Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Ben Lieberman

Ben Lieberman

Ben Lieberman, a specialist in energy and environmental issues, is a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. ALL POSTS

Rapidly melting credibility

Q: Recently, a U.N. scientific report was found to have included a false conclusion about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. That followed the release of stolen e-mails last year, which showed climate scientists commiserating over problems with their data. Is there a broader meaning in these two incidents, and should they cause the public to be more skeptical about the underlying science of climate change?

You can't call them isolated incidents now that they are coming in droves.

It is clear that global warming science has been hijacked by a subset of researchers who have crossed the line into advocacy and alarmism. The cache of climategate e-mails alone reveals a number of scandals - key researchers and institutions manipulating temperature data to gin up a bigger warming trend, refusing to allow independent researchers to see the raw data, and strategizing to keep skeptical views out of the scientific literature and official reports. Climategate is just beginning to unfold.

Now, the UN's vaunted 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report turns out to contain a whopper. The report describes as "very high" the likelihood that continued global warming will cause the glaciers in Himalayan Mountains to disappear by 2035 if not sooner. Amazingly, it turns out that the source of this claim is an unsupported statement of one researcher that appeared in a magazine article. Worse yet, the IPCC report's editors knew full well that the assertion was based on speculation rather than peer reviewed science, and in fact it was disputed by several scientists when it appeared in early drafts. Nonetheless, it was left in for political reasons.

Similar shenanigans appear to have gone on with the IPCC's claim that damage from hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters has worsened because of global warming. Like the Himalayan glacier melt assertion, it was based on the claim of a single researcher who had not published it in the scientific literature, and who now disassociates himself from the way it was used in the IPCC report. Indeed, when he did publish the study, he concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" of a link between warming and natural disaster damage.

There is a clear pattern with these revelations. It's the very scariest claims -- rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers threatening a billion people with flooding and then with drought, an increase in Katrina-scale disasters, and others - that are the ones on the shakiest ground. Virtually everything the public has been told about global warming that sounds terrifying is not true, and what is true falls well short of being terrifying.

There is a reason why the gloom and doom, however dubious and unscientific, keeps getting advanced by those who support an expansive global warming agenda. Without such hype, the threat of global warming does not justify the multi-trillion dollar costs and multi-million job losses of attempts to deal with it.

There is another lesson from Glaciergate -- it is high time to retire the distinction between the "skeptics" and the "consensus science." All along, several so-called skeptics have complained about the Himalayan hyperbole. As is typical, they were denigrated as outliers or even kooks for doing so. As recently as a few weeks ago, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, derided such critiques as "voodoo science," until he reluctantly had to admit they were true.

By now, the skeptics have proven to be right about way too much, and the putative "consensus science" wrong about way too much, for the labels to make any sense. In fact, if there are additional revelations like Glaciergate (and it looks like claims of global warming devastating the Amazon rainforest may be next), it might make more sense for the labels to be reversed.

By Ben Lieberman  |  January 29, 2010; 12:11 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Seeing clearly through Brown | Next: 'Fountains of life'

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



How stunningly dishonest of you. But we've long since learned to expect no better from the industry shills at Heritage. The evidence for human caused global warming is overwhelming. See statements released by the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others -- after the East Anglia email controversy. See also James Hansen's "if it's warming why is it so darned cold?"

But dishonest shills like you latch on to small anomalies (aha! The glacial melting data came from a popular magazine!) and ignore the rest of the overwhelming evidence, because the anomalies serve Heritage's ugly little political agenda. Who's funding Heritage these days? Get much fossil fuel money?

Posted by: davidscott1 | February 3, 2010 6:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, Mr. Lieberman, it's quite obvious you couldn't assess science unless someone applied physics to you with a small sample of organically locked carbon material.

Frankly, your positions are blithering idiocy, filled with presuppositions, invalid conflations, and logic that wouldn't pass muster at an introductory academic level.

You say what you say because you're paid to believe it, and are apparently too vapid to see otherwise, or much care about it.

Posted by: Nymous | February 3, 2010 2:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Muawiyah, For peer reviewed studies about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, you could start with "Black Soot Aerosols and the Retreat of Tibetan Glaciers", by James Hansen and others. This article was published (online) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 2009. It is about one possible cause of the glaciers' retreat, and refers to other peer-reviewed articles about the retreat itself. I am surprised that the fact of retreat it still at issue, since it can be seen in photographs. And in fact, the controversy about non-peer reviewed material being admitted into an IPCC report is not about whether the glaciers are retreating, but how fast. And as for retreat worldwide, how Hudson, Frobisher, and Baffin must envy our newly won freedom to navigate the Northwest Passage!

Posted by: jfbreit711 | February 1, 2010 5:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

FATE1 ~ went to the reference and discovered that MOST of the internet references were to that exact same reference.

That was, essentially, worthless, so I went to the organization's website behind that reference and discovered http://www.igsoc.org/annals/v51/54/a54a009.pdf

That item is priceless. The claim you, and others, are making about the Himalayan glaciers is that they are disappearing.

The researcher behind the paper at 154a009 says EVEN THE PERMANENT ICEFIELDS are little studied due to the extreme nature of the terrain.

He's come up with a way to begin "breaking the ice" (so to speak ~ that's a pun) on the question of studying the matter.

Yet, your claim is that studies have been done in depth on each and every mountain glacier in the Himalayas.

How can that be? If you can't even study the areas of permanent snow (where the glaciers occur) how can you have studied the glaciers themselves?

I think you guys are stressing the data base.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 31, 2010 11:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

muawiyah wrote: "JFBREIT711 ~ since you believe Himalayan glaciers are melting please point to the peer reviewed studies that claim to demonstrate that fact.
I dare you!

I'll give you one:
http://www.igsoc.org/annals/V50/53/a53a010.pdf

Keep in mind the error was about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. That has little to do with actual observations of glaciers melting slower than that rate. One mistake in a 3000 page report does not invalidate the report. The evidence is clear on global warming. We can argue as to the cause(s). But to deny no warming is happening is to live in another world.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 10:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Senator_Salesman wrote: "The warmers want to make this a conflict between Democrats and Republicans because they know that the Dem’s will follow them right off the cliff. The sad part is that after all the dominoes fall; The Enviro-fanatics will just find another scam to throw at the American people and the rest of the world.

And you evidence is what? Where is the evidence of climatologists on a vast scale conspiring to lie about climate data and their results?

Who is funding this? Dr. Evil? Why are scientists, not the richest people on earth, doing this? What is the payoff for them? What do they get out of it? And, more importantly, how do they keep the lid on such a conspiracy and false data when other scientists are doing the same research and publishing?

Your notion of a vast climate conspiracy sounds pretty cool, but you have little if any evidence of such a conspiracy, its motives, etc. Believe what you want, I'll believe the pictures, the people in Alaska moving because their ice flows are gone, etc. In other words, I'll trust reality. Glaciers are disappearing, sea level is rising.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 10:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Independent109 wrote: "There is a lot of money on the table and reputations at stack related to global warming. Stock exchange mechanisms have already been put into place to create financial instruments, carbon credits and insurance futures trading. Big banks, insurance companies and traders are looking for the next wave of "make stuff up "paper to create something to sell."

So where is the incentive for poorly paid scientists in government and academic jobs to lie about their research? Are they being paid off? You got any shred of evidence? Your idea makes sense in a James Bond movie, but that is all. Try selling it to Hollywood and not America.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You can’t debate with these Enviro-fanatics. Global Warming has become their religion, and the Earth has become their god. I guess they think when we came out of the last Ice Age that it was because of greenhouse gases.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 31, 2010 9:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JFBREIT711 ~ since you believe Himalayan glaciers are melting please point to the peer reviewed studies that claim to demonstrate that fact.

I dare you!

Posted by: muawiyah | January 31, 2010 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The “warmers” attack Mr. Lieberman for not being a Climate scientist, but I guarantee you Mr. Lieberman has more integrity then any of the scientist at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. What is so great about the e-mails is that it’s their OWN WORDS which condemns their research. For example:


Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."


Why would any credible scientist be afraid of the Freedom of Information act? This isn’t a conspiracy, this is CRIMINAL activity. Wake up America! Green is the new Color of Socialism. Green Politicians like Al Gore and John Kerry don’t care about the environment. It has been proven that Al Gore will make Billions if Cap and Trade passes Congress (which it won’t). Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest? This is about wealth re-distribution. They want to take American money and give it to 3rd world Communist countries to help fight this scam. Trust the U.N. anybody? Remember oil for food? Wikipedia it if you don’t know what happened.


The warmers want to make this a conflict between Democrats and Republicans because they know that the Dem’s will follow them right off the cliff. The sad part is that after all the dominoes fall; The Enviro-fanatics will just find another scam to throw at the American people and the rest of the world.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 31, 2010 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In droves? In the hundreds of pages of material released by the IPCC, one incorrect statement about the melting of glaciers (which are, in fact, melting rapidly) recently came to light. There are no doubt others -- but in evaluating mistakes in IPCC reports, our first question should be: If we subtract this incorrect assertion from the whole body of statements, are we forced to come to a different conclusion? Clearly, we are not. The body of evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming remains overwhelming. And has the warming trend really leveled off? With the two warmest years on record falling within the last twelve years, you must be willing to discern trends in short spans of time than any reputable scientist is will to do.

Posted by: jfbreit711 | January 31, 2010 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There is a lot of money on the table and reputations at stack related to global warming. Stock exchange mechanisms have already been put into place to create financial instruments, carbon credits and insurance futures trading. Big banks, insurance companies and traders are looking for the next wave of "make stuff up "paper to create something to sell.

http://www.climateexchangeplc.com/

Weather and climate have very little to do with it. It's the next planned roller coaster ride for the stock market. The trick now is to switch from warming to cooling since the climate pattern has changed.

Posted by: Independent109 | January 31, 2010 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I love all the global warming chicken little's claim these revelations about the glacier's etc dont disprove the science that it is real. That is the point. The IPCC is full of false information and now the latest one is that NOAA and NASA have been dropping higher elevation weather stations (w/ cooler temps) to "prove" the earth is warming. Yes, I even question that now. They are snake oil salesmen and if you dont see it you are an idealogue or a moron or most likely both

Posted by: j751 | January 31, 2010 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

How about, Mr. Right Wing Lawyer, you actually take a look at the following journal and dispute these facts? Perhaps it is because you have ZERO ability to do so?

>>from the IPCC:

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).

On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).

While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).

Posted by: delantero | January 31, 2010 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Lieberman,

How do you respond to these facts, Mr. Lawyer guy with ZERO scientific credentials?

""As a scientist, my readings of the e-mails of NASA scientists, newly disclosed by the Tea Party group Judicial Watch, gives me the impression of scientists doing what we should expect them to--namely arguing about how to improve their analyses to eliminate errors and biases."


""That statement (regarding Himalayan glacier melting) was buried in the section of the report dealing with possible societal impacts in Asia, not the part of the report that assessed the scientific basis of climate change. It was never regarded as a substantial conclusion by IPCC.

Posted by: delantero | January 31, 2010 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Lieberman, trained as a lawyer and accountant,..."

Let's see the report card, how many Chemistry classes, any organic? How bout the Environmental sciences?

This poor piece is telling as it makes no scientific claims or rebuttal of climate change data . . it simply attacks based on inflammatory rhetoric . . and, in the end, makes him look foolish.

Global warming is not disputed. The question is whether or not human activity is contributing to global warming.

A clear byproduct of human activity on our lovely planet is C02 . . and the generation heat. Atmosphere helps to trap heat . . . seems plausible . . unless you are a doofus with a law degree and no scientific background working for a Righty organization!

Posted by: delantero | January 31, 2010 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

At least there is a discussion now about this. WaPo and other mainstream media sources in cooperation with Al Gore/James Hansen etc. have dismissed skeptics and even "lukewarmers" as nut cases. Large amounts of money are driving both sides of this argument. Both sides are gaming the arguments and citing "anecdotal facts".

Predicting future weather/climate trends is one of the toughest problems in science due to all of the uncertainty over which factors are primary drivers. Those who claim certainty are either fools or liars.

Posted by: tkennedy2 | January 31, 2010 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lieberman is mixing apples and oranges. The consensus view is that human emissions of CO2 and other GHG is and will cause changes to earth's climate that will lead to serious problems. There is not a consensus on specific environmental consequences, such as how fast glaciers will melt or how soon various ecosystems will be impacted. These are on going areas of work and it is normal for tentative studies to be debated and found in error.

The errors found in the IPCC report that are mentioned by Lieberman have no impact on climate change. They represent a few sentences of a very large report. Yes, these should be admitted to and corrected. The Amazon issue is very minor. While the IPCC did cite a non peer reviewed study, the particular estimate was from a paper in Nature. (See reference 46 cited on 15 page of Rowell and Moore.)

Posted by: mike_midwest | January 31, 2010 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

jlibertelli wrote: "Don't be misled by the facetious comment above: Mr. Lieberman is no climate scientist. His Heritage Foundation bio says, in part, "Lieberman, trained as a lawyer and accountant,..."

Ah, but the thing is right wing nuts think that not having training is what one needs to understand things like climate change. The more ignorant the less chance you have been corrupted by those liberal professors, training our poor kids in the lies of liberalism, climate change, etc. Funny how the dangers of smoking are no longer part of their complaints of liberal attacks on corporate America.

Lieberman's credentials are as good for discussing climate change as Palin's are for political office and Brownie's for running FEMA.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

pvilso24 wrote: "Yes... man-caused global warming is looking like the biggest hoax ever."

You mean as we watch the arctic melting before our eyes? As we watch rivers of water pouring out of Greenland glaciers at rates never seen before?

pvilso24 wrote: "Last night our news reported poor Mongolia suffering it coldest winter in oh 50 years.. millions of dead herd animals..leading to hardship and more poverty for as many as one million citizens."

So you don't know the difference between weather and climate. Understandable considering your comment. Consider that while in the US and Europe we are experiencing a very cold winter so far, the arctic is still warmer than ever. I suggest you read up on the difference between weather and climate, and understand they are not the same.

pvilso24 wrote: "Isolated condition you say ? My wife last week returned from a small island south of mainland Cuba... the week before her arrival.. temperatures dropped to the mid-40 degree F. According to suffering islanders... the worst in their lifetimes !!"

Again, learn about climate. You seem to understand weather, but that is all.

pvilso24 wrote: "Poor Al Gore."

Ah, the political jab, tipping your hand as to the real motives for your "understanding" of climate change.

Posted by: Fate1 | January 31, 2010 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Don't be misled by the facetious comment above: Mr. Lieberman is no climate scientist. His Heritage Foundation bio says, in part, "Lieberman, trained as a lawyer and accountant, is known in public policy circles as a strong advocate of free-market solutions to the challenge of rising energy prices. He opposes unnecessary government regulation and mandates for energy producers while supporting increased access to domestic energy supplies."

Posted by: jlibertelli | January 31, 2010 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Lieberman is really putting that Ph.D. in climate physics to good use. His grasp of the scientific process is unassailable. His objectivity impeachable. In fact, why don't we just let him write our climate change policy. Clearly, the man is a gift from above sent here to clear the cobwebs from our brains and remove the veils placed by there by the thousands of scientists across the globe conspiring together to face evidence of climate change for the purposes of....

INSTITUTING GLOBAL FASCUNISM!!!11!!1!

Posted by: eevolk | January 31, 2010 8:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If trying to suppress opposing views is a sign of a weak case, then the skeptics have by far the weaker case. During the Bush Administration senior administrators tried their best to discourage climate research and suppress results that supported the global warming consensus (still the overwhelming consensus). Ask the scientists who applied for funding from the National Science Foundation and were advised by NSF staff not to include the words "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" in the titles or summaries. If they did, their proposals would never make it to peer review.

Posted by: msh41 | January 31, 2010 12:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes... man-caused global warming is looking like the biggest hoax ever.

Last night our news reported poor Mongolia suffering it coldest winter in oh 50 years.. millions of dead herd animals..leading to hardship and more poverty for as many as one million citizens.

Isolated condition you say ?

My wife last week returned from a small island south of mainland Cuba... the week before her arrival.. temperatures dropped to the mid-40 degree F. According to suffering islanders... the worst in their lifetimes !!

Poor Al Gore.

Posted by: pvilso24 | January 30, 2010 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here are a Few of the MANY Scientists Who Believe Global Warming is Primarily Caused by Natural Processes and NOT because of Greenhouse gases!

- William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University [1] [2]

- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University [1]

- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences [1]

- Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia [1] [2]

- Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences [1]

- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California [1]

- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa [1]

- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [1]

I will listen to these guys instead of Al Gore who thinks the “Earth’s core temperature is several millions of degrees”. Al is also Vice President of the CHICAGO (hint) Climate Exchange and stands to make Billions if Cap and Trade legislation passes. That almost sounds like a conflict of interest? Hmmmmmm

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 30, 2010 10:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Although I have no idea what Mr. Lieberman's background is, I suspect it is not science and most likely public policy. As such, I find it deeply offensive that he is allowed to offer judgments on science in a publication such as the Washington Post. He is not qualified to judge the merits of the science. His opening statement that "global warming science has been hijacked by a subset of researchers . . " is unfounded and irresponsible. This is a severe problem in the popular media today. In order to appear "balanced" media outlets have to publish nonsense such as this despite the fact that the claims are unfounded. And for those who doubt this, all you have to do is to look up who supports the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by: scientist2 | January 30, 2010 10:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

See what a Fraud Global Warming is!! These are some of the E-mails of Scientist who are advising the United Nations, The EPA, and Your U.S. Congress! Discover for yourself America.


Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003
In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Mann wrote:

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[37]


Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004
An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—ours does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”


Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009
An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"[


Phil Jones:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature TRICK of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to HIDE THE DECLINE."[


You don't have to be a Climate Scientist to understand this. We are supposed to invest Trillions of Dollars based on the manipulation of Data by Corrupt Scientist? Thank God for Senator Inhofe!

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 30, 2010 10:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for this article. I've been reading foreign papers to keep up with the unraveling of this great hoax, and now maybe our own papers will continue to expose the lies and blatant disregard for science as honest scientists continue to study the 2007 IPCC report, the East Anglia research scam, as well as NOAA/NASA's temperature/thermometer manipulation to show warming. We NEED the TRUTH.

Posted by: emmaliza | January 30, 2010 7:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For anyone who wants to know how the debate has been framed by the Left he or she should search "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky.

Among the Rules Alinsky coined for radicals are "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." "Keep the pressure on"."Ridicule your enemy. It's almost impossible for him to counteract."

Posted by: sperrico | January 30, 2010 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Lieberman,
You made some great points about the catastrophic claims being the most dubious. When you strip that away, we are arguing about the rise of a a couple of degrees Celsius over a very long time frame if you accept their claims at face value. The damage to humanity is being greatly exaggerated. I would like to see us move away from fossil fuels for pollution and geopolitical reasons but making up science has no place and the truth will eventually out.

Posted by: chascow | January 30, 2010 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is rational and understandable that energy companies those who represent them have an interest in denying climate change caused by an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Environmental regulations inhibit profits, to some degree. So, I can understand why Mr. Lieberman, who represents the interests of oil and gas companies, rejects climate science. Research scientists do not have the same financial motive. Grant money is used for research, not for personal profits. It is hard for me to accept any conspiracy theory that doesn't involve profit. If climate scientists wanted to profit from scaring the impressionable, wouldn't they have a paid program on network TV called the "700 Fahrenheit Club" or something, and ask for big handouts while they dole out news of the rapture?

Posted by: RJ24 | January 30, 2010 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Lieberman,

You seem to have attracted some attention from those who see evil in private industry and a spiritual purity in those who seek to advance "Global Warming Science" and point out "Inconvenient Truths." For you and them, I am pleased to offer the following:

Our good friend Al Gore is bore.

He does whine, so he's hard to ignore.

But it's money he's after

So I'll stifle my laughter

And just think of him as a fat wh***.

Posted by: RobertAJonesJr | January 30, 2010 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm certain Mr Lieberman must know, but apparently his supporters don't, that scientists do not personally profit from research grants.

The money covers research expenses ONLY: no salary, fancy car, kickback or lobster dinners. A grant isn't any kind of financial motive to misrepresent or lie; it just enables the researcher to continue doing meaningful work in his chosen field.

Disputing someone's findings with your own valid research is what makes good science. Making false, uniformed accusations is just plain ignorance. And for the record, "Googling" to find something that supports one's opinion is not considered valid research.

Posted by: ericlose1 | January 30, 2010 1:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Like I said Mr. Lieberman. You will get attacked by the fair left. They have made global warming into a religion. You can't debate with these enviro-fanatics. So keep up the good work Mr Lieberman.

Good day Sir.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 30, 2010 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

> You can't call them isolated incidents now that they are coming in droves.

The only thing coming in "droves" are hysterical accusations from "senior policy analysts" from 'think' tanks with political agendas.

For anyone who actually reads this drivel, it becomes apparent it says nothing about the science of climate change and transforms relatively minor 'editorial' errors in to global conspiracies.

The core science remains unaltered. Reality continues: the planet is heating up due to GHGs released by human activity. A typo in a report has not changed that. A scientist in England getting annoyed by constant harassment from Deniers has not changed that.

Hysterical opinion pieces by economists, politicians and other scientific illiterates has not and will not change scientific reality.

Posted by: DavidCognito | January 30, 2010 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Probably some of the most ignorant writing on this subject that I've seen. And of course, all the robots gather round to offer their own conspiracy theories...it's all about the fantastic sums of money scientists get from RESEARCH GRANTS!!! These very smart men have forsaken lucrative jobs with the Exxon's and Mobil's of the world for the money green pastures of RESEARCH GRANTS!

And Lieberman needs not offer one shred of scientific evidence. Simply repackage right wing claims of "conspiracy" and he is applauded for his "honesty". Honesty in what? Giving his opinion?

Hey, I know, follow the money trail and you will see that it's the money Lieberman gets from Heritage that has corrupted his...scientfic analysis of climatology.

It really is just hilarious what passes as reasonable discussion amongst the right.

Posted by: myjunk84@hotmail.com | January 30, 2010 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

All you have to do is follow the money. These so-called climate scientists need grants to support their "research". The grant givers like the National Science Foundation have a leftist bent and believe in global warming. So, they award grants to those who agree with them which fuels the conclusions that these people reach. It is a self re-inforcing cycle. This is hardly new. It is interesting that if a scientist gets funding from a group composed of say oil companies that always appears in the press. When the lefties get their grants from left leaning sources, not a word is mentioned. But, never mind--we the people are going to stop all of this nonsense in its tracks at the political level.

Posted by: dcmowbray1 | January 30, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"You can't call them isolated incidents now that they are coming in droves."

So, two cited incidents are enough to be considered "droves"?

Let's hope that you don't harbor an agenda also.

Posted by: monel7191 | January 30, 2010 9:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

All in all, this has been a disgrace for Science... and the Politicians that enable or exploit the trend towards placing agendas and personal beliefs over replicable, solid science. It was no accident that any anecdote or flight of fancy that supported the AGW agenda they had in mind was dressed up in lab coats made of whole cloth and paraded on the media runway as ideal examples of the fashion for the future.
Whenever a Politician issues pronouncements that "The Science is Settled" ... and impugn or attack their critics (like they routinely do in Iran and Venezuela, sports fans), we should read up on the relevant tomes that at one time led us to exhibit and appreciate "Critical Thinking"... I'd recommend 1984, The US Constitution, or any High School Science book that covers the Scientific Method in depth.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | January 30, 2010 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The problem is that the highly politicized climate scientists see themselves on a sacred mission. Hence they are apt to disregard or underestimate any evidence that may contradict their findings.

In serious science, every discovery must be repeated by other teams to test its validity and to rule out all contradictory evidence.

At the moment, however, scientists are not even 100% sure about the greenhouse effect -- whether it will in fact cause global warming or perhaps another ice age.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 30, 2010 7:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well said, Mr. Lieberman.

Posted by: observer31 | January 30, 2010 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Lieberman,

Thank you for an objective response to the question. You are a very smart man. Each time one of those stories broke, it seemed like the mainstream media ignored them ever time.

It is sad that Obama went to Copenhagen to sign away our sovereignty to the United Nations based on this Junk Science. The Global Warming hoax is the biggest Scam in the Last 100 years!

I applaud your honesty Mr. Lieberman. I'm sure you will be attacked by the far left. You are in a great position to expose this scam for what it is through your writings. I know you will make the right decisions. You have so far.

Good day Sir.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 29, 2010 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company