Thank Ceiling Cat that some newspapers are still doing investigative reporting—and are good at it. Yesterday’s Miami Herald has a longish report by Tristam Korten revealing that, on orders from the governor and his minions, state officials are not permitted to use the terms “global warming” or “climate change’ in environmental reports or talks.
What we have here is 1984 arriving 31 years late: a government promoting doublespeak that “warm is cool”. It’s as if by not using the words referring to what is happening, they think it won’t happen—or at least that people won’t know about it. But there are two things that scientists do know: the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity—the emission of greenhouse gases, largely from fossil fuels—and that Florida, much of which is just above sea level, is especially susceptible to inundation when the icecaps melt. As the Herald report notes, “Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.”
The agency responsible for monitoring the environment is Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which began policing language after Rick Scott (a Republican, of course) became governor in 2011. Like many GOP politicians, Scott is a climate-change denialist:
Among the politicians who refuse to acknowledge climate change is Gov. Scott. During his first campaign for governor in 2010, Scott told reporters who asked about his views on climate change that he had “not been convinced,” and that he would need “something more convincing than what I’ve read.”
In 2014, Scott said he “was not a scientist” when asked about his views on climate change.
DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.
. . . “We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”
Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.
Scott, a scientific mushbrain, ignores the scientists (there’s a description of how a group of them were given all of 30 minutes to explain the effects of climate change to the governor, and then were dismissed after they talked for only 20 minutes); and he’s created a climate (pardon the pun) in the DEP that simply uses euphemisms in an attempt to avoid the issue:
One example is the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council’s Annual Research Plan, put together by DEP and other state agencies. The 2009-2010 report, published the year before Scott was elected, contains 15 references to climate change, including a section titled “Research Priorities — Climate Change.”
In the 2014-15 edition of the report, climate change is only mentioned if it is in the title of a past report or conference. There is one standalone reference to the issue at the end of a sentence that sources say must have slipped by the censors. “It’s a distinct possibility,” said one former DEP employee.
Instead, terms like “climate drivers” and “climate-driven changes” are used.
Another example in the piece comes from Trotta, who’s blown the whistle on the language purge. She reports that besides the prohibition of the terms “global warming and “climate change,” the term “sea-level rise” was also proscribed—replaced with the euphemism “nuisance flooding.” Can you believe that? Nuisance flooding! This is a state, not a basement!
The piece gives many examples of this kind of bowdlerizing, which would be hilariously stupid if it wasn’t being done to hide an environmental problem that is looming and serious. Scott and those who follow his dictates will look like idiots when the flooding begins: like ostriches with their heads buried in a pile of thesauruses as the water begins to rise.
Fricking science-denying Republicans!
h/t: Robin
The scourge of shameless Republican propaganda is inexhaustible it seems. What a blight they are on the country and indeed the world.
We can only hope that they never learned how to swim……
Considering how seriously they seem to take the possibility of building large-scale, species-housing arks at short notice, I like to think their sincerity in this area may well be subject to imminent experimental testing.
Except the problem is I’m one of them!
Don’t just assume that everyone in Florida is a moronic redneck who deserves what’s coming to them. It’s the central and northern part of the state that is the seat of the GOP’s political dominance. So you get Democratic Us Reps, Mayors and City Councils in Southeast Florida (Miami, Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale) where most of the population lives, but we get stuck with a reactionary, rural southern legislature up in Tallahassee because 60 out of the 67 counties are as red as angry cardinal, but those 60 counties represent less than half of the state’s population. Yes, Porter Goss, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are from Florida, but so is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. We’re not all right-wing idiots.
Just astonishment from the other side of the pond…..
Does the governor really have the power to forbid these terms being used by the DEP? Would that not impinge on freedom of speech? Do DEP officials have freedom of speech, or at least some autonomy?
“Nuisance flooding” and “climate drivers”, I think your comparison to Newspeak is not exaggerated at all, quite non the mark, me seems.
Note, if I understood correctly, the rise in sea levels at present has more to do with expansion of water volume with higher temperatures than the melting of land-ice (melting of sea-ice would in itself not directly influence sea-levels).
Governor Scott’s leverage is the ability to terminate the employment of any DEP agent who refuses to comply with the request. All U.S. citizens have freedom of speech, but some forms of speech may come with consequences if you upset your employer.
“God gave every Englishman three most precious gifts: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the good common sense never to use either of them” (Mark Twain, I think; quote and attribution from memory)
Such is the Master-Servant relationship which, if I have read correctly, is the formal, traditional, legal basis of employment law. (In fact, I think we should do away with “employee” and use “private servant.” After all, “public servant” gets tossed around with impunity, as does “human resource” and “human capital.”)
” . . . consequences if you upset your employer.”
That is, upset your tyrant Master.
Since this is out, reporters can at least question Scott on why he issued this directive. He won’t be able to “fire, Romneyesque, reporters.
(By “Romneyesque,” I’m referring to Mitt Romney’s penchant for saying he’d “fire” this person and he’d “fire” that person. I’d like to see Mitt Romney or Scott or any other former private corporate tyrant would handle a class of inner-city public school 8th graders; “You’re fired!” would not be an option as a “classroom management” technique.)
Fortunately climate warming and atmosphere change are one of those problems that will go away if you ignore it because dammit Jim, I’m a republican, not a scientist.
Since the governor of Florida, apparently does not think much of the first amendment he should get his butt down there and stop this outlandish reporting from the Miami newspaper. Whatever could be the matter with those people.
Nothing like living 15 feet above sea level and refusing to believe in global warming. Many of those folks down there in Miami who hate Castro so much will some day be checking the rent back in Havana.
15 feet? That’s one of the higher areas. I was 9 feet when I lived there and that was 12 miles inland.
The thing is these denialists will be well into retirement or their graves before the real trouble start. They are simply trying to hold up their state’s waterfront real estate value until they have raked in the contributions from that very industry.
Yup. Propping up their beachfront property values was likely also the reason the NC state legislature forbade did something similar. They forbade their scientists from using realistic models to calculate sea rise due to climate change.
And of course the government will probably have to bail out the luxury home owners when their homes wash away.
But that’s merely a nuisance, is it not?
I was about to make the same observation. It seems to be driven by real estate interests. They don’t want to warn off any potential suckers on whom to unload seaside properties while the land is still dry.
“while the land is still dry.”
While less frequently wet perhaps.
I was recently looking for property with a house on the west coast of WA. A nice house with ocean view came to my attention at a very reasonable price. Before going to look at it I checked Google Earth, and saw that the house was on a bluff overlooking Puget Sound. The edge of the bluff was about 100 from the house and from the aerial view you could see huge scallops where the soil had been caving into the sea. I didn’t bother to go look at the house in person.
Good researching!
I’ve heard some stupid things about the GOP, but this takes the cake. He’s “not a scientist” but feels up to defining scientific terms and evaluating the validity of scientific theories. In a state that is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, he is literally a danger to the lives of the people he is responsible for.
I thought the GOP was supposed to be opposed to forcing big government on individuals. I guess it’s not just people’s bedrooms and women’s bodies anymore – we can add climate science to the list of exceptions. How long before evolutionary theory is added too?
Yes, they are against everything about government, except when it has benefited their world — such as overturning that vote down there in Florida back in 2000.
I still can’t believe that happened. And in a country that considers itself such an example of democracy.
There’s a whole book on it: The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.
Here are my two favorite quotes from it:
“When politicians use bad science to justify themselves, rather than good science to make up their minds, we can safely assume that wrongheaded and even disastrous decisions lie ahead. (p. 242)
In a famous October 2004 New York Times article on the Bush administration, journalist Ron Suskind described his encounter with a “senior adviser” to the president:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality.” (p. 243)
“The Republican War on Science”; he should have called it “The Republican War on Reality”.
That would be the second, expanded edition.
As I recall a Bush II functionary disparagingly referred to the “reality-based” community.
They will realize the error in their ways when Florida is underwater!!!!
Sadly, I doubt they will. THe politicians will reap huge campaign contributions from developers. When they go bankrupt, the same politicians will cover their bankruptcy with bailouts…and in public, they’ll talk about how terrible it is and then start taking big campaign contributions from the developers of the *new* waterfront properties.
Its basically a prisoner’s dilemma; the GOP politician who doesn’t “defect” from the common good and serve the short-term interests of the business community, loses. So they all do.
Surely if one is going to use “not a scientist” as a defense then there are only two ways to finish answering the question. Either “I’m not a scientist so I will defer to scientific consensus” or “I’m not a scientist so I have to recuse myself from discussions on the subject.”
^^^^^^
This!!
Unemployment and beachfront property development, two things big in Florida.
Ricky is committed to protecting the environment, you will be glad to hear. He values the Everglades. Perhaps the tourist dollars have something to do with that, and his love of hunting. Ricky also believes in protecting the unborn,traditional families and religious freedoms.
He has an interesting background though, having built the Columbia hospital empire which may actually have succeeded in making good healthcare more affordable. Not quite sure what to make of it.
On further investigation it looks like Scott jumped Columbia amidst insurance fraud allegations with a $300 000 000 parachute.
Surprise, surprise!
In recent news out of Florida, the severe hurricanes predicted by global warming will now be officially referred to as “really big, inconvenient thunderstorms”.
Perhaps DEP employees should get into the spirit and refer to “future catastrophic changes in global temperature caused by industrial activity” instead of climate change.
Hog Island had one of those nuisance pop up thunderstorms and has been experiencing the corresponding nuisance flooding for 122 years now….
It’s frustrating that most of these people won’t be around if the shit really hits the fan and denialists are rightly seen as morally bankrupt historical criminals. They’ll all be dead, and their Exxon-enriched offspring’ll be living in castles on stilts with frog-butlers to serve them.
I want a frog butler!
Don’t we all mate, don’t we all.
A toady?
LOL!
Oi Ant, I do the frog puns ’round here – hop it.
Urgh – Is there any way to delete comments that you’re embarrassed about…?
A plea to PCC might avail.
But I’m surprised this didn’t spawn even worse puns.
/@
Toadally.
I’ve written reports for a large agency that manages a lot of grazing land. At one time, reports would mention “sacrifice areas”, small places the cattle congregate to rest or drink, often pounding the vegetation to dust. Cattle behavior hasn’t changed, but the agency no longer has sacrifice areas.
They no longer have overgrazing, either, though heavy grazing occurs. Sometimes very heavy grazing.
The scientists involved report as honestly as possible, but you have to learn the language (including euphemisms). Realize that this is human nature, especially bureaucrat nature, and if you really want to know, ask people.
Sorry, but I don’t have to learn the language if the language is designed to obfuscate problems, as it is here. It’s not MY human nature to do that, it is only human nature if you don’t like an outcome and want to try to prevent that from being known, or occurring, by using euphemisms. The fact is that other bureaucracies, such as that of the United States government, don’t have any problem using the term “climate change” or “global warming,” so it is not inherent in bureaucracies to change language. They do that only if the words have connote something they don’t like, and they try to gloss over it.
The consequences of this change of usage are displayed eloquently in Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” We shouldn’t have to be told to “ask bureaucrats when you don’t understand.” The people affected by these decisions don’t even READ the reports.
That is true. I get annoyed that we can’t always be as blunt as we wish to be. This problem is worth pointing out, and can often be pointed out best by those outside the bureaucracy in question. (Those inside point it out to each others, roll their eyes, and continue on as best they can.)
Learning the language of euphemism is helpful if there are conflicts within the agency, such that many people what will be honest even if they aren’t allowed to be clear. (The Florida example shows how different terms can be used to communicate.) I take some comfort knowing that since most of the people in a position to make changes within a government agency know darn well what the euphemisms hide, the potential for communication exists.
(Depending on the day, I am amazed how much some of our governmental agencies manage to accomplish despite divided goals, minimal resources, and often obstructive directives, or I’m frustrated how little gets done.)
I agree with you…however…
Many good scientific journal publications could be examples of the art of the understatement. Granted, that’s more of a ideology-neutral stylistic choice rather than some political obfuscation, but most laymen trying to read an important article probably aren’t going to get why its a big deal, because the of the dry and matter-of-fact way in which important information is conveyed.
Bureaucratic organizations are the same way; they have a style. DOD is the same way, and I’m sure state organizations also have a specific style. What I’m saying is, this particular top-down dictat is certainly Orwellian and should be (a) resisted, and (b) laughed at. But if a bureaucratic organization in general put out hard to understand reports, its probably not malicious obfuscation.
“…because the of the dry and matter-of-fact way in which important information is conveyed.”
So true. Which is why we need more science populizers to do the explaining.
“So true. Which is why we need more science populizers to do the explaining.”
Would you say that there’s a definite demarcation between science “popularizing” and “infotainment”?
It strikes me that, all else being equal, the less one likes science for its own sake, the more s/he has to be entertained in order to be – as is vogue to say in pedagogical circles currently – “engaged.”
Not that I blame him, but if Skink hadn’t run off to the swamps & was still Governor, this wouldn’t be happening.
I read this report yesterday and discussed it with a Floridian friend. “It must be like living in a nuthouse,” I said. He agreed, and added (I assume in jest) that the mayor of South Miami wants to secede from Florida.
Like Harry Potter with Voldemort, climate change is now “It Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken.”
Vice TV just had an excellent episode on the Antarctic and the shocking rate of glacier loss from the warming of the ocean. I highly recommend watching it if you get the chance. They also checked out a climate change denialist convention where they use the strategists and tactics from the “smoking has not been proven to cause cancer” propaganda effort back in the 90s to stop meaningful legislation and action on carbon emissions.
+1 and another one
There’s a new movie about those overlaps and parallels called Merchants of Doubt (based on the book of the same name).
While they’re at it, why don’t they just call problem alligators “unusually large anoles.”
And we can call denialists politicians “unusually large assholes” …
/@
* Hmm… “a-holes” might’ve been betterer.
Damn–the one time you missed your chance! 😀
And we can call denialist politicians “unusually large assholes”
Seems reasonable to me.
Unusually large anoles! I like it!
Anoles Of Unusual Size, surely?
+1!
AUS? I don’t think they exist.
They must! How else would the rodent population of the Everglades be kept in check?
Invasive pythons.
Excuse me, there are no invasive pythons in the Everglades. There are Rat snakes of Unusual Size.
There are no invasive lionfish, either. There are Clownfish of Unusual Stabbiness.
“Clownfish of Unusual Stabbiness.”
ROFL!
You must be a Sicilian.
Did I say that it was inconceivable?
The Florida environmental agency should change its name to Department of Environmental Resources Protection. DERP would suit far better.
I feel bad for the good scientists and other specialists who know better but are stuck working with one lobe tied behind their brains – hopefully they’ll have a chance one day to unwind all the damage, but that becomes a more and more difficult proposition.
Perhaps the next time we have a post and or thread about correctspeak, we’ll rememeber this one and note that there are far more insidious threats to civic discourse than even the most absurd leftist attempts at speech control*.
* – Which is not to condone them, by any means, just to keep them in proper perspective!
Florida will soon be flood privileged. Or differently flood abled. Or…
Land impaired? Shoreline challenged? Populated with Aquatic-Americans?
Of course, the same ocean that swallows the low-lying edges of red states will do the same to blue states without favor. Or as we say it in Cunkese: We’re all a bit fooked then, aren’t we?
“Enjoy Florida’s submarine beaches!”
/@
‘In 2014, Scott said he “was not a scientist” when asked about his views on climate change.’
Scott is and/or has been a Biz-nessman and corporate CEO. Does that not therefore, Romneyesque, qualify him to competently hold forth on any and everything?
Sometimes, I do wonder, how could all the ridiculous things happen?
Very interesting documentary on the air pollution in China. It’s called Under the Dome, and is banned in China. Versions of it have been viewed over 300 million times already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6X2uwlQGQM
It’s a must watch. It’s 1hr 45mins long, in Chinese with English subtitles.
New NASA research now suggests that the pollution over China ‘could be contributing to the snowier winters in the west’.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/nasa-asias-pollution-could-be-contributing-to-snowier-winters-in-the-west/46863/
It’s yet another wake-up call for all of us.
The US per capita CO2 emissions is right up there with China as well. Here’re data from *2011* on the top 10 emitters!:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters
Correction: For per capita emissions, Canada, the US and Russia are at the top. China and US and Europe are at the top for total emissions, but India is coming up fast. The data is from 2011.
“The US per capita CO2 emissions is right up there with China as well.”
Per the per capita graph, the U.S. is the number two emitter, and China is number seven. Not an insignificant difference, eh?
In June, 2008 my local paper reprinted a NY Times article (I just now removed it from my bulletin board) with the headline, “Study: China spews most carbon dioxide.”
True enough. But, as is the wont of the navel-gazing U.S. media, salient oppositional details are in the last para.:
“The United States still has a vast lead in carbon dioxide emissions per person. The average American is responsible (Really? Don’t you mean the average Fortune 1500 CEO and investor, for the most part?) for 19.4 tons. Average emissions per person in . . . [other countries] China, 5.1 tons . . . .”
Another consideration: what percentage of China’s (and any other country’s) emissions is attributable to U.S. companies offshoring their manufacturing? To that extent, it reasonably seems that the China figure should be somewhat decreased, and the U.S. figure somewhat increased, to account for that.
Hey, all U.S. manufacturing causing carbon emission could be offshored, and the U.S. could claim 0% carbon emission. Hmm?
I think I’m gonna gather up a group of other Floridians and then contact other groups of people in Wisconsin and Louisiana, to organize a contest to see who has the more messed up governor.
As odious as Walker and Jindal may be, I’m sure ol’ Tricky Ricky will bring the trophy back to Tallahassee. He’s basically Lord Voldemort’s (look at the family resemblance) incompetent younger brother.
Oh, and just in the interests of clarity, Rick Scott is a mushbrain about all kinds of things, not just science. Gov. Scoot is an equal opportunity mushbrain if ever there was one.
The magic of thinking if one has merely relabeled something one has done something substantial.