Omitted from the Cato "addendum," meanwhile, are two chapters in the 2009 report on Pacific and Caribbean islands and the coasts, as well as mention of hardships projected for Native Americans. Cato counters that information on coasts and islands are covered elsewhere in the book.
"It's like they took the simple part of what the U.S. is," said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs at the Climate Institute who helped review the 2009 report.
"If you hadn't seen the original report, you wouldn't know," he added. "They made it look really similar. Why would they do that unless they're trying to mislead?"
Selective science
Patrick Michaels, director of Cato's Center for the Study of Science and the report's editor-in-chief, said the point was to showcase the arbitrary and selective science used by the federal authors.
The 2009 report, Michaels said, is "a key document" buttressing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's finding, in December 2009, that carbon dioxide endangers human health. By issuing a fake addendum – instead of an independent report – Cato can highlight the "highly selective nature of the science, and the political chicanery" that went into the original, he said.
"You could make the argument that they left out more than half of the science when they produced their report," Michaels said in a podcast. "We did this because we know that if anyone wants the EPA to back off, they have to turn around the endangerment finding. So this is the user’s manual to reverse the endangerment finding.”
Not the first
By law, every four years the federal government must assess the state of climate science and summarize it in a report for Congress. Draft text of the next version is expected in December, with the final version due to lawmakers at the end of 2013.
Cato is not the first group to mimic governmental reports and nomenclature.
In 1998 former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz received a rebuke from the academy for a circulating a petition criticizing the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide limits. The petition copied the format and style of a peer-reviewed articles in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
More recently, in 2009 the Heartland Institute published a report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC – an 880-page critique of the United Nation's official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
MacCracken, who headed up the first national assessment in 1995, wonders at the effort devoted to mimic and imitate instead of contribute to the official process. "They put more effort into this than they do in commenting on the reports when they're actually due," he said.
But Cato's Michaels says he tried: He was on his 45th single-spaced page of suggestions as the 2009 report's comment period was about to close. "And I had barely gotten into the document," he said.
Michaels ultimately filed a 170-page response, he said. "In a 60-day comment period, there's no way you can actually do it. It's designed that way."
"That's what generated this."The Cato Institute expects to release its report,
Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, as early as this week. A draft version can be downloaded from its website [pdf].
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentYep, it's yet another denialist effort to sabotage any response to global warming. Greed inspires a lot of nasty behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe assessment by the folks at Cato seems pretty accurate. It is the unrealistic approach by those who fear CO2 that is unfortunate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe assessment by the folks at Ostrich Institute seems pretty accurate for the local area of dirt around their heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could anything be more "fake" than the IPCC conclusions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the libertarian idealogues at Cato were promoting anything truthful they wouldn't have to disguise their propaganda to appear from a different source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLibertarians are people who say "I got mine. You can drop dead."
Welcome back to Trollheim, Your Idiocy. Please leave before the rebel exile you to Pharyngula's "dungeon".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeadline: Cato Institute Denies the Existence of Carbon Dioxide
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisByline: "It's just like Oxygen"
"Thus showing appalling lack of chemical knowledge."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about: Carbon Dioxide - It's Two Thirds Oxygen!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr "CO2: Good For You!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the publicity on this "addendum" SA. It takes a special brand of stupid to believe the anti global warming crowd. Unfortunately most americans seem to fall into that group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericans also tend to be creationists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conservatives love to muddy the waters with their disinfo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:(
Yeah, I'e never seen a conservative who didn't resort to deliberate disinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what we have come to expect from conservatives and conservative organizations. It isn’t just the climate issue, it is every issue they promote. We have come to expect conservatives to question the science of anything they disagree with. From climate change to evolution to magic powers women allegedly have in the event of rape. They have learned that in order to combat inconvenient scientific truths they simply make up there own truths and call them science. They have completely embraced the philosophy: “I reject your reality and submit one of my own.” Too bad the natural world has not caught on so that it might try to help out these conservative fantasies with actual evidence. Conservative response: fabricate evidence. This nonsense only exists in the political realm. Actual scientists who are working in the field know the reality and are not influenced by fantasy stories like Cato peddles. Those who do not do actual field research, and those who do not pay attention to their work, are the ones who get fooled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet another example of the utter dishonesty of the Cato "Institute" (calling itself an "Institute" to assume an aura of credibility it does not merit). It is quite literally a fib factory. They cannot support their policies with facts or honesty, so instead of changing their policies, they support them with lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny chance they can be sued for defamation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisH'mmm...it's an idea, but it might be First Amendment protected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what we have come to expect from conservatives and conservative organizations. It isn’t just the climate issue, it is every issue they promote. We have come to expect conservatives to question the science of anything they disagree with. From climate change to evolution to magic powers women allegedly have in the event of rape. They have learned that in order to combat inconvenient scientific truths they simply make up there own truths and call them science. They have completely embraced the philosophy: “I reject your reality and submit one of my own.” Too bad the natural world has not caught on so that it might try to help out these conservative fantasies with actual evidence. Conservative response: fabricate evidence. This nonsense only exists in the political realm. Actual scientists who are working in the field know the reality and are not influenced by fantasy stories like Cato peddles. Those who do not do actual field research, and those who do not pay attention to their work, are the ones who get fooled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc.geek
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could probably sue them in Italy for their false statements!
Hey, yeah! All we need is to conn them into printing their lies in Italy, and we can sue 'em!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....On the other hand, there's a difference between free expression of opinion and stealing the look, design, and name of a federal report in order to perpetrate a fraud. It certainly does not qualify as "parody."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I think "fraud" will do nicely:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud:[8][9]
a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff."
The plaintiff being any person who pays money for this "addendum" under the belief it is a truthful representation, and votes for canditates in public election accordingly.
Anyone who purchases this report could justifiably take Cato Institute to court.
Yes! Absolutely right! The inconvenience of history is constantly rewritten to suite their ideology and SteveinOG is correct…it is fraud. Some court cases have been brought but they have not gone anywhere but being such a significantly important issue the lawyers have not given up. I imagine that Virginia will eventually wish they had not ignored the warnings of sea level rise deciding instead that “sea level rise” was liberal propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like this might be the first sign of how the Koch brothers are changing things at Cato since they kicked out the libertarians and installed an Ayn Randian as head this past June. See
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/kochs-cato-john-allison.html
Remember 72% of American believe in GW and it's damage mostly because it's getting visable to most everyone who's head isn't stuck in the sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in Fla beaches are disappearing as are islands and the Everglades are shrinking and turning from fresh water to saltwater marsh far inland, etc.
Then as every farmer knows one has to plant warmer region crops from 200-300 mile south if one wants a good harvest as that is how much north the plant, animal, insect line has moved since 1970.
The deceptiveness lies on the part of those who promote Global Warming. Most of those who do are merely tools, of the the Shadow Government of banking families, who see Global Warming as another way to wring more taxation out of the entire world. It's control and money. Nothing more. You tools, should wake up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShorter Innocent: Ignore the evidence presented in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate science is not the only thing that the "right wing" lies about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can add history (the Founders of the USA were all true, Christian, God fearing men. BS!), economics (supply side economics builds prosperity for all. BS!), religion (Christianity is the one and only true religion.BS!), and---well, we could go on all day.
But of course they will tell you that their beliefs are, in reality, fact. This comes under the general heading of "if I believe it with all my heart and soul then it is TRUE! BS!
This is one of the funniest comment threads I've seen in a while. LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFive examples, all correct. Nice job! Mentioning that Jefferson was a deist was a nice touch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInnocentIII,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to check into that 'tool' thing a little closer to home. Unprecedented levels of CO2 output not causing significantly increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely a fantasy. Maybe you deny CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy. Take a chemistry class.
*** YAWN***
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not really happening if you shut your eyes and deny it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Too bad you Alarmists don't get as excited when the Met says that warming stopped 16 years ago."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, the Met did not say that; so, there wasn't much to get excited about.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. From 1997 to 2012 is 15 years.
2. It has now been pointed out to you three different times that the U.K's Met office never said such a thing.
Here is what the Met Office itself says,"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue."
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Also from the Met Office:
"The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."
Why lie about something so easily debunked?
Thank you for making "Scientific American" an oxymoron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccurate? You don't know the meaning of the word. There is no way you can approach an accurate model of the global climate using a decade's worth of data covering only part of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLibertarians combine the social irresponsibility of conservatives with the individual irresponsibility of liberals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is fraud and should be prosecuted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are not a scientist then keep your ignorance to yourself. If you are not a climate scientist, then don't try to argue with the big boys. I am a chemist and a physicist, I analyze the arguments from a perspective of the atmospheric chemistry, and it is becoming clearly frightening, our power to exterminate ourselves. First through our weapons, finally from our own ignorance. I have to side with Asimov: one's ignorance is not equal to other's knowledge. When you have a medical problem and instead of a medical doctor, you go to a "psychic healer", when the problem gets worse, you die. In this case though, we ALL die, so I have to say NO to ignorant opinions, lies and deliberate misdirection. It is time to start suing ALL those who have obfuscated this issue with the damages that extremes of weather are causing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone once posed this proposition: the reason that we have not detected evidence of other technological civilizations in the universe (aside from all the obvious difficulties of doing so) is that beings who develop what we would call "advanced technology" tend to kill themselves off within a few centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we are in any way typical then I would support that idea. At any rate, I am glad to be of an age where I will not have to see the worst of it and, thankfully, we have no grandchildren.
I do think, based on all that I have read in the journals, that we are already in a mass extinction cycle, caused by our technology. If any animal life survives, besides ants, cockroaches, and microorganisms, I think humans, a few of us, might somehow make it.
We are pretty resourceful and adaptable, so if mammalian life is possible in, say 2 or 3 hundred years, our species should survive.
I would not wish, however, to live in that world.
I wonder how the people on the East coast feel about global warming and the harsher storms it brings as they get flooded. Karma sucks don't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this