It’s almost enough to restore your faith in the idea that reason will prevail.
Global warming science deniers hoped that the stolen emails from climate scientists would derail the Copenhagen conference, in part by causing a huge backlash in the United States. And while there’s been plenty of uncritical and unbalanced coverage of the stolen emails, the "scandal" has become a sideshow distraction rather than a conference killer. In fact, while the emails are largely getting a big ho-hum from most editorial and op-ed pages around the United States, and many editorial pages are expressing hope that Copenhagen will move both domestic and international efforts to combat global warming further down the track.
Why has the so-called "Climategate" turned out to be such a dud -- outside of rabidly conservative newspapers, cable news and talk radio outlets? From the scientific perspective, many outlets have already reached the conclusions reached by Time Magazine’s Brian Walsh, who examined the emails in-depth and reported that "In the weeks since the e-mails first became public, many climate scientists and policy experts have looked through them, and they report that the correspondence does not contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming."
And, as I discussed in a recent blog post, there are lots of emails that reveal just how hard the scientists work to make sure they are getting the information right.
From a policy perspective, I think the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman really hit on something in his December 9th op-ed article entitled Going Cheney on Climate:
In 2006, Ron Suskind published "The One Percent Doctrine," a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response." Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a "low-probability, high-impact event." Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole "climategate" controversy as well.
You probably have read some of the other national editorials and op-eds on this. But what I find most interesting is how little impact the stolen email scandal has had at the local and regional level in the United States. Sure, you can find letters to the editor from people who clearly get all their information from Glenn and Rush. But the good news is that sanity seems to be prevailing both in terms of the editorials and the op-ed articles that are appearing in print.
Here’s a look at some representative editorials from local papers:
US must lead the way in reducing carbon emissions, The Kansas City Star, 12/04/09:
Plenty of heated rhetoric will be exchanged at the United Nations climate conference starting Monday in Copenhagen. So it will take cool-headed thinking by political leaders to establish meaningful programs to contend with man-made global warming. (Yes — for all the strident skeptics out there — science clearly shows the Earth is getting warmer and, yes, it’s partly because of greenhouse gas emissions.) Given those facts, what must be decided by the time the conference ends Dec. 18? Among the priorities: Developed nations that currently spew the most harmful emissions — led by the United States and including Germany, Britain, France and Australia — should agree to even more robust cuts in future carbon emissions.
Why the climate summit in Copenhagen matters, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/04/09:
More than 100 world leaders are expected to make appearances at the international climate summit that begins Monday in Copenhagen. President Barack Obama is expected on Dec. 18, the conference’s last day. He won’t come home with a treaty for the Senate to ratify, but he may be able to close a tentative deal. There is little chance the meeting will produce a final, legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even so, the conference in Denmark is important for two reasons. First, because evidence continues to accumulate that human activity is rapidly — and that’s the key word here, rapidly — altering the earth’s climate system. Second, because against all odds, international momentum is building to address the problem. Copenhagen won’t be the final word. But it can set a political framework for reaching an agreement.
Climate conference, The Salt Lake Tribune, 12/07/09:
Much of what happens or doesn't happen at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen over the next 10 days will be up to the United States and China, the two biggest polluters on the planet. Representatives from 192 nations are meeting to adopt a strategy for preventing catastrophic impacts from global warming and helping poor nations mitigate the inevitable social and economic effects of climate change. For President Barack Obama, it's show time. After eight years of denial and obfuscation under President George W. Bush, this country has an obligation to, finally, step into a leadership role. Countries that signed the Kyoto climate-change accord 12 years ago have moved far ahead of the United States in developing policies and adopting technologies to combat human-caused warming. Neither the United States nor China agreed to the Kyoto compact.
OUR VIEW: The time is now to take on climate change, The (Oklahoma City) Oklahoma Daily, (editorial), 12/08/09:
Yesterday was the first day of a two-week conference on climate change in Copenhagen, which many world leaders, including President Barack Obama, plan to attend. We are happy Obama decided to attend the conference, but by no means is this enough. Climate change is one of the most serious problems facing our planet right now, and soon it will become the most serious. It’s time we stopped mincing words and started doing something about it. And we’re not talking about something small. We are talking about an all out concerted effort to turn this trend around. We are talking about enacting and enforcing carbon limitations on industries, and putting time and money behind finding alternative forms of energy. Also, we would like to see the government put worthwhile incentives in place for people who decide to drive electric or hybrid cars or retrofit their homes to be green.
Editorial: Ten years after, The Gainesville Sun, 12/09/09:
It's been 10 years since the EPA was petitioned to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It's been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA does indeed have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases if they are determined to pose a threat to public health. This week the agency announced its intent to begin regulating gases linked to climate change. Eventually, that will mean that automobiles must become more fuel efficient and industrial factories and power plants retrofitted to reduce heat-trapping emissions. Those measures will not come without costs, but the cost of inaction could be higher still. The announcement was obviously timed to coincide with the convening of the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen. It gives President Obama the opportunity to demonstrate that the U.S. is taking action even as Congress debates more comprehensive climate change legislation.
(You will note that these positive editorials are not by any stretch just coming from hard-core blue states!)
And there’s even more good news ... The bylined opinion articles that are appearing around the nation are running strongly in favor of climate science and the Copenhagen conference:
'Climategate' distracts from a crucial issue, Los Angeles Times, 12/09/09:
Glen MacDonald: For the past week, I have been riveted by the disclosures and diatribes swirling around Climategate. . . Global warming skeptics have pounced on the e-mails as proof that climate scientists manipulate data and arbitrarily dismiss the work of scholars who hold contrarian views. The snippets from the purloined e-mails do not provide a full context to the disturbing quotes, and I am not willing to condemn two highly talented and dedicated scientists without a full accounting. Investigations are taking place at East Anglia and Penn State. I trust these will be thorough and fair. Glen MacDonald is a climate change scientist, UC presidential chair and director of UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Creating green jobs for veterans, Denver Post, 12/03/09:
Garett Reppenhagen: This December, Denver based Veterans Green Jobs will be among a group of American veterans representing the United States at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, here at home, clean energy legislation is being debated in the Senate which will determine the future of a new sustainable economy and will ensure the U.S. makes strides toward energy independence. As military service veterans, we ask Sens. Bennet and Udall to take a stand on a vote that has great importance to our national security: a vote for clean energy. America is far too reliant on the dirty, polluting fossil fuels of the past that subject our economy to major fluctuations in fuel prices and threaten our national security. Moving to energy that is clean, domestic, cheap, and safe will take some effort but the payoff will be enormous. Garett Reppenhagen is the director of Veterans Development for Veterans Green Jobs in Denver.
Joseph Wyatt: Global warming is no myth, Charleston Gazette, (op-ed), 12/02/09:
Joseph Smith: If they squint their eyes hard enough, those who dismiss climate change as fiction can always spy some fuzzy non-fact that seems to support their thinking. Something of the "It snowed in Denver last night" or "We didn't have another Hurricane Katrina this year" variety. But anecdotes are not evidence. But global warming is real, and it is here. We can't simply quit on coal. There are a number of good jobs there, even if the industry big wheels have eliminated nine out of 10 of those jobs over the past 50 years. But we do not help ourselves, or our children, or their children, by denying the fact of global warming. The question is not whether this monster is real but, rather, how to tame it. Wyatt, a professor at Marshall University, is a Gazette contributing columnist.
No one believes that the climate science deniers are going away. No one seriously thinks that the "Climategate" hoax won’t continue to kick around and confuse people for some time to come. But the good news is that reason is prevailing. Abraham Lincoln was right: You can’t fool all the people all the time.