What is Good Science: Challenging Knowledge: How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War

From BluWiki

"Challenging Knowledge: How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War" is an Article by Naomi Oreskes and & E. Conway, E.

Summary

• Since 1990’s: consensus about global warming to be existant and responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years (p.49)
• Effects will be seen in Artic first (‘ice albeldo feedback’)
• 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)
  • Four reports on global warming: results of global warming not forseeable and immense
  • Critique: part of UNO -> might be politicized and not objective
    • Approved by U.S. National Academy of Sciences to be scientifically objective
  • 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):
  • Emphasizing the uncertainty about climate science
  • Understanding of global warming insufficient
• George C. Marshall Institut: Climate science is a victim of the cold war (p.53)
  • Since 1990’s, they argue that global warming is inadequate, ncertain and incomplete
  • 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)
  • Linking national security to issues of environment
  • Founder: astrophysicist, Robert Jastrow (anti-soviet) (p.55)
  • Jastrow believed in a conspiracy of Soviet Union and strong SDI critics
  • Aim of SDI: free Soviet people, rather than keep the balance(p.56)
  • Most (political) objections to SDI more moral and ethical, rather than scientific (p.57)
  • From denying the fact (‘95) to issuing it at the head of the agenda (today -> website Marshall Institut): (p.58)
    • Expample of tabacco industry (lung cancer)
• Singer (SEPP) echoing the statement of Marshall Institut
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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

Critique / Questions / Reflection / Comments

See also

• What is Good Science - Main Page