4 ms·

> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening Not now, but the official position of, say, t

by gjm11 7y ago

> The official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening Not now, but the official position of, say, the Heritage Foundation has always been the most do-nothing position that they might hope much of the public would accept. As the evidence mounts they have to back off a bit. Let's take a quick trip back in time: Heritage Foundation in 2010: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientific-consensus-global-warming-affects-american-business-and https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... First sentence of abstract: "The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus." (This was not true then any more than it is now, of course.) Heritage Foundation in 2001: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/warming-the-truth-the-real-story-about-climate-change https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/warming-the-trut... "The human influence on global climate change is small and will be slow to develop." (This was not mainstream science then any more than it is now, of course.) Heritage Foundation in 1998: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/no-evidence-global-warming https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/no-evidence-... Title: "No evidence for global warming". Heritage Foundation in 1992: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/guide-the-global-warming-theory https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/guide-the-global... "Question #1: Is the Earth warming as a result of human-caused greenhouse gases or because of natural phenomena? [...] The existing scientific evidence does not give clear answers to these questions."

rayiner 7y ago
Regarding your earlier citations, the consensus for anthropogenic climate change is much more recent than you seem to assume. The IPCC was not formed until 1988. Even as of the 1995 report, the conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of observed warming was tepid: > An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."[12] It wasn’t until 2001 that IPCC took a definitive position that human influence would be the dominant effect on warming going forward: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.... (pages 9-11). In that same report, the IPCC took a much milder view on whether human influence had been the dominant contributor to date. They assert that a human “signal” is detectable, but do not assert that the warming to date had primarily resulted from human activity. They also note no impact on, for example, the extent of sea ice. The 2001 Heritage article you posted is probably an optimistic reading of the 2001 IPCC report, but not an unreasonable one. Of course they’re not going to be out front embracing the impact of climate change. But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  How do you defend the article from 2010: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientific-consensus-global-warming-affects-american-business-and https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... Or the "Climate Change Realities" section from this 2013 article [1]. Let me quote a sentence from it: > Although there is a near unanimous consensus that the earth has warmed, no consensus exists regarding climate sensitivity, the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change, whether global warming is a problem or a benefit, or how current temperatures fit into the broader climate context. No consensus on the role of CO2, or whether global warming is a problem or benefit... Words fail me. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-stop-regulations-greenhouse-gases https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-...
  - kbutler 7y ago
    > the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change Is CO2 responsible for about 50% of warming since 1850? Or 100%? or more than 100%, but natural variations have masked part of the warming we would have seen? > whether global warming is a problem or a benefit Is the warming we've had since 1850 primarily a problem or a benefit (hint: most lay people would say problem, but it has been overwhelmingly beneficial).
- hitekker 7y ago
  > But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism I recall many former AIDs denialists mounting similar rationalizations in the 00's. "We did not deny, we were being scientific. We did not delay, we just were doing our due diligence. We were never pigheaded, we have principles, unlike the common rabble rushing to conclusions!" In my view, the climate-change denialist impulse to rewrite their own history is both political and psychological: they need to distance themselves from the social consequences of their past rhetoric, while conversely self-affirming their idealized and supposedly-consistent motivations (aka resolving cognitive dissonance)

by gjm11 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Regarding your earlier citations, the consensus for anthropogenic climate change is much more recent than you seem to assume. The IPCC was not formed until 1988. Even as of the 1995 report, the conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of observed warming was tepid: > An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."[12] It wasn’t until 2001 that IPCC took a definitive position that human influence would be the dominant effect on warming going forward: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.... (pages 9-11). In that same report, the IPCC took a much milder view on whether human influence had been the dominant contributor to date. They assert that a human “signal” is detectable, but do not assert that the warming to date had primarily resulted from human activity. They also note no impact on, for example, the extent of sea ice. The 2001 Heritage article you posted is probably an optimistic reading of the 2001 IPCC report, but not an unreasonable one. Of course they’re not going to be out front embracing the impact of climate change. But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism.

dwaltrip 7y ago
How do you defend the article from 2010: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientific-consensus-global-warming-affects-american-business-and https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif... Or the "Climate Change Realities" section from this 2013 article [1]. Let me quote a sentence from it: > Although there is a near unanimous consensus that the earth has warmed, no consensus exists regarding climate sensitivity, the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change, whether global warming is a problem or a benefit, or how current temperatures fit into the broader climate context. No consensus on the role of CO2, or whether global warming is a problem or benefit... Words fail me. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-stop-regulations-greenhouse-gases https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/congress-should-...
- kbutler 7y ago
  > the role CO2 plays with respect to climate change Is CO2 responsible for about 50% of warming since 1850? Or 100%? or more than 100%, but natural variations have masked part of the warming we would have seen? > whether global warming is a problem or a benefit Is the warming we've had since 1850 primarily a problem or a benefit (hint: most lay people would say problem, but it has been overwhelmingly beneficial).
hitekker 7y ago
> But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism I recall many former AIDs denialists mounting similar rationalizations in the 00's. "We did not deny, we were being scientific. We did not delay, we just were doing our due diligence. We were never pigheaded, we have principles, unlike the common rabble rushing to conclusions!" In my view, the climate-change denialist impulse to rewrite their own history is both political and psychological: they need to distance themselves from the social consequences of their past rhetoric, while conversely self-affirming their idealized and supposedly-consistent motivations (aka resolving cognitive dissonance)