Skeptics blast Jewell’s comments as ‘scientific cleansing’

Greenwire reports:

Some observers are outraged over comments made yesterday by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell when she said she hoped there are “no climate change deniers” at her agency.

Jewell made the statement yesterday during a sweeping town hall address to Interior employees in which she discussed the budget, resources, youth outreach programs, water, tribal relations and other topics. The agency is poised to take substantive action on climate change, she said, adding that doing so is not only a privilege but a moral imperative (E&ENews PM, July 31).

But the comments have drawn outrage from observers who are skeptical that climate change is caused by humans. The blog posted a story about the comments under the headline “Scientific Cleansing.”

“It’s a way for the Obama administration to silence any internal critics,” said Marc Morano, publisher of the blog Climate Depot and a former Republican staffer on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “If you are a scientist, engineer or bureaucrat and you don’t buy the party line of a man-made climate crisis, this is a message you better keep your mouth shut or your career is going to be impacted.”

Marlo Lewis, a Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow, expressed similar concerns about the “chilling effect” Jewell’s comments could have on the agency.

“Only a few months on the job and Jewell already behaves like a self-righteous bully,” he wrote in a post on “A good swift dose of congressional oversight is in order. It might just keep the thought police from harassing climate dissenters at DOI.”

Read more… ($ubscription may be required).

16 thoughts on “Skeptics blast Jewell’s comments as ‘scientific cleansing’”

  1. Not a flat earth believer or the earth is 7,00 years old. Keep the slights and stupid arguments out of it. By the IPCC on reckoning, warmer ocean water gives up co2. I didn’t make those statements up. I am just rehashing arguments that CAGW has already laid out. Additionally, where is the sea level rise from ocean warming. I’m certain you can figure out what just a 1 F increase will do. Or any fraction thereof. Again the two statements are incompatible. You aren’t the first person to assert ocean acidification, or people dumping crap into the ocean, or seeding the ocean with tons of chemicals to feed the fishes. The bottom line here is that this doesn’t support CAGW. It’s a side issue.

  2. I suggest you look up, Google Scholar not Google, or read a book like Strum and Morgan Aquatic Chemistry about carbonate chemistry. Almost all the the CO2 stored in seawater is not in the form of “free” CO2 dissolved in water (it is all bicarbonate and carbonate and they are all related).

    No contradictions, just basic science. It is CO2 and this is a mass game so other acid gases are relatively insignificant by factors of 10’s of thousands to 10 of millions times smaller impacts.

    To believe that ocean acidification is not caused by CO2 emissions is to believe in the flat earth or that the earth is only 7,000 years old. Belief systems so insane that I can’t comprehend them.

  3. From pure physical chemistry, then are the oceans becoming warmer or colder? A warmer ocean cannot hold as much co2, in fact releases it. So are you saying that the data on the warming oceans are wrong?
    Are you selectively side issuing co2 as ocean acidification separately from CAGW? There is a contradiction here if you can see it. The oceans cannot be both becoming warmer and more acidic at the same time.

  4. Water chemistry is my game. It is CO2, but I will be dead long before we loose all our oysters and shellfish. For my grand children, that is a different issue, where loss of coral and oysters could be real.

  5. Or perhaps ocean acidification is NOT from CO2 increase but from an influx in man-made chemicals (fertilizer and pesticide wash into watersheds, etc) combined with natural causes like pollution from deep ocean vents or under-ocean volcanic activity? Granted, I am have not reviewed all of the literature on ocean acidification; however, the articles I have seen refer to PH measure and do not perform the chemical analysis of what acids are present in rising concentrations. The eruptions in Hawaii release high sulfur concentrations above surface so isn’t it plausible that the subsurface eruptions of the new Hawaiian volcano is emitting the same into the ocean water? If so, understanding of fluids is that you have higher acidity at the point of release which then dilutes and spreads with the currents (I do believe that is how that radioactive waste from Japan ended upon the US West Coast).

    I’m not denying that atmospheric CO2 might be the cause and, in fact, a valid theory worthy of empirical study; however, there are other, equally valid theories. I suggest the atmospheric CO2 cause reflects a bias towards a believe in AGW versus “settled science.”

    On a parallel note, I read a paper discussing the increasing PH of rivers as a result of acid rain in some way leaching limestone into the watersupply (If memory serves, the acid raid created breakdown which exposed the limestone to the rainwater, etc). They completely omit the simpler explanation is that the earlier, more acidic PH readings, were the result of acid rain and the increasing PH is actually the ground water returning to “normal” PH levels now that acid rain content has been reduced.

  6. This should be a made into a pamphlet and distributed outside Christian and Jewish places of worship.

  7. Precisely put. Quite a pagan religion too. Quite similar to ancient Greece in many ways. Gaia worship; the religion of Gaia; It’s the antithesis of science. It cannot be proved so now it is forbidden to challenge it. It is a belief, a secular religion. Communism, with a God this time.And, of course a brilliant way to keep the plebs in line and agree to more taxes.

  8. How is it that people do not see the religiosity behind progressivism as expressed through bad-spel of global warming, er, cooling, er, climate change?
    When we here debate in terms of “deniers” and “believe in” and orthodoxy or heresy (implicit or explicit) with its concomitant excommunication (tacit or outspoken); when we see in the environmental dys-vangelist the emotionalism of a revival tent meeting (think “sinners in the hands of an angry Mother Earth”); when we have “sacred texts” declared (god plays hockey on a graph, and the IPCC encyclicals, convienient half-truths), and our high priests (Father Gore) annointed; when we are issued commandments (#1 thou shalt have no other gods before the planet), then we have a religion. And a very empowering one, for in this religion the god, Earth as we know her, is dying and it is up to us to become the sacrificial offering. Well, some of us. As in many corrupt religious enterprises, the heirarchy sit on thrones (in one of their many temples, um, smart homes/planes/limos), while the laity roam far and wide preaching and seeking converts. The true believers, those “fighting the good fight” with the best of intentions, don’t know that there is no “there” there, no
    Shekinah, and no Truth. They go from acolyte to Narcissus. There is only their own projection and only their own refelction. Instead of stewardship and individual and mutual responsibility, we have dictum and dogma; instead of faith born of awe, we have despair fueled by fear. In order to overcome that fear and despair we have created a god we can, no we must save. In doing so, we save our souls. That is why they can’t debate the science. Because ultimately it isn’t science. And to try to engage them with reasoned argument is to become Galileo.

  9. Al Gore has been proven right on one, and only one thing. He declared that the debate is over. He was right — you are no longer allowed to debate.
    Global warming is the new religion – join or else…..

  10. Even CAGW advocates should feel just how cold this wind is. The shoe will be on the other foot at some point.
    Which brings to mind: why is it a crime to stifle Dr. Hansen (and we know he was stifled because he said so, loudly and publicly and frequently) but it’s okay to stifle the opposite view?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.