. If saving fuel is a good idea, then they might try saving a little. Brad is one of the few I have heard who apparently tries to live what he preaches.
If just a small portion of the money taken in by environmnetal groups was actually spent on trying to improve things instead of giving power to a few by filing lawsuits after lawsuit to force others to make sacrifices, something might be accomplished.....except making a living for attornies.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/where_are_bush_cheney_on_science_of_climate_change/
She does not want evidence, not at all, she wants to argue. She never supports her position with defendable facts. And she never even listens to thoughtful replies to her questions. She absently repeats the same old mantra over and over—as if by denying the phenomenon will make it go away. This is the ostrich approach to problem solving and it is not effective.
She is bull headed and stubborn. And damn proud of it too (I respect that in a way). Yet there is something very important she brings to this discussion. She brings a perspective that is alien to most thinking people. This is important to remember, that many people do not spend time at the library. They do not do their own research. They let think-tanks and corporations do their thinking for them. Let these people send out the take home message—it is far less work than thinking. It is a gross form of intellectual laziness, and it is a plague, and Marion is one of millions.
For all of Marion’s empty content, in a moment of frustration she inadvertently provided insight into an important and complicated part of the problem. Again this is from an earlier New West discussion.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/where_are_bush_cheney_on_science_of_climate_change/
___
By Marion, 7-06-06
Todd,
When you can show me a single benefit to the environment that makes Gore's movie worth the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel that are going into making and seeing it, I'll listen.
When environmentalits [sic] can tell me what they themselves are doing to help, I'll listen.
As long as they are only interested in lawsuits, and forcing other folks to do what they do not want to, and are only interested im making this a control issue, I won't listen.
Global warming or cooling for that matter has absolutely nothing to do with our Presidnet [sic] and VP, it has every thing to do with how our lives are lived. Each of us are responsible for what we consume, and our impact on the earth, no one else.
___
end quote
I am not going to criticize the made up statistics—other to say that by reposting her statement does not I endorse her perspective. But what I think is important about this note is this: this appears to be a fear response. She cannot even consider the possibility of the impacts because of a natural (and reasonable!) fear of the government meddling with how we live our lives. There is also an optimistic view of the accountability we all have for each of our actions.
I wonder about Marion’s statement. I want to consider the ethics of environmental legislation from two perspectives, and then see what everyone has to say. First, in a free market, where there are no environmental regulations, there is no motivation for any industry to incur the expense of clean technology. Companies can save millions of dollars by not incorporating expensive environmental programs. Companies that opt to incorporate clean technology do so at a considerable cost. This means that their products are more expensive to produce and in a competitive market it becomes more difficult to make a profit—or even break even. Eventually, the companies that are not burdened by the excess cost of cleaning up their mess will financially out-compete the clean company.
Alternatively, if an environmental law requires all companies to comply with discharge regulations, then all the companies incur the same cost, the playing field is leveled, and all incur the same environmental costs. Sure costs increase, but the economy should adjust for this eventually. Cars are like little factories. They burn fuel, and discharge waste. Should their emissions be regulated summarily? Why? Or Why not? Discuss please.
My other consideration is about laws that “restrict” how we live our lives. Generally, in America, we believe that freedom is very important. It is why our ancestors came here. Yet we all agree that it is not acceptable to harm other people. Murderers could argue that the laws against murder restrict their personal freedom. However, in our society, we have generally accepted that it is not acceptable to harm others. That is, be free as long as you do not impair the rights of others to live free. We don’t place speed limits on roads because we are 100% sure that if you exceed them you will die. We place speed limits on roads because you statistically increase the likelihood of causing harm to other people when you drive at unsafe speeds.
The emissions from an individual car driven short distances are relatively minor. But add them all up and they are substantial. In fact, they have potential to cause great harm and to restrict how we live our lives. Even for people in distant non-industrial lands (people who never benefited from cheap fuel and electric power). As such, it is not the individual who needs to act, action is needed at a higher level—society needs to act. Left to its own devices, society acts in all directions, with a net progress of zero. Legislation is the tool to give direction to society—once society decides to take action. We have contributed to growing problem and benefited from cheap fuels, it is our responsibility to help curb the problem. Marion, do you see how our personal responsibility for this problem creates an ethical mandate for us to do something as a society? If the case is that you, and others like, you cannot see how important this is—just because you like being stubborn—then you have sealed the need for legislation.
As for the value of personal choice, is it ok for someone to continue inefficient energy use, just because they can afford to do so? I do not believe it is. Greenhouse gases have been demonstrated to cause much potential harm to our society—economically and environmentally. We do not waive the responsibility of wealthy citizens to respect the rights of others to live. If they murder someone, they must face the consequences. If they get stopped for speeding, they get a ticket. The same is true of their role in global warming, it does not matter that they can afford to pay for the fuel to drive a wasteful vehicle, their wasteful actions are harmful to society, and should be regulated.
We really have only two choices for legislation. 1) Reduce green house gasses. Or 2) We must legislate negative worldwide population growth. Personally, I find reducing green house gasses much more realistic, and much less intrusive to how we live our lives.
Finally, your argument that green lawyers are making millions and millions of dollars by restricting how people live their lives is plain silly. Do you have any idea how much money lawyers make when they work for the oil and gas industry—trying to make people believe that their being picked on. Sorry Marion. I do not believe for one minute that a lawyer fighting an economic giant gets richer than the giants defender.
Now as for your suggestion that the amount if fuel to make and show Gore's movie, tell me how you find tht in error, how many million people have been to see it? How did they get there? If you don't believe that it took thousands of gallons to make it, how much are you estimating? And you want me to believe that has no effect on the environment? Because it is used by environmentalists?
Tell me why personal responsibility is less important than mandating "societal responsibility" I have a news flash for you, we, including you, are society and it behooves us individually to do our part.
What exactly by mandating a "reduction of green house emmisions"?
The fuel to see the movie would have been spent anyway. The airplanes that transported people for the production were flying weather or not they had people on board. Many people would have been driving somewhere if not the movies, and if this movie was not pulling people to the theater, another movie would. You have not done any work to determine how much fuel was actually consumed by the movie and if in the end it caused a corresponding decrease. In stead you just made up a number--millions and millions of gallons. Why, because it does not matter. Your only goal with that point is to be a disruptive influence. I keep waiting for you to say something meaning full. End of stupid and pointless fuel discussion.
As for your other question. Personal responsibility is part of social responsibility. They are not separate. But with out legislation, there is no reason for industry to achieve fuel standards… and to provide them to consumers. DUH!
Honestly Marion, for a grandmother, you sure do act like a little child. Always worried about what the other kids do/say/get… “but the environmentalists get this…” “but the environmentalists say that…” “but Timmy’s mom lets him have ice cream for dinner!” stop worrying about “them.”
Now, how about contributing to discussion rather than worrying about the bad kids next door.
What about legislation? You are obviously opposed to it? Why? What do you think is a suitable solution to the problem? Do you think it is ok for certain people to get a way with a crime while others do not?
I am neither for nor against legislation until I know what it is, and that is true of any kind of legislation. You offered NO specifics of what you feel is needed or why, just your opinion on my stupidity for not falling hook line and sinker for what you are selling.
As for Mr. Gores plane you will have to convince me that it flies by itself whether he is in it or not. I have been told by professionals in the airplane business that it burns several thousand gallons/hour.
Burning gasoline is the only way most Americans can live their lives, thanks to the automakers' crushing of thousands of their own battery electric vehicles (EVs,) rather than mass-produce and sell them to us. One benefit to the environment provided by Mr. Gore's film is the trailer for "Who Killed the Electric Car?" documentary that often is screened before his film begins. Blaming people for burning petroleum when their zero-emission alternatives are literally crushed is adding insult to injury. Global-warming deniers: challenge me at your peril; I'm a member of the Electric Auto Association and have a guest blog on EVWorld.com!