How Climate Became a Victim of the Cold War

From BluWiki

gleiches hier.... formattieren wenn du kannst....

Challenging Knowledge: How Climate Became a Victim of the Cold War

• Since 1990’s: consensus about global warming to be existant and responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years (p.49)

      o Effects will be seen in Artic first (‘ice albeldo feedback’)
      o May lead to an increase of rate of ocurrence and intensity of extreme weather (e.g. hurricane) (p.51)

• IPCC (United Nations Environment Program) (p.51)

      o Four reports on global warming: results of global warming not forseeable and immense 
      o Critique: part of UNO -> might be politicized and not objective
              * Approved by U.S. National Academy of Sciences to be scientifically objective
      o Notion of global warming: Since 1979’S
              * “A plethora of studies from diverse sources indicate a consensus that climate changes will result from man’s combustion of fossils fuels and changes in land use” (70’s) (p.51)

• “Among Scientist’s today, anthropogenic global warming is no longer considered a prediction, but an observation” (p.52)

• 2006, only 1/3 of Americans believed global warming is ”mainly cause by things people do”

• This is due to Bush-administration, which politically polarized this issue (p.53):

      o Emphasizing the uncertainty about climate science
      o Understanding of global warming insufficient

• George C. Marshall Institut: Climate science is a victim of the cold war (p.53)

      o Since 1990’s, they argue that global warming is inadequate, ncertain and incomplete
      o No proof it is a real phenomenon, therefore regulatory action is damaging 
               * Publications in: The Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, Forbes Magazine, National Review, television, radio, internet 

-> Natural variability (climate is insufficiently understood) (p.54)

• Why such a statement? There is enough scientific proof for G. W. (p.54)

      o Linking national security to issues of environment
      o Founder: astrophysicist,  Robert Jastrow (anti-soviet) (p.55)
              * Missile shield through the use of space-based lasers in Cold War (SDI) 
              * Strong opposition against Jastrow
              * Joining the Marshall Institut: William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, both physicists (p.55) 				
              * Three scientist form Marshall Institut (closely connected to military scientific complex) to counterargue in favor of the SDI (Scientific Defense Initiative)(p.56)
      

o Jastrow believed in a conspiracy of Soviet Union and strong SDI critics

      o Aim of SDI: free Soviet people, rather than keep the balance(p.56)
      o  Most (political) objections to SDI more moral and ethical, rather  than scientific (p.57)
      o From denying the fact (‘95) to issuing it at the head of the agenda (today -> website Marshall Institut): (p.58)
              * Expample of tabacco industry (lungcancer) 

• Singer (SEPP) echoing the statement of Marshall Institut

      o Global warming is a scare tactic ( -> Seitz) (p.61)

• 1977 Observations of CFC’s (e.g. hairspray) very stable in atmosphere (p.61)

• 1989 decreade of stratospheric ozone over Artic is largely ‘man-made’ (p.62)

      o Singer: argument of natural variability, again

• “On the first glance, it seems just plain weird that several of the same individuals - all retired physicists – were involved in denying that cancer causes smoking , that pollution causes acid rain, that CFC’s destroy ozone, and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. […], summing to a radical free market ideology that opposes any action restricting the pursuit of market capitalism, no matter the justification.” (p.65)

      o Believe that environmentalists want to bring down capitalism to replace it with communism or socialism (p.66) and create world government
              * 'hidden political system against free market and capitalism’

• Real debate not about science, but about central planning vs. free enterprise

• Downfall of ‘prestige science’ physics in America forced such destructive behauvior by three ‘old guard’ physicists

-> scientific facts do not necessarily lead to political action, you can believe in Global Warming and that there is nothing to be done against it….. -> (Keynes: no free lunch) 150 years of unprecedented prosperty was the lunch, global waming is the bill