| Subject: The science is settled |
Author:
me
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/24/06 1:24am
In reply to:
me
's message, "Singer not a reliable source of unbiased research" on 09/24/06 1:10am
The science is settled is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol and global warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration. There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications. It is used as a rhetorical tool. The phrase is vague, and people who use it may not elaborate what exactly is settled. Certain aspects of climate change are widely accepted: that human actions have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example. Other aspects - the exact degree of climate change to be expected within the next century, if any - are not settled. In between are issues such as how much the earth has warmed recently and how much of this is due to human activity.
Opponents of global warming theory have said: 'There is an idea among the public that "the science is settled."'; 'How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European politicians that "the science is settled" on global warming?' 'We are assured that "the science is settled."'
Opponents of global warming theory say the slogan is an accurate summary of an arrogant disregard for real science on the part of ideological environmentalists. Supporters say it's a deliberate obfuscation on the part of industry-funded, denialist skeptics putting words in other people's mouths.
On June 3, 1997, GWT opponent S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) debated Bert Bolin, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. During the debate, Singer projected on a screen a quote allegedly from Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth saying that global warming science was "settled." Bolin responded by questioning whether Wirth had been correctly quoted: "I think Tim Wirth, if quoted correctly, that he doesn't mean what you implied he meant. I've spoken to him, I know he doesn't mean it." [7] SEPP subsequently publicized this statement by Bolin in a news release claiming that Bolin "took issue with the statement by Tim Wirth," prompting Bolin to complain that SEPP had misinterpreted his remark.
On July 31, 1997, In the Senate record, in comments about Senate Resolution 98 (the Byrd-Hagel Resolution) Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) said: "While it is true that Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth said that `the science is settled,' it is clear that there is not a broad scientific consensus that human activities are causing global warming." At the same meeting, Dr. Santer said: "Even the Chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Bert Bolin, says that the science is not settled. When told that Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth had said the science was settled, Dr. Bolin replied: `I've spoken to [Tim Wirth], I know he doesn't mean it.'" (Congressional Record 1997, page S8626)
On June 28, 1998, global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels revived SEPP's claim, stating that during the months leading up to the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, Wirth had "repeatedly declared that 'the science is settled.'" However, this column by Michaels was written more than six months following the meetings at which the Kyoto Protocol, was drafted, which suggests that Michaels was probably paraphrasing loosely rather than quoting Wirth's words verbatim.
[now, is that clear enough for you?]
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 