But what does it say about conservatives that the mere mention of “climate change” causes them to tune out? What does it say about a political party when pointing out established science discredits you in their eyes?
Dooley is essentially saying, Don’t be honest with conservatives about science. They can’t handle it. But if we can’t be honest with them, what’s going to stop them from pursuing another conspiracy theory in the future? Are Republicans really so weak that attaching “freedom” to an idea is the only way for them to take it seriously? We shouldn’t have to change the nature of the debate because one side refuses to acknowledge reality.
EPAimplemented its scientific integrity policy, along with other science-centric agencies, after the Obama administration called for agencies to strengthen internal reviews on science in 2009. The move was in response to the previous administration's rewriting of regulations based on questionable or politically motivated science.
"It just got so out of control during Bush-Cheney that people began recognized it as an issue, so much so that it was one of the first actions Obama took," said Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group of former government employees and scientists.
Grifo joined the EPA in 2013, charged with implementing its new scientific integrity policy and coordinating with a new scientific integrity committee. While the Office of Inspector General handles investigations into scientific misconduct, Grifo handles matters of scientific integrity.
Human caused global warming is well underway, but it isn't yet possible to say a given extreme bit of weather was directly caused by it. What we notice is an increased probability that such events happen. Here's a very high level good-enough for the public description why with a bit on how the individual event connection is being made better.
There was, however, a major missing part of this theory, and Michael Mann, climate scientist, joined the Rahmstorf et al team to fill in that blank. It is very difficult to be sure that a climatic phenomenon is either a) for real or b) characterizable as you’ve witnessed it, when you are looking at it for just a few years. If there is a change in climate because of the above described effects, there are not too many years of data allowing us to track it, observe its variations, or to figure out exactly how it works. This is complicated by several factors. For example, an alternate but similar explanation for the waves themselves, and the weather that comes with them, is the warming of the North Pacific. Hell, it could be both factors, because both factors may reduce the heat differential between the midriff and heads of the planet.
There are two obvious solutions to this problem. One is to sit back and wait a hundred years or so and collect data then consider the problem with a lot more information at hand. I’m sure climate scientists are busy doing this as we speak, but it may take a while! The other is to use climate modeling to simulate long periods of time, and see if quai-resonant waves and changes in the weather pattern are associated with anthropological global warming.