Re: Deniers bible
rogvin
.There is only one question that matters: 'will adding more CO2 to the
atmosphere make the world much warmer now?'
The 16 page booklet is free.
Download the 2Mb English version."The science has changed since 2003?
This booklet has captured attention around the world.
Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New
Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany.
Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, and Swedish.
(Versions in Finnish, Dutch, Spanish, Turkish and possibly Italian are on
the way).
Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read
comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be
discussed.
1. The seventh draft of the The Skeptics Handbook (1.6 Mb pdf)
How to get past the pointless tit-for-tat swapping of 'evidence'
What evidence is, what counts, and what doesn't
Why new results have changed everything
How to steer out of details and get to the only point that matters.
2. Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years,
as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. Judge the lag for yourself.
3. Coming: resources, cartoons, graphs and information
4. Coming Articles:
"The five reasons the AGW story got so out of control",
"How science communicators let us all down."
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
rogvin
Book Review: "Guilt, Blame, And Politics" By Allan Levite
Allan Levite, in his important new book, "Guilt, Blame, and Politics" has
finally discovered the psychological engine that propels liberalism in the
face of considerable evidence that leftist notions do not work in the real
world.
For years conservatives have asked themselves why the intelligencia tends to
liberalism and even communism.
Conservatives are accustomed to thinking in rational, practical and economic
terms.
Thus, we have forever attempted to impose upon the left some rational,
practical or economic motive, or failing that, we have simply shrugged our
shoulders and chalked up liberal motivations to emotionalism.
Somehow, these explanations have proved unsatisfactory.
Allan Levite, in his important new book, "Guilt, Blame, and Politics" has
finally discovered the psychological engine that propels liberalism in the
face of considerable evidence that leftist notions do not work in the real
world.
(The failure of the welfare state, the fall of communism in East Europe and
its decline in Asia are events ignored or explained away by the left.)
Indeed, he makes clear that there is a reason that the American media and
academia espouse views that, if analyzed, could be labeled "Marxist".
Mr. Levite clearly states the reason in the title of this work, "Guilt".
It is not difficult to dredge up examples of leftist writers and leaders who
cite guilt as the primary reason for their conversion to liberalism, most
often saying they were ashamed to live in material abundance while others in
the world suffered. In fact leftists seem to wallow in self-denigration.
They feel that their own status and wealth are unearned, therefore they
assume that all wealth is unearned and make it their goal not merely to
redistribute wealth but to eliminate it altogether.
Asceticism is the hallmark of leftist thought as epitomized in the lifestyle
imposed by Mao on billions of Chinese or the state imposed austerity on the
serfs of Soviet Russia where over 20 million were murdered in an attempt to
impose a new economic system.
"Guilt, Blame, and Politics" is well researched.
It cites statistics and anecdotes from a wide variety of sources.
These examples illustrate that most of the Bolshevik leaders in the Russian
Revolution were from the upper middle class and that it was money from the
wealthiest members of Russia's commercial elite that fueled the early stages
of the soviet movement. This does not mean they necessarily felt guilty
about their own wealth.
Nevertheless, it clearly put these leaders well within what Mr. Levite calls
the guilt profile (most radicals tend to be well-educated, materially
supported, and/or removed from manual labor). Lenin himself noted that the
proletariat would never foment revolution on its own. He seemed to feel that
the workers could only develop a trade-union mentality; that is they could
only aspire to the wealth of the middle class. Lenin was not seeking to
raise up the workers; he sought to tear down the upper classes.
Modern liberalism's leaders fall within the same profile.
Eight of the ten wealthiest members in the Senate are Democrats; the
Rockefellers are renown for bankrolling liberal causes. Hollywood is
notorious for its leftist views.
This is the thrust of Mr. Levite's argument.
Leftists wish to level society in a way that will alleviate their own guilt
feelings for not having to perform manual labor. The only way to do this is
through the government because only the government has the power to overcome
man's tendency to liberty and its corollary the acquisition of property.
Even the leftist knows he cannot control his own behavior to conform to the
austere standards he would impose upon all society. Thus he needs government
to do the dirty work. He also needs government to sanction his own position
in society; so that he does not have to feel guilty about living off the
blood, sweat and tears of others.
Mr. Levite's book is packed with such insights.
In a chapter on political symbolism he states:
"Even if much of what passes for compassion is actually the result of guilt,
this would not make sympathy for the poor, or efforts to alleviate their
condition, any less legitimate or desirable. But sympathizing with someone's
predicament is wholly different from feeling partly responsible for its
existence. Also, a criterion is needed to distinguish the results of guilt
from those of compassion. A truly compassionate person would judge policies
and programs by the amount of improvement they produce, and would be
receptive to criticism, since finding a program's flaws might enable them to
be corrected. But guilt-oriented activists judge by moral standards
instead--the morality of the intentions rather than the results--and assume
that skepticism or doubt come from sinister motives."
In "Guilt, Blame and Politics", Allan Levite addresses related questions
in-depth, delving even further into the liberal psyche.
He explains liberalism's propensity to mitigate personal responsibility.
He reveals why blame is the favorite political tactic of the left.
He describes how the politics of blame have affected polling.
He clearly explains America's move toward political correctness.
This is a complete, thorough and readable study.
"Guilt, Blame, and Politics" is the most important book about the politics
of the left to be published in a long time. In the hands of conservatives it
can do much to mitigate the psychological damage liberalism has imposed upon
our society.
In the hands of the general public it will help to debunk the leftist's
illogical rants.
In the hands of liberals it will be another reason to whine.
If you want to understand the left - this book is a must read!
More details on "Guilt, Blame and Politics", by Allan Levite.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966694309/essentialbooks
http://www.conservativebookstore.com/guilt.shtml
rogvin
An inversion has occurred:
Ideology takes precedence over facts and lies trump truth.
A review of "The World Turned Upside Down"
by Melanie Phillips
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING!
May 9 2010
QUOTE: Ms. Phillips lives up to her reputation for tackling political and
social issues in this attempt to create an overarching thesis for why we
have seen such absurdities as climate change fraud, political correctness
run amok, unbalanced portrayals bordering on propaganda regarding Islam and
Israel, and the war in Iraq.
QUOTE: Climate change is the hot topic of the day, and Phillips methodically
charts the rise of the "movement."
A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming.
QUOTE: Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is
to show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result.
QUOTE: AGW, it is "a quasi-religious belief system; and the only reason it
was sustained for so long was through the abuse of authority and
intimidation of dissent."
QUOTE: We truly do live in a world upside-down, whether we see it in the
world of science, on the airwaves of Britain, or in the streets of America.
An inversion has occurred: Ideology takes precedence over facts and lies
trump truth.
QUOTE: Paul Johnson, the English historian, wrote a fine epitaph of the
final years of the 20th century that also served as a prophecy for how the
21st century would devolve:
"One of the keys to understanding the twentieth century is to identify the
beneficiaries of the decline in formal religion. The religious impulse, with
all the excesses of zealotry and intolerance it can produce, remains
powerful, but expresses itself in secular substitutes."
Melanie Phillips, the columnist for the British newspaper the Spectator, has
written a fine new book: The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle
Over God, Truth and Power.
Ms. Phillips lives up to her reputation for tackling political and social
issues in this attempt to create an overarching thesis for why we have seen
such absurdities as climate change fraud, political correctness run amok,
unbalanced portrayals bordering on propaganda regarding Islam and Israel,
and the war in Iraq.
This is a challenge that Phillips meets head-on and masters.
Climate change is the hot topic of the day, and Phillips methodically charts
the rise of the "movement."
A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming.
There is more than a taint of ideology involved:
Many of the advocates of AGW view the Western world and its way of living as
the culprits. Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The
goal is to show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce
such a result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the
data and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result.
An example of this is the infamous "hockey stick" developed by Michael Mann
that purports to show a steep rise in global temperatures coincident with
the rise of industry. In fact, the hockey stick is now seen to have been the
result of creative misuse of numbers and data by Mann
(now the subject of investigation in the wake of Climategate -- the release
of e-mails from a research center in England revealing efforts by climate
change advocates to suppress opposing views).
The models may be wrong (after all, it is fiendishly complicated to try to
model the complex world of weather), but all too often, so is the data that
is fed into them. The maxim of "garbage in, garbage out" holds true in
climate research. Advocates dummy up data to feed their already fragile
models.
One example:
data regarding temperatures come from data collected from old machinery
located close to heat sources. This distorts the accuracy of the results.
Instead of ground stations, satellites can be used to give a more accurate
view of the world's temperatures -- which show far less "climate change"
than that claimed by advocates of AGW. But of course, that data is not used.
Skeptics of AGW are suppressed and ridiculed. Plots are hatched to punish
them. They are ostracized and cursed. Their arguments are shunted aside. All
these attacks are focused on creating the hysteria needed to bring about
massive change in the Western world -- as well as help out the budgets and
bank accounts of groups formed to promote the AGW myth.
Al Gore and his rapidly growing fortune, and number of lavish mansions,
constitute just one manifestation of the get-rich-quick schemes hatched by
purveyors of the myth of man-made climate change.
As Phillips writes of AGW, it is "a quasi-religious belief system; and the
only reason it was sustained for so long was through the abuse of authority
and intimidation of dissent."
Ms. Phillips then tackles more political issues: the Iraq War and the
Israel-Arab conflict.
Her vantage point is London, where she lives and works.
We are given an insight into how Europe views America -- particularly how it
viewed George Bush (not well, unsurprisingly). The same fictionalizing of
history displayed by liberals in our media was exhibited by liberals in
British media. As in the section of her book regarding AGW, Phillips
compiles an exhaustive -- and stimulating -- record of foolishness on the
part of liberals.
But there was an additional dynamic at work.
Anti-Israel animus is far more widespread in Europe than in America, and
that undoubtedly played a role in how the invasion of Iraq was perceived
from those shores.
The animus towards Israel is, like AGW, inexplicable if one looks only at
facts. But facts don't animate as much as ideology does.
The Arabs-as-victims narrative is pervasive on all levels of society. There
is an inversion at work: Despite the onslaught that Israel has experienced
even before its creation and the anti-Semitism that has swept through the
Arab world, Jews are pictured as oppressors, and Arabs (more numerous than
Israelis by a multiple of fifty) are the victims.
This is regardless of the fact that England itself has been subject to
terror attacks, not just from the Irish during the days of the troubles, but
from Muslim terrorists themselves. This is the result of political
correctness from on high being broadcast to the entire citizenry of England.
The BBC, once regarded as a sterling source of honest news, has been
tarnished by its outright propaganda regarding the Middle East. This bias is
not just anecdotal; it is based on independent studies
But will there be a change in the BBC coverage?
After reading Phillips' analysis of the facts on the ground -- and the
weakness and moral emptiness at the top of British leadership -- one may not
have high hopes for a reversion to reason.
We truly do live in a world upside-down, whether we see it in the world of
science, on the airwaves of Britain, or in the streets of America. An
inversion has occurred: Ideology takes precedence over facts and lies trump
truth.
Even religion has undergone a radical change, and Phillips takes a brief
foray into the world of "exotic" religions that seem to be proliferating at
a rapid clip.
But this points out the fundamental cause, as Ms. Phillips sees it, of why
the world flipped around.
Judeo-Christian religions, based on the core values of Judaism, have been
downgraded in our lives.
The precepts that other generations have lived by have been cast aside, or
perhaps cast onto the junk heap. These values are what provided a foundation
for the scientific method and of rationality. Now they are disparaged by
many (church attendance is almost non-existent in England).
When that foundation was removed, what moved into the moral vacuum? Feelings
and ideology, with a big slug of irrationality.
Paul Johnson, the English historian, wrote a fine epitaph of the final years
of the 20th century that also served as a prophecy for how the 21st century
would devolve:
"One of the keys to understanding the twentieth century is to identify the
beneficiaries of the decline in formal religion. The religious impulse, with
all the excesses of zealotry and intolerance it can produce, remains
powerful, but expresses itself in secular substitutes."
These are the zealots who control much of our world now and who are driving
us down very perilous roads.
These are the zealots that Melanie Phillips has done a superb job
identifying and battling in her superb new book.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_world_turned_upside_down.html
rogvin
Corals under threat?
Yes, but not much from either warming or acidification.
15 Jun 2010
QUOTE: Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm:
another try at condemning fossil fuels!
QUOTE: nowhere on the planet, not even in the Persian Gulf where water
temperatures reach 35°C, is there a sea too warm for coral reefs.
QUOTE: This is confirmed by a rash of empirical studies showing that
increased carbonic acid either has no effect or actually increases the
growth of calcareous plankton, cuttlefish larvae and coccolithophores.
As part of an `interview' with me, New Socialist . er . New Scientist
published a critique by five "scientists" of two pages of my book The
Rational Optimist.
Despite its tone, this critique only confirms the accuracy of each of the
statements in this section of the book.
Take coral reefs, which are suffering horribly from pollution, silt,
nutrient run-off and fishing - especially the harvesting of herbivorous
fishes that otherwise keep reefs clean of algae.
Yet environmentalists commonly talk as if climate change is a far greater
threat than these, and they are cranking up the apocalyptic statements just
as they did wrongly about forests and acid rain.
Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist:
There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we
now recognise.'
Alex Rogers of the Zoological Society of London pledges an 'absolute
guarantee of their annihilation'.
No wriggle room there.
It is true that rapidly heating the water by a few degrees can devastate
reefs by 'bleaching' out the corals' symbiotic algae, as happened to many
reefs in the especially warm El Niño year of 1998.
But bleaching depends more on rate of change than absolute temperature. This
must be true because nowhere on the planet, not even in the Persian Gulf
where water temperatures reach 35°C, is there a sea too warm for coral
reefs.
Lots of places are too cold for coral reefs - the Galapagos, for example.
which is presumably how they survived the warming lurches at the end of the
last ice age.
It is also apparent from recent research that corals become more resilient
the more they experience sudden warmings.
Some reefs may yet die if the world warms rapidly in the twenty-first
century, but others in cooler regions may expand.
Local threats are far more immediate than climate change.
Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels.
The oceans are alkaline, with an average pH of about 8.1, well above neutral
(7).
They are also extremely well buffered.
Very high carbon dioxide levels could push that number down, perhaps to
about 7.95 by 2050 - still highly alkaline,
and still much higher than it was for most of the last 100 million years.
Some argue that this tiny downward shift in average alkalinity could make it
harder for animals and plants that deposit calcium carbonate in their
skeletons to do so. But this flies in the face of chemistry: the reason the
acidity is increasing is that the dissolved bicarbonate is increasing too
and increasing the bicarbonate concentration increases the ease with which
carbonate can be precipitated out with calcium by creatures that seek to do
so.
Even with tripled bicarbonate concentrations, corals show a continuing
increase in both photosynthesis and calcification.
This is confirmed by a rash of empirical studies showing that increased
carbonic acid either has no effect or actually increases the growth of
calcareous plankton, cuttlefish larvae and coccolithophores.
Hoegh-Guldberg disagrees:
`Call it inconvenient but the vast bulk of scientific evidence shows that
marine calcifiers such as coccolithophores, corals and oysters are being
heavily impacted already by ocean acidification.'
He provides no reference.
By contrast, I cite Iglesias-Rodriguez et al 2008 (Science 320:336).
They state: `From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have beenmajor calcium
carbonate producers in the world's oceans, todayaccounting for about a third
of the total marine CaCO3 production.
Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary
production in the coccolithophore species Emilianiahuxleyi are significantly
increased by high CO2 partial pressures.
Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory
conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40%
increase in average coccolith mass'.
As for oysters, Miller et al. 2009 (PLOS ONE 4: 10.1371) found that oyster
larvae `appeared to grow, calcify and develop normally with no obvious
morphological deformities, despite conditions of significant aragonite
undersaturation,' and that these findings `run counter to expectations that
aragonite shelled larvae should be especially prone to dissolution at high
pCO2'.
As for sea urchins, Lacoue-Labarthe et al. 2009 (Biogeosciences 6) report
that `decreasing pH resulted in higher egg weight at the end of development
at both temperatures (p < 0.05), with maximal values at pH 7.85 (1.60 ± 0.21
g and 1.83 ± 0.12 g at 16°C and 19°C, respectively).'.
As for corals, Suwa et al. 2010 (Fisheries science 76) report that `larval
survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments.'
Lest my critics still accuse me of cherry-picking studies, let me refer them
also to the results of Hendriks et al. (2010, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 86:157).
Far from being a cherry-picked study, this is a massive meta-analysis.
The authors observed that `warnings that ocean acidification is a major
threat to marine biodiversity are largely based on the analysis of predicted
changes in ocean chemical fields' rather than empirical data.
So they constructed a database of 372 studies in which the responses of 44
different marine species to ocean acidification induced by equilibrating
seawater with CO2-enriched air had been actually measured.
They found that only a minority of studies demonstrated `significant
responses to acidification' and there was no significant mean effect even in
these studies.
They concluded that the world's marine biota are `more resistant to ocean
acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean
acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity' and that ocean
acidification `may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st
century.Biological processes can provide homeostasis against changes in pH
in bulk waters of the range predicted during the 21st century.'
This important paper alone contradicts Hoegh-Gudlberg's assertion that `the
vast bulk of scientific evidence shows that calcifiers. are being heavily
impacted already'.
In conclusion, I rest my case.
My five critics have not only failed to contradict, but have explicitly
confirmed the truth of every single one of my factual statements. We differ
only in how we interpret the facts.
It is hardly surprising that my opinion is not shared by five "scientists"
whose research grants depend on funding agencies being persuaded that there
will be a severe and rapid impact of carbon dioxide emissions on coral reefs
in coming decades.
I merely report accurately that the latest empirical and theoretical
research suggests that the likely impact has been exaggerated.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
rogvin
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2142
The Sky's Not Falling!
Holly Fretwell
In "The Sky's NOT Falling!" natural resources policy expert Holly Fretwell
shows kids 9-12 that it's human ingenuity and adaptability - not a mindless
fear of change - that are most likely to guarantee the Earth a healthy
future.
Prof. Fretwell brings genuine educational credentials and practical
experience to the environmental debate, giving kids the straight scoop about
global warming -- and the potentially devastating human and economic
consequences of politically motivated responses to it.
Can it really be that human innovation and creativity, combined with
individual choice, will yield better environmental outcomes than the
draconian, self-congratulatory approaches advocated by Al Gore and his
Hollywood friends? Yes!
Paperback
Publisher: World Ahead Publishing (September 4, 2007)
ISBN: 0976726947
NOTE: Purchasing "The Sky's NOT Falling!" from WND's online store also
qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND's acclaimed monthly print
magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.
rogvin
July 16 2009
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works
Committee, announced two years ago the public release of the Senate
Committee published booklet entitled
"A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media
Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming."
Senator Inhofe and legions of others have spent those two years battling
Global Warming idiocy on a global level.
The well written booklet covers many of the most common scare tactics used
by alarmists and gives answers to those deceptions.
The color glossy 64 page booklet -- previously was only available in
hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press
releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears
presented by the media, the UN, Hollywood and former Vice President
turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.
The "Skeptic's Guide" includes a copy of Senator Inhofe's 50 minute Senate
floor speech delivered on September 25, 2006 challenging the media to
improve its reporting.
The 'Skeptic's Guide', which has received recognition by the LA Times and
Congressional Quarterly, is now available free for international
distribution on the Senate Environmental & Public Works Web site.
The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also
serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it
comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter's
virtual who's-who's of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a
focus on such reporters as CBS News "60 Minutes" Scott Pelley, ABC News
reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN's Miles O'Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom
Brokaw.
Senator Inhofe's "Skeptic's Guide" also includes hard hitting critiques of
the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the
LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.
Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings
to stop the unfounded hype.
"The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that
former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that
SUV's and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate
emergency' that only UN bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can
solve," Senator Inhofe said in October.
Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a "climate catastrophe" has
grown in recent times.
In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member
Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global
warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming
camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the
claims of climate skeptics.
Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global
warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is
shattering the media-promoted scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3724
rogvin
Robot
...
> "rogvin" <m...@lom.com> wrote:
> The World Turned Upside Down
> An inversion has occurred:
> Ideology takes precedence over facts and lies trump truth.
Taking Climate Denial to New Extremes
Kate Sheppard
Mother Jones Blogs
Feb. 11, 2011
The spending plan the House GOP was supposed to roll out on Thu included a
number of cuts meant to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing
anything about climate change. But Republicans had to take that plan back to
the drawing board Thu night after tea party members claimed the package of
cuts didn't go deep enough. And if a trio of House members get their way, we
won't ever have to worry about the climate--since we won't know what's
happening with it, anyway.
This week, Reps. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) and Rob Bishop
(R-Utah) called for a budget that would "reprioritize NASA" by axing the
funding for climate change research. The original cuts to the budget outlined
yesterday would have cut $379 mn from NASA's budget. These members want
climate out of NASA's purview entirely, however. Funding climate research,
said Adams in a statement, "undercuts one of NASA's primary and most
important objectives of human spaceflight."
"NASA's primary purpose is human space exploration and directing NASA funds to
study global warming undermines our ability to maintain our competitive edge
in human space flight," said Posey.
The total budget request for NASA for 2010 was $18.7 billion. Of that, just
$1.4 bn was for its earth science division. The agency's climate
programs--which include modeling and satellite monitoring--are a subset of
that. They are responsible for monitoring data that is crucial to our
understanding of how our planet works--ocean temperatures, sea level, the
ozone layer, sea ice, and, of course, how CO2 emissions are
affecting the atmosphere. The increase in funding requested for climate
last y was intended to make up for cuts to the program under the Bush
administration. But even with that proposed increase, the earth science
program accounted for a mere 7.5% of NASA's total budget.
Here's the letter the 3 GOPers sent to House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) and Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee
Chairman Frank Wolf (R-Va.) this week.
[88 more news items]
---
A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".
A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!
The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".
Robot
Environmental protesters in the US aim to challenge the 'climate cranks' - but
they must be mindful of the rhetoric they use.
Leo Hickman
Guardian
Feb 14 2011
Just what the climate debate doesn't need: a new moniker for those who do not
accept the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change.
According to environmental activists planning a day of protests across the US
tomorrow, "climate crank" is set to be the latest name added to the
growing list - self-appointed, or otherwise - which already includes sceptic,
denier, contrarian, realist, dissenter, flat-earther, misinformer, and
confusionist. But, for the protest organisers, the term "crank" more
accurately describes this grouping:
For years, climate "sceptics" have denied the near-unanimous scientific
consensus around global warming in an effort to delay action. They're not
"sceptics" - they're cranks, and it's time to unmask those who are holding our
nation's climate policy hostage. We're taking action to call out the climate
cranks, shift the climate debate in Washington and, yeah, we are looking to
make news.
The rallying cry seems to be centred around Mark Hertsgaard, the
Nation's environmental correspondent and author of a new book called
Generation Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. The idea
behind the day is to "name and shame the climate cranks sabotaging our
nation's response to climate change".
Peter Rothberg, a fellow Nation journalist, has written a blog detailing
his colleague's efforts:
On Tue, Feb 15, Mark and supporters will head to Capitol Hill, the Fox TV
bureau, the Chamber of Commerce and other hotbeds of climate denial. The
goal? Put the climate cranks on the spot and make them explain - on camera and
in front of kids - why they have condemned the young people of 'Generation
Hot' (as Mark calls them), to spending the rest of their lives coping with the
hottest climate in human history.
In his book, Hertsgaard offers further explanation:
We will highlight the ludicrousness of their anti-scientific views, which
alone should discredit them from further influence over US climate
policies. And we will show how our nation could still change course--for
example, if the federal government were to use its vast purchasing power to
kick-start a green energy revolution that would create jobs and prosperity
across the land. We welcome your help and constructive suggestions for how to
achieve these goals and invite you to join us.
This is far from being the lone effort of a man with a book to sell. In
addition to the Nation magazine, Hertsgaard also has the support of the
Sierra Club, 350.org, Kids vs. Global Warming, the Chesapeake
Climate Action Network and Grist.
It will be interesting to see who they manage to confront on camera. I
certainly endorse any effort to expose and challenge those with a vested
interest in ignoring the science - one only has to witness Senator James
Inhofe's performance last wk to see why this is so necessary - but, if I'm
honest, I'm left wondering whether this new exercise in name-calling will only
serve to distract from the important task at hand.
I'm also concerned by the accompanying video Hertsgaard has recorded to
help promote both his book and his cause. I very much share his fears about
what climate change might mean for his children - I have written as much
myself - but I'm worried his message might be easily batted back at him by
those he seeks to challenge because of his use - on occasion - of
hyperbole. For example, he talks about his fears that "because of these
cranks, my daughter might not have enough water to drink by the time she's my
age". Why? "Because California's snowpack will have melted." Judging by his
apparent age, I'm guessing he means in about 40 years' time.
I hope he's got a peer-reviewed paper at hand to back up this point because
otherwise he'll have the likes of ClimateDepot's Marc Morano on his back
filling up the sceptics' echo chamber with wilful misinterpretations about how
Hertsgaard thinks that sceptics are going to kill his daughter by denying her
water. Or something.
If environmentalists are going to play the science card - as they should - the
one thing that the last few y of the climate debate should have taught them is
that they have to get their statements about what the science says spot
on. Namely, not be prone to cherry-pick or exaggerate in order to make a
point. We're all guilty of it from time to time, but, wherever possible, it is
far better to let those we seek to challenge make such slip-ups - particularly
so when trying to expose the weaknesses and flaws that underpin their own
position.
[96 more news items]
---
[If I make history stop in 1899 things can not get worse:]
Yes, but [Yasi was] not as bad as the cat 5 Mahina in 1899!
And what about 1918 when Qld had TWO CAT 5 CYCLONES!
The more things change the more they stay the same.
-- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 3 Feb 2011 16:09 +1100
Robot
Cherry-Picking Data to Hide the Disappearance of Arctic Ice
Peter H Gleick
As the climate science continues to strengthen, and as the observational data
around the world continue to accumulate, those who deny the reality or
severity of human-induced climate change are getting increasingly
desperate. As evidence piles up and as our weather worsens, their positions
get weaker and weaker and their claims that the climate isn't changing, or
isn't changing because of human actions get harder to support, their voices
get more strident, and their language and vitriol get uglier.
Climate deniers cannot make a case against human-caused climate change without
desperately manipulating, misrepresenting, or simply misunderstanding the
science. While there are examples of their bad science (BS) every day, a
particularly egregious case has played out in New Mexico in the past wk.
In 2009, Harrison Schmitt, a former senator, astronaut, and self-described
climate "denier" (and potentially the Energy Secretary to the new New Mexican
governor), sent a paper to NASA riddled with long-debunked errors of
science. Others have written about this paper, taking it apart error by
error. But one particular mistake lies at the heart of this wk's dust-up in
New Mexico. In that paper Schmitt said:
"How long this cooling trend will persist remains to be seen; however,
Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Artic [sic] sea ice has
returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters and cool summers
have dominated northern N America and Europe."
All 4 of these statements are wrong:
1. The Earth is not in a cooling trend, but a warming trend,
2. Greenland is losing ice, not gaining it (more evidence of warming),
3. Arctic (the correct spelling) sea ice in 2009 had not "returned to 1989
levels of coverage," and
4. Snowy, cold winters and cool summers do not dominate N America or
Europe, nor would they refute the fact that the planet as a whole is warming.
In The Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper on Jan 24, Dr Mark Boslough (an adjunct
professor of Earth and Planetary Science at UNM, with a doctorate from
CalTech) noted the errors in Schmitt's statement and wrote how he tried to
privately point them out to Schmitt, but that Schmitt never corrected
them. The error that has stirred up the new debate in New Mexico is the 3rd
one "Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage." [John Cook
has also tackled this here in an excellent Skeptical Science post.]
Arctic Sea Ice: Specific, Verifiable Data
First and most simply, Boslough is right and Schmitt is wrong. No
matter how you measure it, there was less Arctic sea ice in 2009 than
in 1989:
o The average area of Arctic ice was less in 2009.
o The average extent of Arctic ice was less in 2009.
o The volume of Arctic ice was less in 2009.
o The maximum amount of ice (in winter) was less in 2009.
o The minimum amount of ice (in summer) was less in 2009.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. If you tried, you couldn't find an
honest argument that there was more, or even equal, Arctic ice in 2009
compared to 1989.
Enter the Heartland Institute and its President Joseph Bast. They tried and
couldn't either. But rather than simply acknowledging Schmitt's 1st error,
Bast and the Heartland Institute tried a trick, called "cherry picking" -
where someone carefully selects one piece of data to prove a point while
ignoring or hiding all of the other data points that refute it. That's a bad,
dishonest no-no. Scientists destroy their reputations when they do this (since
inevitably other scientists find out). And the Heartland Institute's cherry
picking is one of the most extreme examples I've ever seen of
misrepresentation of science and data.
Here is how Heartland's Bast chose to do it. On Jan 31st he wrote a misleading
piece in the Santa Fe New Mexican criticizing Dr Boslough, in which he says:
"In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in
April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989
levels." (emphasis added)
In a desperate attempt to try to support Schmitt's false statement that there
was as much or more ice in 2009 than 1989, he and Heartland searched through
the ice records from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and found the
single m (April), where the area of ice was higher in 2009 than 1989. There
was less ice in 2009 in Jan, Feb, March, May, June, July, August, September,
Oct, Nov, Dec, on average, the maximum, and the minimum. But not in April (and
just barely). Figure 1 shows the monthly ice area for the Arctic for 1989 and
2009 and the carefully picked m of April. I've circled the data point Bost and
Heartland "cherry-picked."
If Figure 1 was your bank statement for 1989 and 2009 could you claim with a
straight face that you had more money in 2009 than 1989? And should anyone
believe you?
<http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-02-07-Arcticgateimages1A.jpg>
Figure 1. Monthly Arctic ice area for 1989 and 2009. Graph prepared by Peter
Gleick, Pacific Institute, using Sea Ice Index. Boulder, CO: National Snow and
Ice Data Center.
In fact, even if Schmitt had been right about 1989 (and remember, Schmitt said
"1989" not "April 1989," -- that was a later desperate attempt by the
Heartland Institute to save face and avoid admitting error) that also is
cherry picking data. If we look at all the y in the complete record of ice
data, the disappearing Arctic ice cap is irrefutable. Figure 2 shows all the y
in the record back to 1979, showing the decreasing extent of Arctic ice. Even
more dramatic is this graph showing the more serious loss of total amount of
ice measured by volume.
<http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-02-07-Arcticgateimages1B.jpg>
Figure 2. Annual average Arctic ice extent from late 1978 through 2010. Graph
prepared by Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, using Sea Ice Index. Boulder, CO:
National Snow and Ice Data Center.
It doesn't get much more brazen than this effort by the Heartland Institute to
mislead readers in New Mexico. Unfortunately, lots of readers probably fell
for it. But scientists and honest researchers don't cherry-pick data to
support pre-determined positions.
[91 more news items]
---
[Before the flood:]
The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.
Instead it has all run out to sea!
Crazy anti-dam greenies!
-- "BONZO"@27.32.240.172 [86 nyms and counting], 12 Nov 2010 14:05 +1100
Robot
Is convinced versus unconvinced the way to go?
Jason Samenow
02/16/2011
In the climate change debate, commentators on the issue in the media and
cocktail parties alike often use labels to put people into camps based on what
they "believe" about the issue. The labels I've heard include: the mainstream,
alarmists, progressives, deniers, delayers, skeptics, believers, hawks,
contrarians, naysayers, doomsayers, chicken littles, non-skeptical
heretics,and dissidents - to name a few off the top of my head.
The problem, of course, is that people's beliefs about the issue can be either
simple or complex and these labels may or may not perfectly fit. And then
there's the problem that some find certain labels offensive, e.g. "denier" due
to holocaust connotations. As Andrew Freedman recently wrote, using
insulting labels does little to promote much-needed civil discourse on this
heated issue.
Over at the blog Climate Etc., Judith Curry provides some interesting
commentary on the issue of labels. She discusses a range of label "taxonomy"
ideas for the spectrum of beliefs put forth by some of her colleagues at a
recent workshop entitled "Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate". She
also addresses the suggestion we try to do away with these labels, which she
rejects.
"A nice idea, but labels are just too useful in discourse on the subject to
avoid," she says.
She proposes we classify beliefs about climate change using a spectrum ranging
from "convinced" to "unconvinced" based on a recommendation she received from
"a bonafide expert on conflict analysis and resolution" (who she doesn't
name).
At the recent American Meteorological Society meeting in Seattle, the
theme of which was "communicating weather and climate", I had actually heard
this same suggestion at a forum on effective communication.
I like convinced vs. unconvinced, as it's non-confrontational and implicitly
shows respect for a person's stance on the issues. And importantly, as Curry
points out "Convinced - unconvinced allows for a spectrum and the opportunity
distinguish what a person is convinced or unconvinced about."
So using this classification, one could clearly indicate how convinced a given
individual is about very different but critical questions, the answers to
which no doubt shape varying degrees of support for action:
* Whether climate warming is happening
* Whether climate warming (assuming it's happening) is mostly a result of
human activities
* Whether human-caused climate change is already causing serious impacts
* Whether human-caused climate change poses serious future risks
How convinced are you that this might be a good way to compare and contrast
people's beliefs and more neatly, civilly frame the debate?
[97 more news items]
---
[Irony 101:]
[By my count BONZO has called people whacko 137 times; fool 26; idiot 22 times;
moron 14 times; twit 17 times in just the past 4 wks. There is a
10+-year history, however].
Warmist Abuse Shows They're Losing
-- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 16 Feb 2011 17:15 +1100
Robot
Watching the Deniers
16 02 2011
Looks like the war is heating up.
Announced on Jo Nova's site today:
A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have
lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to
have the BOM and CSIRO audited.
The BOM claim their adjustments are "neutral" yet Ken Stewart showed that the
trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by
40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order
of $870 mn dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the 1st 4 y of the
Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence
Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 bn dollars.
Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting
transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small
cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all
Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have
been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made
decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface
stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as
the US stations? Who knows?)
However, if it is anything like the New Zealand experience it is bound to
create egg on the faces of the deniers.
And so the long, tedious war on science continues.
I'll post more updates etc.
Spread the word, the War on BoM has begun.
[96 more news items]
---
[Weather is responsible for climate change:]
And that's the only reason for the heat!
Strong northeast winds being superheated desert air from the inland to the
the southern capitals.
-- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 31 Jan 2011 13:42 +1100
Mr Robot
Gary Liberson
HuffPost
Feb 17 2011
It's not that Americans don't believe in global warming, they are just afraid
of what it means to their way of life. The potential economic consequences of
climate change are so great in the US that people are willing to deny
empirical evidence and make all forms of illogical statements to reject the
fact that the earth is warming. Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance.
Europeans and Americans have polar opposite views of global warming. Polls
show less than 1/3 of the US population believes climate change is a "serious
problem" compared with a near supermajority of EU voters (31%
vs. 63%). 87% of the EU considers global warming a serious problem!
Americans rank it 21st in important issues for government while in the EU
it is 2nd!
Why this bipolar perspective? There are 2 reasons why Europeans accept the
significance of global warming:
* Not an Out of Sight Out of Mind Problem -- Unlike the US, Europeans see the
empirical evidence of glaciers receding in their countries or know their
governments are actively preparing for the potential damages (e.g.,
Netherlands, Venice, and Thames River project); and
* Burden on Industry NOT Individual - For Europeans the economic implications
for mitigating global warming has a minimal (indirect) affect on their
personal lives. Europeans always have been taxed to the bone for fuel,
electricity, and automobiles for no other reason than increasing government
revenues (e.g.,7.50 a gallon for gasoline). These higher prices have driven
down consumption of the major sources of greenhouse gases -- cars and
electricity. For the EU, the Kyoto Protocol was just placing controls and
goals on Industry.
It is easy for voters to accept national policies that minimally affect their
pocketbooks and lifestyle. For the US, the Kyoto Protocol, and thus global
warming, was an assertion that we in the US should wrap ourselves in sackcloth
and ashes for our use of cars and electricity. Fighting global warming means
a direct assault on pocketbook issues and our lifestyle.
Europeans can be accepting while preservation of our present way of life makes
denial a healthy psychological defense against the potentially dire
implications.
Yet, here is the perversity of our thinking. Name one hypothesized economic
consequence from accepting the actions necessary to mitigate global warming
that have not already happened. Gasoline is up 95% AFTER inflation since the
Kyoto Protocol. The price of oil is now $100 a barrel, an increase of 300%
since 1997. There is not a food commodity (or any commodity) that has not
risen at a rate 5 to 10 times inflation. There really is no economic fear of
accepting global warming because we are living the economic consequences
without any planning by the government.
MYREF: 20110218180002 msg201102183906
[106 more news items]
Mr Robot
[My databases show no trends in either precip or temp for MT over the
past 100 y].
Matt Volz
AP
Feb 18, 2011
Helena, Mont -- A Montana legislator is proposing the state embrace global
warming as good for the economy.
Republican Rep Joe Read of Ronan aims to pass a law that says global warming
is a natural occurrence that "is beneficial to the welfare and business
climate of Montana."
Reaction by scientists and environmentalists to House Bill 549 has been
harsh. University of Montana climate change professor Steve Running calls it
an indefensible attempt to repeal the laws of physics.
The bill was to be heard in the House Natural Resources Committee Fri.
Another climate change bill by Read was also being heard Fri. House Bill 550
would claim the state has authority over the EPA when it comes to regulating
greenhouse gases.
MYREF: 20110219103001 msg2011021912500
[117 more news items]
---
[I am Luddite!]
You whackos just keep changing your "predictions" to suit reality!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 16 Feb 2011 15:57 +1100
Mr Robot
Mark Hertsgaard
[Mark Hertsgaard is the author of 6 books that have been
translated into sixteen languages, including HOT: Living Through the
Next Fifty Years on Earth].
HuffPost
Feb 21 2011
The right-wing media machine is a large part of the reason why denial of
climate change persists in the United States long after the rest of the world
has acknowledged the problem. Over the past few days, I've gotten a close-up
look at how the machine works, because I've been its target.
Last Tue, Feb 15, I went to Capitol Hill on a mission: to confront the climate
cranks who still refuse to accept what virtually every major scientific
organization in the world, starting with our own National Academy of Sciences,
has concluded: man-made climate change is real, happening now and extremely
dangerous.
I also wanted to highlight a fact I have often marveled at during my twenty y
of writing about climate change in books and for leading publications around
the world, including Vanity Fair, Time, The Nation and most recently
Politico. That fact is: virtually every major political party in the world --
except for the Republicans in this country -- accepts this mainstream
scientific conclusion.
Yet the average American would not know this is the case. Why not? Because
discussion about climate change in the US is dominated by how the issue is
framed by politicians and the media in Washington. And inside the Beltway,
denial of mainstream climate science is regarded as a legitimate opinion
rather than as an unfounded oddity.
As I wrote in an opinion article for Politico that appeared the morning I
visited Capitol Hill and that seems to have enraged the right-wing, "If one
judged solely by recent [US] media coverage, one would think that the
deniers have a point. In an embarrassing display of political gullibility and
scientific illiteracy, news organizations have repeatedly played into the
deniers' hands: by implicitly endorsing the deniers' unfounded accusations of
fraud against scientists whose emails were stolen, by portraying a single
error within a thousand page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change as reason to question the entirety of mainstream climate science, and
then by abandoning the climate story over the past twelve months, even as
mainstream scientists were turning out one landmark study after another
clarifying the extreme peril facing civilization."
And here's why this journalistic failure matters so much:
"Despite having no more scientific credibility than the Flat Earth Society,
the climate cranks have held our nation's climate policy hostage for decades
now. One reason the United States has done so little to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions over the past twenty y is that our government and media have
listened as much to climate cranks as to real scientists."
So, accompanied by members of the Sierra Club and Generation Hot -- the 2 bn
young people around the world who have been condemned to spend the rest of
their lives coping with the hottest climate our civilization has ever known --
I went to Capitol Hill to call the cranks to account and urge my colleagues in
the rest of the media to do a better job of presenting the scientific truth
about climate change.
We spoke with a number of leading deniers, most notably Republican Senator
James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had no response when asked why his
Republicans are the only major political party in the world that still denies
the science behind climate change. Instead, he said his scientists knew better
than the overwhelming majority of scientists who say climate change is real
and dangerous. Later, a leading public relations official for energy companies
told us "the science doesn't matter."
You can watch our video of the event here:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/gzVcfr2tBms
It didn't take long for the right-wing media machine to start its
attack. Inhofe's office posted its own video of our encounter a few hours
later, spinning it as "an ambush" of the Senator, a charge that was repeated
when the video later appeared online on the Fox network. (I don't call it Fox
News for the simple reason that it's not a news outfit; it's a propaganda
operation.)
It's hilarious to hear the right wing describe our questioning of Inhofe as
"an ambush," thereby portraying the Senator as a victim. Here's what actually
happened.
Inhofe was in a committee hearing room in a Senate office building, along with
other senators. Like countless reporters have done for countless years, I
waited outside in the corridor, as did a reporter from a trade journal, hoping
to buttonhole one or more of the Senators when they emerged. When Inhofe came
out, I walked up to him, accompanied by the Sierra Club and Generation Hot
representatives, and asked if I could ask some questions about climate
science. To his credit, Inhofe agreed and spent about 6 minutes debating with
us.
Memo to the right-wing media machine: that is not "an ambush." It's called
journalism, though I'm hardly surprised the Fox TV crowd doesn't recognize the
distinction.
Instead of engaging on the substance -- most especially, the grievous wrong
being done to the young people of Generation Hot by the deniers of climate
change -- the right wing machine has tried to shift the focus to my
journalistic tactics. They complain that I ambushed and took advantage of
Senator Inhofe -- as if the Senator is an innocent child rather than a veteran
politician who is used to being asked tough questions by journalists.
They allege that I must have something to hide because I released an edited
rather than unedited version of my encounter with Inhofe. Excuse me? Editing
is a basic journalistic tool, used in virtually every news story ever
published, and I'm happy to share the unedited video with anyone who
asks. What's more, I have tweeted links to Inhofe's own video -- that's how
little I have something to hide.
I did make one mistake. In the haste of introducing myself to Inhofe, I
misspoke by saying I was "with Politico." I had intended to say I "write for
Politico," which I had done just that morning in the form of the
above-mentioned opinion article. My words came out wrong, which I regret. But
I refuse to allow this small slip of the tongue to distract from the larger
issue I was pursuing with the Senator: the terrible price our children will
pay for Republicans' unfounded denial of mainstream climate science.
I take the right wing media machine's attacks as a badge of honor and a sign
that we drew blood. I suspect they're trying to shut down the discussion about
climate science and the impacts on our kids because they know it's a losing
conversation for them. So they try to distract by talking about everything
else.
Nice try, guys, but it won't work. No matter how nasty and deceptive you are,
we're going to stay at this and stay at it until Americans are no longer being
taken in by your disinformation campaign.
Meanwhile, it would be helpful if more folks who do care about fighting
climate change would speak out as well, including by circulating our video of
the confrontations. We need to keep the focus on the science and our kids;
that seems to scare the hell out of the cranks. These people are bullies, and
the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.
MYREF: 20110222143002 msg2011022223414
[105 more news items]
---
Of course "global temperature are rising", we're emerging from an ICE AGE!!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 8 Feb 2011 12:22 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
Richard Black
BBC blogs
Thu, 24 Feb 2011
The latest flirtations of the US political right with "climate denial" look
set to marginalise the country even further within the global community of
nations -- at least when it comes to climate change.
Does the US risk isolating itself from the global community?
The key to all this is the advance made by the Republican party -- and by
relatively right-wing Democrats -- during the mid-term elections late last y.
With a majority in the House of Representatives, politicians unconvinced of
the case for action on climate change have been able to attack the edifices of
climate science and international negotiations in quite dramatic ways.
Budgetary measures passed by the House at the weekend would not only
withdraw US funding from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) -- they would also end financing for the office occupied by Todd
Stern, the experienced official who leads US diplomacy within the UN
climate convention (UNFCCC) and other fora.
Before these measures could come into law they would have to make it through
the labrynthine processes that precede a US budget agreement, including being
approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed off by President Obama.
So, you might conclude they'll never make it.
Equally, remembering that they'll be relatively minor ingredients of a vast
budgetary package whose negotiation will require extensive horse-trading, it's
easy to see how they might make it through these various hurdles if the
Democrats judge they're more expendable than other items.
The claims used to back the proposed IPCC cuts are easily countered.
Launching his "de-funding" amendment, Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer
described the panel as:
"...an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious scien
ce..."
E-mails taken from the University of E Anglia's Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) in Nov 2009 showed, he said, that:
"...leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and
suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were
asked to delete and destroy e-mails so that a small number of climate
alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda."
The IPCC has never been found fraudulent by any investigation -- indeed,
successive reviews, notably by the InterAcademy Council, have found just
the opposite.
That being so, to make the allegation outside the legal protection afforded by
the political process would potentially lay the speaker open to action for
defamation.
Neither has it been shown that UEA scientists intentionally manipulated data --
again, the opposite conclusion is eminently more defensible -- nor that
they had an "environmental agenda".
While criticising proponents of climate action for basing their policies on
dodgy ground, Mr Luetkemayer apparently had no problem making allegations
demonstrably lacking a factual basis.
You might also ask where the notion of consistency has gone, given that
when Sarah Palin's e-mail account is hacked, the Republican party
condemned it as "a shocking invasion of privacy and a violation of the law"
whereas the same entity apparently brings no criticsm of the hacking of CRU
servers.
Nevertheless, this is politics -- and facts have always proven to be malleable
in that particular furnace.
So what would these measures mean if they all went through?
The IPCC sums are minimal -- about $3 mn per year. A large proportion goes to
fund the Technical Support Unit (TSU) for IPCC Working Group 2 -- the group
on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, one of the 3 principle strands of
IPCC research.
As the group currently has a US-based co-chair, Chris Field from the
Carnegie Institution at Stanford University, the US gets to fund the TSU --
the small team that supports the scientific assessment.
With the money gone, the TSU would either have to find another source of
funding -- which might not be too hard in a US awash with charitable
foundations signed up to the need to curb climate change -or, more provocatively
,
move to Argentina, home of the group's other co-chair, Vicente Barros.
IPCC working groups always have one co-chair from a developed nation and one
from a developing country, and the richer partner has always hosted the TSU --
which in some peoples' eyes has given too much priority to western concerns.
A switch to the poorer partner -- and Argentina is surely rich enough to host a
TSU if it wanted -- would be a new tweak and one that would reduce US influence
over the IPCC's next report.
The House's budgetary bill seeks to lop far greater sums from the climate
science budgets of US agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).
Cuts along these lines would also weaken the US voice as its dominance in
climate research waned.
Putting Mr Stern's office off-line, meanwhile, would significantly curb US
influence within the UN climate negotiations.
Critics say its main role recently has in any case been to stall and
weaken... but it has been engaged, and undoubtedly highly influential.
At the recent Cancun summit, Mr Stern's delegation implacably fought for and
won on a number of points -- notably securing World Bank influence over
international climate finance in the teeth of vehement opposition from
developing countries.
There would surely be a risk that trimming the US presence in the UN process
would weaken its capacity to influence such matters.
Mr Stern and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, have stuck to the line that the US
administration will not sign a treaty that the Senate will not
ratify. Recently, they've suggested that for now, governments should stop
looking for a global deal and concentrate on delivering the unilateral
voluntary pledges they made around the time of the Copenhagen summit.
This -- though undeniably realistic, given the way political winds are blowing
in the US -- is also leading some movers and shakers in the UN climate process
to question whether they should plan for an immediate future that explicitly
leaves the US to one side.
A strategy could be adopted that basically ignores the world's biggest economy
- though, of course, leaving a window through which it could re-enter if and
when the political winds change.
How this might work and what some of the alternatives are I'll return to in
another post.
All of this must be galling for Mr Pershing, especially.
In 2008, before taking up his current post and while working for the World
Resources Institute on its climate programme, he argued:
"The Bush administration has avoided significant climate change policy,
leaving the US so far a largely ignored observer at these international
negotiations... The US holds the key to a succesful global climate change
treaty."
Current events suggest the political clock may be turning back faster than
anyone thought possible when Barack Obama swept into the White House
pledging "global leadership" on climate change.
This time, however, the political landscape is different; and perhaps the US
doesn't any longer hold the key to a treaty.
No longer is it the world's biggest emitter. No longer is it the most powerful
political entity on the scene -- that role has been taken by the BASIC group
(Brazil, S Africa, India and China).
And climate science -- despite Mr Luetkemeyer's interpretation -- has hardened,
with real-world changes that look very like the signatures of greenhouse
warming being registeredd from the Arctic to the Amazon heightening
the concerns of vulnerable nations.
Will the rest of the world wait for the US again -- as it did in Copenhagen --
especially when its political leaders are apparently bent on downgrading its
importance in the climate arena?
MYREF: 20110225220002 msg2011022526779
[126 more news items]
Sfinx
>
> Book Review: "Guilt, Blame, And Politics" By Allan Levite
Understanding The Idiotic Irrationality Of The Leftist Mindset
Freedom Man
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of
a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with
his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his
cave for sex.
One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a
female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but
the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the
head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped
over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female.
On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new
idea.
Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent
of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and
Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid
flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no
longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas
slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.
Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and
progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings,
excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and
execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for
their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in
recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King
Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.
Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and
nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of
reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in
racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death,
not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but
because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.
Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative
organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his
freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front
of his house.
David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were
"liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership
list.
Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men,
women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever
committed such an abominable atrocity?
The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11
terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were
murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious
fundamentalist mentality.
Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen,
exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within
our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings
were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three
collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in
place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter
nonsense. Look back:
Who nailed who to a cross?
Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their
sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose
abortion?
Who fought against child labor statutes?
Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Who fought against workers organizing?
Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11
terrorist attacks?
Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle
minorities?
Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering,
terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?
Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical
inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and
draconian, police-state enforcement practices?
Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above
the common good?
CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?
The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE
OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!
Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal,"
whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change,
humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They
identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality,
when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate
welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and
other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change
and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"
At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the
despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and
power, and willing to use any and all means to get them.
Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business
suit.
AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!
Mr Posting Robot
According to a recent study from the Yale Project on Climate Change, 40
percent of Americans believe there is major scientific disagreement as to
whether global warming is real.
Media Newswire
(Media-Newswire.com) - According to a recent study from the Yale Project on
Climate Change, 40% of Americans believe there is major scientific
disagreement as to whether global warming is real. Yet most climate scientists
agree that global warming is happening, and has been for some time. Ever since
researchers began examining the evidence that our planet is heating up-and
that human activities are probably to blame-people have questioned that data,
doubted the evidence and attacked the scientists who collect and explain it.
On Feb. 28 at 12:15 p.m., Naomi Oreskes, will explain what - or rather, who -
is to blame for this misperception of scientific opinion. The event, in the SJ
Quinney College of Law Sutherland Moot Courtroom, is sponsored by the
college's Wallace Stegner Center. It is free and open to the public. No
pre-registration is required.
A professor of history and science studies at the University of California,
San Diego, Oreskes recently co-authored the book "Merchants of Doubt: How a
Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to
Global Warming" with Erik M. Conway.
"Merchants of Doubt" details the story of how a cadre of ideologues clouded
the public interpretation of scientific facts to advance a political and
economic agenda for over 4 decades. The book contends that this loose-knit
group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections
in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and
deny well-established science.
Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly in the book. Some of the
same figures who claimed the science of global warming is "not settled" denied
the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, argued that acid rain and
the ozone hole was caused by volcanoes and charged that the Environmental
Protection Agency had rigged the science surrounding secondhand smoke.
The book attempts to answer why scientists would deliberately misrepresent the
work of their own colleagues and willfully distort the public record; why they
would refuse to admit their mistakes; and why the press continued to quote
them, y after year, even as their claims were shown to be false.
Oreskes' study "Beyond the Ivory Tower," published in the journal Science, was
a milestone in the fight against global warming denial and was cited by Al
Gore in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Erik Conway has published 4
previous books, including "Atmospheric Science at NASA: A History." "Merchants
of Doubt" is their 1st book together.
MYREF: 20110227144052 msg2011022717576
[133 more news items]
---
What exactly are you trying to say, aside from calling me an idiot?
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 11 Feb 2011 12:20 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
[Denier's toolkit: Revolution, what revolution? Show me one body!]
Craig McMurtrie
ABC News
Feb 28, 2011
TONY EASTLEY: 2 of Colonel Gaddafi's sons have appeared on US television
defending their father and denying that their country is in the throes of a
revolution.
A defiant Saif Gaddafi says most Libyans aren't up in arms against his father
and he blames the media for broadcasting false reports. Quite extraordinarily
he claimed the country was mostly calm.
From Washington, correspondent Craig McMurtrie reports.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Thirty-eight-year-old Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is a
London-educated architect and considered one of his father most trusted
advisors. Interviewed by Christiane Amanpour on America's ABC network - he was
asked for his reaction to calls from the Obama administration for his father
to go.
SAIF GADDAFI: First of all, it is not American business. That is number
one. Second, do you think this is a solution? Of course not.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Saif Gaddafi denies his country is in uproar saying the west,
S and middle of Libya are calm. He says there's a big gap between reality and
media coverage; and rejects reports of air-force pilots firing on protesters.
SAIF GADDAFI: Show me a single attack, show me a single bomb, show me a single
casualty. The Libyan air force destroyed just the ammunition sites.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: The 38 y old is defiant, like his father, saying he isn't
going anywhere and he's dismissive of the growing list of Libyan diplomats
deserting the regime, saying they were the ones who stopped him from
introducing democratic reforms y ago.
And Saif Gaddafi shrugs off UN sanctions, including the freezing of his
family's outside assets.
SAIF GADDAFI: We don't have many, outside. We are a very modest family and
everybody knows that and we were laughing when they said we have money in
Europe or Switzerland or S Africa. It's a joke.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Another son, Saadi Gaddafi, who was once a professional
footballer says he is concerned about the travel bans imposed on members of
the regime.
SAADI GADDAFI: Um, I do some hunting. I go to safari so Libya has no safari so
I got to go to safari, I got to hire a lawyer (laughs).
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: He says if his father loses power there'll be civil
war. Saadi Gaddafi told the US network that the uprising is like an earthquake
that will only lead to chaos across the region.
SAADI GADDAFI: It's going to spread everywhere. No one can, will stop it. This
is my personal opinion and the chaos will be everywhere.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is on her way to
Geneva to join other foreign ministers to consider the next step into the
international response to the crisis. The Obama administration has noticeably
hardened its language toward the Libyan regime but is still coming under fire.
Speaking from Cairo senior Republican senator, John McCain, is calling for
much tougher action.
JOHN MCCAIN: We could impose and could have imposed a no-fly zone. They would
have stopped flying if that had been imposed. They are using air power and
helicopters to continue these massacres. We should recognise a provisional
government somewhere in the eastern Libya perhaps Benghazi.
CRAIG MCMURTRIE: Hillary Clinton says she is reaching out to Libyans involved
in the revolution but Senator McCain also wants says the administration to
tell mercenaries fighting for the regime that they will be held accountable
before a war crimes tribunal.
This is Craig McMurtrie for AM.
MYREF: 20110228104021 msg2011022816438
[131 more news items]
---
It takes more than warmth to grow crops; otherwise the Sahara would be green!
--
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 21 Jan 2011 11:16 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
[Demonstrations? Show me one demonstration.... oh *that*
demonstration. Those people are demonstrating in *support* of my
reign...].
Mark Joyella
Feb 28th, 2011
They love him, he insists. They really love him. Libya's dictator, Muammar
Gaddafi has given an interview to ABC's Christiane Amanpour, and he says of
the demonstrations across Libya, essentially, that there are no
demonstrations. Anywhere. "My people love me. They would die for me," he said.
In the interview, which included journalists from the BBC and the Times of
London, Gaddafi denied protests had taken place calling for him to leave, and
insisted he had never used violence against his people, despite widespread
reports of military and other firing into crowds of protesters-even using
military aircraft to attack demonstrators. Amanpour, in a "reporter's
notebook" post on ABC's website, describes the interview:
We conducted the interview at a restaurant in the Corniche, a coastal road on
Tripoli's Mediterranean coast. Gadhafi, dressed in a brown-orange robe, drove
up in a small convoy of sedans, got out and greeted us. He said he wanted to
get the truth out, and he spent more than an hour with us trying to put forth
his side of the story for us.
As for President Obama's public statements calling for Gaddafi to step down,
Amanpour says Gaddafi laughed at the suggestion.
"The statements I have heard from him must have come from someone else,"
Gadhafi said. "America is not the international police of the world."
MYREF: 20110301071653 msg201103011980
[130 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot
[This was written by educator Anthony Cody, who taught science for 18 y in
inner-city Oakland and now works with a team of science teacher-coaches that
supports novice teachers. He is a National Board-certified teacher and an
active member of the Teacher Leaders Network. This post appeared on his
Education Week Teacher blog, Living in Dialogue].
Anthony Cody
Newsflash: American science teachers are so afraid of controversy, so
intimidated by students and parents who dispute the theory of evolution, that,
according to this recent survey
(http://www.livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class
.html),
more than 1/2 do not even take a stand on the issue with their students. And
one in 8 actually promote creationism. Only about 28% consistently teach
evolution.
And from Tennessee comes the news that conservative lawmakers there are
working on a law that will require science educators there to "teach the
controversies" regarding evolution and climate change.
An article in Mother Jones describes the bill:
"The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy," the bill states. Further, the state will not
prohibit any teacher from "helping students understand, analyze, critique, and
review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
I taught science for 18 years, and have some strong feelings about
this. Evolution is the central organizing principle that guides our
understanding of the entire field of biology. We understand modern species
based on their history and genetic relationships to one another. This allows
us to understand why we have so much in common with other forms of life --
even ones that seem very different.
When I taught Life Science to 7th graders in Oakland, I found that evolution
allowed us to make sense of the wonderful variety of animals that we
studied. Before we went on field trips to the aquarium, we studied the fish we
would see. Why do some have markings that look like eyes near their tails? Why
are some flat like a pancake, and others shaped like sleek cigars? Each of
these adaptations helped one or another species to survive and reproduce, by
providing a competitive advantage.
This was not without controversy in my classes. I had students and parents
alike challenge me. So I developed an approach that I described here a couple
of y ago. In my science class, I explained, we base our understandings on
evidence. Whatever we believe can be challenged by new evidence, and is always
open to question. This is a different set of ground rules from those in effect
at church. There, faith is the basis of understanding. And faith is not about
evidence, and not open to question.
I think our students need a scientific understanding of the world, including
the theory of evolution. To be clear, while evolution may be "controversial"
in the public square, it is by no means controversial among scientists. The
theory of evolution is central to understanding how species have changed over
time, and is crucial in our understanding of physiology and medicine as
well. Even practical sciences such as agriculture rely heavily on evolution to
understand how crops and livestock have been bred, and how they interact with
pests and pathogens.
What is more, students need to understand the rules by which science
operates. Science does not have all the answers, by any means, but it gives us
a way to accumulate evidence, test out new ideas, and predict what will happen
in the future. This is extremely useful in this world in which our species has
become so dominant and destructive as to threaten even the viability of life its
elf.
But we are seeing a political movement that wishes to misinform the next
generation regarding these basic things. It is more than inconvenient to have
a climate that is growing dangerously warmer. It threatens the market-based
system that drives production ever forward. In the US the output of the
economy is expected to grow by 2% to 5% pa - indefinitely! This is
absolutely unsustainable given current modes of energy and resource uses, but
any scientific data that contradicts this must be undermined and declared
"controversial," even if it is completely factual.
The theory of evolution undermines another core value held by some
conservatives, who believe that the Christian bible is literally true and
ought not to be contradicted. They are entitled to their beliefs, and I
respect those beliefs -- but they have nothing to do with science. If we, as
teachers, tell our students that there is genuine scientific controversy over
the theories of evolution and global warming, we are misleading them about the
facts, and also creating confusion about the way science works.
Science is not determined by a popular vote. Scientists work very hard to not
only investigate nature, but also to share their discoveries, challenge one
another, and build consensus around ideas that have sufficient evidence. There
are legitimate controversies in science -- based on disagreements about what
the evidence shows. Challenges rooted in religious beliefs are not in this
category. The theories of evolution and global warming have both endured
rigorous scrutiny - and the scientific consensus is clear.
The proposed law in Tennessee, the state where the Scopes trial occurred 86 y
ago, will require science teachers to inject controversies into science that
do not belong there. This is a reminder of another reason teachers need
protection for their ability to teach their subjects based on their
expertise. Our unions are one of the best ways to protect this freedom.
MYREF: 20110302070001 msg201103024317
[145 more news items]
---
Of course "global temperature are rising" [...]
Mr Posting Robot
Telegraph [UK]
02 Mar 2011
A new speech in which Colonel Muammar Gaddafi continues to deny there have
been any demonstrations in the E of the country has been aired on Libyan
state TV.
He blamed Al Quada for street violence and foreign media for
mis-representing the situation in Libya.
Gaddafi was attending a Libyan national political event in Tripoli during
which he was surrounded by people chanting "You will remain great."
Despite losing swathes of his country to rebels, he denied that there had been
any uprisings in the country.
"Protesters did not go out on demonstrations. There were no demonstrations at
all," he said.
He also told the audience the number of people killed in clashes had been
exaggerated by foreign media.
"Those who died from both sides, I do not know if they are 150 or 200. Abroad
they are saying that they are thousands. Sometimes they say 2k and sometimes
they say 3,000," he said.
Quotable quotes:
* "There is a conspiracy to control Libyan oil and to control Libyan land, to
colonise Libya once again. This is impossible, impossible. We will fight
until the last man and last woman to defend Libya from E to west, north
to south."
* "Do they want us to become slaves once again like we were slaves to the
Italians ... We will never accept it. We will enter a bloody war and
thousands and 1000s of Libyans will die if the United States enters or
NATO enters."
* "How can the Security Council issue resolutions based on reports from news
agencies?"
"How can the Security Council and the United Nations make a resolution based
on news that is 100% false?"
* "I dare you to find that peaceful protesters were killed. In America,
France, and everywhere, if people attacked military stores and tried to
steal weapons, they will shoot them."
* "They have no justification to put their hands on Libyan assets, other than
as an act of theft and robbery of Libyan wealth - theft of the wealth of the
Libyan nation."
* "My assets are human values, the nation, glory, history. This are assets
that are eternal."
* "The deaths on both sides are between 150 to 200, 1/2 of them police and
soldiers."
* "We challenge them (international agencies) to come with fact-finding
committees. It's open for them. All the doors are open. In every place, we
will enable them to know the truth."
* "The oil fields are secure, under control. But the companies are afraid, the
foreign experts are afraid."
* "Al Qaeda's cells attacked security forces and took over their weapons," he
said, adding: "How did that all begin? Small, sleeper al Qaeda cells."
* On al Qaeda, he added: "I am ready to debate anyone one of them, one of
their emirs (leaders), whomsoever appoints himself, who comes to me to
debate with me. But they do not debate ... they do not have demands at all."
* "We put our fingers in the eyes of those who doubt that Libya is ruled by
anyone other than its people."
* "Muammar Gaddafi is not a president to resign, he does not even have a
parliament to dissolve."
* "The Libyan system is a system of the people and no one can go against the
authority of the people. .. The people are free to choose the authority they
see fit."
* "The Arabs are envious of you and hope destruction for you and they don't
like you at all."
* "Egypt is going towards the unknown. Not one Egyptian is able to reach an
understanding with another Egyptian ... The army is nothing ... Egypt is
nothing. It is not a popular revolt."
MYREF: 20110303051240 msg2011030323028
[136 more news items]
---
[W]omen are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 11:28 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
GinaMarie Cheeseman
Mar 1 2011
What do you get when you combine a Republican led State House of
Representatives with a Koch Industries backed group who placed
"robocalls" in an attempt to gather support for an anti-climate change
bill? The answer: a bill the New Hampshire's State House of
Representatives voted for which would repeal the state's participation
in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The RGGI is a 10
state cap-and-trade scheme. The legislators voted for HB 519 246 to
104, with 13 Republicans voting against the bill and 2 Democrats for it.
The bill will go through a finance committee before a final House vote,
and then go to the Senate. Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, will most
likely veto the bill. However, Republicans have a veto-proof majority
in the House and Senate.
Americans For Prosperity (AFP) in New Hampshire is the conservative
group which made "robocalls." AFP's website describes the group as "an
organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of
limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal
levels." Created in 2003 to replace the Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation, AFP is the "third largest recipient of funding from the
Koch Family Foundations, behind the Cato Institute and the George Mason
University Foundation," according to DeSmogBlog.
The state director of AFP in New Hampshire, Corey R. Lewandowski
touted passage of the bill as a "a victory for the ratepayers of New
Hampshire." However, the text of the bill mentions that the Public
Utilities Commission and Department of Environmental Services state
that repealing the RGGI would reduce state revenues by approximately
$9,868,556 in FY 2012 and each y after.
Lynch wrote a letter to the House Science, Technology and Energy
Committee on Feb 10 stating his opposition to the bill "because it
will result in New Hampshire consumers paying higher electric costs
without receiving any benefits"
Environment New Hampshire responded to the bill's passage in a
statement. "We are disappointed that many of our representatives voted
against New Hampshire's cornerstone clean energy program," said
Jessica O'Hare Program Associate for Environment New Hampshire. "RGGI
is good for New Hampshire's environment, creating jobs, and saving
local residents and businesses money on their utility bill."
"We need to get out of state oil interests out of New Hampshire," added
O'Hare. "This is the Live Free or Die State and they're messing with
our way of life."
In short, the passage of the bill is a big win for major polluters like
Koch Industries, but a major loss for the people of New Hampshire and
the environment.
MYREF: 20110303070001 msg2011030327187
[134 more news items]
---
[To Bonzo:]
Where do you even get the time for this parade of regurgitation? Paid
by the post from some Exxon/Mobil scheme? I actually wouldn't doubt
that. It takes work to match the Oznob level of mindless repetition.
Tiny classified ad at http://adelaide.craigslist.com.au that changed
Bonzo's life:
"Don't miss this work at home opportunity, mate! Disinfo jockey needed
for environmental topic on the Internet's oldest forum system. Paid by
character typed. Some pasting allowed. Must not repeat same paragraph
more than once a fortnight. Experience writing porn novellas
preferred. Must have experience with anagrams."
-- Enough Already, 24 Nov 2008
Mr Posting Robot
Stephen Leahy interviews environmental economist ROBERT REPETTO
IPS
March 02, 2011 17:27 GMT
Uxbridge, Canada, Mar 2, 2011 (IPS) - Powerful fossil energy interests are
preventing the United States from making the necessary transition to 21st
century energy sources, one of the country's leading environmental economists
documents in a just-published book.
Fossil energy interests are spending "hundreds of millions of dollars"
lobbying US politicians in Congress and funding groups to confuse the public
about the serious risks climate change poses, says Robert Repetto, author of
"America's Climate Problem: The Way Forward" published by Earthscan.
IPS climate and environment correspondent Stephen Leahy spoke with Repetto
about his new book.
Q: Why did you write this book?
A: We're running out of time. The latest science shows that climate change is
coming faster and posing greater risks than previously thought. We are at risk
of triggering positive feedbacks that will lead to uncontrollable climate
change.
Meanwhile, America is locked in a climate-policy stalemate, with very few in
the public comprehending the real risks climate change poses. Most don't
understand that climate change is happening now. They don't link extreme
weather events we've been experiencing with climate change. As a result they
are not demanding that politicians take action.
Q: Why don't most Americans understand the fact that climate change is already
underway and poses serious risks?
A: Fossil (oil, coal, natural gas) energy interests are pouring 100s of
millions of dollars into sowing doubt and uncertainty to blunt public concern
and to provide political cover to those politicians they are funding. In
America, there is a very concerted effort by fossil energy interests that
bankroll right-wing and libertarian "think tanks" like the Competitive
Enterprise Institute to create an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty, just
like the tobacco companies did regarding the health effects of smoking.
Q: You write that the US Congress's failure to address climate change - "the
most serious environmental problem in history" - reflects the larger failure
of an American democracy corrupted by money: "Not only can political support
be bought, it can be bought cheaply...."
A: Studies have shown that political spending by corporations has the highest
potential return on investment for companies and organisations with interests
affected by congressional action. Senator James Inhofe [a Republican from
Oklahoma], a powerful and longstanding opponent to action on climate change,
received 768k dollars in contributions from fossil energy and mining interests
during the 110th Congress.
Fossil energy interests are fighting to preserve their markets. What else can
you do with coal except burn it? Railways also make a lot of money off
shipping coal.
Q: Why do people elect representatives who do not represent their interests?
A: The public is not really aware of what happens in Washington. They've
become disengaged from the political process and there is wide spread
discontent with politicians. People feel their representatives are not acting
in the public interest, and they're right. Changing this is not easy.
During elections, incumbent senators and representatives outspend challengers
3 to one and they end up being re- elected term and after term. A senator's
election campaign will spend upwards of 5 mn dollars to get re-elected.
Q: The Obama administration has said climate change represents "a clear and
present danger" but has taken little action in its 2 y in office. What can the
administration do when House of Representatives recently voted to eliminate
all funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
A: It is highly unlikely there will be a US climate bill. However, if the
Obama administration chooses to act, they could do a great deal on the
regulatory side. Enforcement of environmental rules regarding coal mining was
incredibly lax under the [George W.] Bush administration and the costs of the
environmental damage off loaded onto the American public.
Tougher regulations and tighter enforcement would make coal a less attractive
energy source than alternative energy options. The public is strongly
supportive of environmental protection.
Q: Opponents of action on climate claim it will hurt jobs and the economy.
A: That's a false claim. Every reputable economic analysis has shown the
opposite. Switching to green energy sources will mean more jobs and a
healthier economy. People should question why large corporations that don't
hesitate to raise prices or lay off their workers are so concerned about job
protection and price stability that they fund think tanks and other
organisations to make false claims about climate legislation.
Q: You argue that America's future depends on a transition to new forms of
energy. Can you explain?
A: The basic technology of our cars is over a century old, our coal-powered
electricity system older still. Once much of our energy came from water mills
that were replaced 50 y later by steam power, to be later replaced by
electrical power. During each transition, there were prophets of doom claiming
it would be too risky, too dangerous to change.
We have not experienced an energy transition in our lifetimes but we must move
to the green energy of the 21st century - renewables and major increases in
energy efficiency. Europe has over 800 offshore wind projects, the US has
none. We are being left behind. We need to accelerate the transition to green
energy.
MYREF: 20110303143002 msg2011030313171
[131 more news items]
---
[Yasi is "the worst cyclone" to hit Qld:]
CORRECTION: The worst cyclone in history was the cat 5 Mahina in 1899.
[Bzzt! Thank you, come again!]
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 3 Feb 2011 15:12 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
Fae Jencks
Media Matters For America
March 03, 2011 4:33 pm ET
Today, the Daily Caller, Fox Nation, Hot Air, and climate change skeptic
website Climate Depot promoted a video created by Senator Jim Inhofe's (R-OK)
press office which consists of clips from yesterday's Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee hearing. In the video, Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and
Barrasso (R-WY) suggest that we shouldn't trust the scientific consensus on
global warming because in the 1970's, scientists predicted global cooling.
In fact, there was nowhere near a scientific consensus about a global cooling
in the 1970s. A 2008 literature review published in the Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fstoat%2FMyth-1970
-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf)
concluded that "[t]here was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the
Earth was headed into an imminent ice age" and that "emphasis on greenhouse
warming dominated the scientific literature even then." The study further
noted that "[w]hen the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in
contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of
citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage." And
sure enough, in the video, Barrasso cited headlines from media coverage at the
time rather than climate research.
By contrast, climate scientists today overwhelmingly agree that man-made
climate change is occurring. A 2009 study of 77 active climate scientists
found that 97% agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing mean global temperatures."
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftigger.uic.edu%2F~pdoran%2F012009_Do
ran_final.pdf).
Likewise, a 2010 study found that "97-98% of the climate researchers most
actively publishing in the field support the tenets of AAC [anthropogenic
climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F201
0%2F06%2F04%2F1003187107.full.pdf%2Bhtml).
Nevermind all that, though, because, according to Sen. Inhofe, "even the
president's people are agreed with me." In a move celebrated by the right-wing
blogs, Inhofe quoted from a 1971 article written by President Obama's science
advisor, John Holdren discussing the potential impact of an "ice age."
But even the 1971 article published by Holdren and his colleague Paul Ehrlich
concludes that "making the planet too cold" was a "comparatively short-term
threat."
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zombietime.com%2Fzomblog%2F%3Fp%
3D873).
Holdren and Ehrlich continued by stating that the "major means of interference
with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear
fuels. As pointed out previously, all this energy is ultimately degraded to
heat. What are today scattered local effects of its disposition will in time,
with the continued growth of population and energy consumption, give way to
global warming" (emphasis added).
At any rate, what Holdren or anyone else wrote in the 1970s tells us nothing
about what the field of climate science tells us today. Conservative media
clearly prefer distractions like this to facing the fact that for decades,
climate scientists have been amassing more and more evidence that the planet
is warming and human activity is contributing to that trend.
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.nasa.gov%2Fevidence%2F).
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Ffaqs%2Fclimfaq14
.html).
(http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fpublications_and_data%
2Far4%2Fwg1%2Fen%2Fcontents.html).
MYREF: 20110304100533 msg2011030411515
[133 more news items]
---
[Call me kook:]
>A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
>says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".
>A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!
>The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".
Sorry but 1917 invalidates the trend.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 13:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
David Roberts
Grist
3 Mar 2011 12:58 PM
The Thinker statue by Rodin in San Francisco, CA Jack Handey has nothing on
his deep thoughts.Photo: Satyakam KhadikarA few m ago, in a post about
the larger significance of the right's climate denialism, I said this: "Here
we are hip-deep in postmodernism and it came from the right, not the left
academics they hate." In a New York Times Magazine piece last weekend, Judith
Warner argued something similar: that the right's denialism is a dangerous
extension of the left's academic postmodernism of the '80s and '90s.
Science journalist Chris Mooney disagrees. He argues that "climate change
deniers do not look, behave, or sound postmodern in any meaningful sense of
the term."
It's possible there there are fewer than a dozen people on the planet who care
about this largely semantic dispute, but I find it fascinating. I think both
Warner and Mooney are right, but in different ways. I'll try to explain why
without getting too nerdy.
What is a "postmodernist"? One definition is simple: someone who subscribes to
the academic theory of that name. There's significant and important variation
among postmodernists, of course, but in one way or another, they all argue
that knowledge is socially constructed. Science, they say, is just another
social practice or "discourse," not a privileged way of accessing
Reality. Postmodernism, at least in its Derridian form, is an extreme form of
relativism, which says that truth (empirical, moral, or both) is not fixed,
eternal, and objective, but inextricably culture-bound and subjective.
Now, in that sense, no, obviously most climate skeptics are not
postmodernists. Most people who haven't been corrupted by academic philosophy
or hallucinogenic drugs aren't. Most are what philosophy snobs call "naive
realists" -- in fact, most people probably don't think about empirical or
metaphysical theories at all!
But I don't think that's the whole story.
Let's distinguish between what I would call intellectual postmodernists and
practicing postmodernists. The former believe that all knowledge is relative
to culture; the latter behave as though all knowledge is relative to
culture. Those manifest quite differently.
The right -- not just on climate but on matters ranging from evolution to
Obama's birth certificate -- rejects, in practice, the notion that there are
empirical standards or practices of inquiry that transcend ideology, tribe, or
personality. That's why they are so aggressive with charges of "bias." What
they mean by that is that mainstream scientific, academic, and media
institutions, while falsely claiming to be objective or nonideological, are in
fact of the liberal tribe.
Mooney asks:
[M]any of these dissenting "skeptic" scientists of course have agendas of
their own, rivalries with scientists in the "mainstream," and so on. What on
earth makes them so trustworthy, so objective?
That's the wrong question. Conservatives do not go to these scientists because
they think they are "more objective." They go to them because they affirm
conservative beliefs. They are the scientists of their tribe. They are, as
Mooney writes, "their scientists." The left gets their scientists, the right
gets theirs. The left gets their experts, the right gets theirs. The left gets
its news, the right gets theirs. The left gets their reality, the right gets
theirs.
Obviously if you ask a Tea Partier if the non-existence of climate change is
"objectively true," he'll say yes. He will use the language of disinterested
inquiry and evidence, of objective truth, because in this particular political
struggle that language confers advantage. But make no mistake, for him,
denying climate change is what John Austin called an "illocutionary act" --
it's a reaffirmation of his affiliation with and loyalty to his tribe. In
asserting the right's shibboleths, he is expressing his identity.
Anyway, this is what postmodernism looks like. In practice, postmodernism
doesn't mean a bunch of academics in berets giving lectures on
postmodernism. In practice, it means competing tribes, each with their own
authorities and facts, each with their own reality, settling their differences
the only way differences can be settled in the absence of universal standards
of evidence and reason -- through brute propaganda and, eventually,
violence. When I look over the horizon, it looks pretty postmodern to me.
MYREF: 20110304133001 msg2011030424778
[139 more news items]
---
Check the dates and times when Bozo posts. It's a 5 day Monday-Friday 8
hour working week.
-- Tom P, 26 Nov 2008
Mr Posting Robot
Sheril Kirshenbaum
Discover
4 Mar 2011
Taeggan Goddard over at Political Wire sent over this interesting piece on
research out of The University of Michigan. A new study found that the
language used to describe our warming planet may influence listeners'
reactions.
According to research by Schuldt, Konrath, and Schwarz, Republicans are less
likely to say that global climate change is real when it's referred to as
"global warming" (44.0%) instead of "climate change" (60.2%). Meanwhile, word
choice does not seem to matter for Democrats. The investigators observed the
partisan divide dropped from 42.9 percentage points when they used "global
warming" to 26.2 percentage points when they used "climate change."
In other words, language matters tremendously and the outcome of polls can be
highly dependent upon it.
MYREF: 20110305090001 msg2011030530125
[136 more news items]
---
[Weather is responsible for climate change:]
And that's the only reason for the heat!
Strong northeast winds being superheated desert air from the inland to the
the southern capitals.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 31 Jan 2011 13:42 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
[Barry Bickmore is Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah, USA. The views expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the position of his sponsoring institution].
ABC News
14 March 2011
ABC News reported on Fri that Senator Nick Minchin rejects a recent Australian
government report about climate change, because Minchin claims the globe is
more likely to be cooling than warming.
Ross Garnaut, the author of the study, is reported to have said Minchin "knows
nothing about the climate", while Minchin countered that Garnaut is an
economist, rather than a climate scientist. Minchin went on to cite the work
of a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who says that models have
generally overstated the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas emissions,
and recent warming has likely been due to a "natural cycle".
This unnamed scientist is almost certainly Dr Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at
the University of Alabama-Huntsville, in the United States. If some
credentialed experts, like Spencer, aren't convinced that humans are
significantly affecting the Earth's climate, how are the rest of us supposed
to decide what to think about the issue?
Ideally, we would all master the subject of climatology, so we could judge for
ourselves who is more likely correct. Obviously, this noble dream isn't
realistic, since it would take most of us several y of study and experience to
become true experts in any technical field. In such situations, most of us
simply defer to the consensus of experts.
Oh, we know the experts are fallible, and some are smarter and/or more
experienced than others, so we would typically try to obtain multiple opinions
from doctors, mechanics, and so on, before making any really risky decisions.
In climate science, there is a clear consensus. 2 recent peer-reviewed studies
have shown that 97-98% of working climate scientists think humans are
significantly affecting the Earth's climate. So why does Senator Minchin glom
onto the work of a single scientist, whose views are representative of such a
tiny minority? Is Roy Spencer's work so straightforward and compelling that
Minchin was drawn to his conclusions by irresistible force of logic?
Unfortunately, it turns out that Roy Spencer's views are on the fringes for
good reasons. Spencer's claims are documented on his blog and in his latest
book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's
Top Climate Scientists. I recently completed a three-part, online review of
the book - Part 1 can be found here. In the review, I document a number of
glaring errors in Spencer's claims. Following here are a couple of the main
points.
First, Spencer published a 2008 paper in which he used a simple model of the
Earth's climate to show that standard methods for estimating climate
sensitivity were greatly overstating warming effects. It turns out that other
climate scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer's paper a
favourable review) have now published a paper showing Spencer was only able to
obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model
parameters. If realistic values are used, the effect Spencer described is
negligible.
Spencer has done further work in which he claims to show with his simple
climate model that, not only is climate sensitivity low, but most of the
global warming in the 20^th century can be explained by a natural cycle called
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Dr Spencer tried to get this work published,
but it didn't pass peer review. He claims his paper was rejected because the
peer-review process in climate science has been "short-circuited by zealots
adhering to their faith that humans now control the fate of Earth's climate"
(p. xvi), but my examination of his work does not support this interpretation.
I took apart Spencer's climate model, programmed it into my computer, and
showed that, once again, he was only able to come to his conclusions because
he was willing to use absurd values for some of his model parameters.
Furthermore, he used a bizarre statistical technique that he apparently just
made up, because it was capable of giving him nearly any answer he wanted.
Politicians like Senator Minchin usually want to be seen as tough-minded
iconoclasts who boldly go where the evidence leads them. In this case,
however, we can clearly see that there is no compelling reason to think Roy
Spencer's work trumps that of the rest of the climate science community. In
fact, much of his work is of demonstrably poor quality. The sordid truth of
the matter seems, instead, to be that Senator Minchin simply believed
whichever expert would tell him what he wanted to hear.
No matter how much we want to wish it away, climate change will be difficult
to effectively address, and our elected officials need to be willing to take a
rational approach to the problem. Rather than allowing them to get away with
believing whatever they want, we should hold them to a higher standard.
MYREF: 20110314120003 msg2011031430361
[140 more news items]
---
This ***global warming**** appears to be HIGHLY LOCALISED!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 5 Feb 2011 21:59 +1100
Of course "global temperature are rising", we're emerging from an ICE AGE!!
Mr Posting Robot
Andrew Restuccia
The Hill Newspaper
March 15, 2011
House Republicans rejected amendments offered Tue by Democrats that called on
Congress to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring,
that it is caused in large part by human activity and it is a threat to human
health.
The amendments, offered at an Energy and Commerce Committee markup of
legislation to block Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules, are
part of an effort by House Democrats to get Republicans on the record on
climate science.
Committee ranking Democrat Rep Henry Waxman (D-Calif) offered an amendment
Tue that called on Congress to agree that climate change is occurring. The
amendment failed on a party-line vote of 20-31. No Republicans voted for the
amendment.
The amendment says that "Congress accepts the scientific finding of the
Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and
rising global average sea level.'"
"This finding is so obviously correct that there should be no need to offer
the amendment," Waxman said.
The broad consensus among scientists is that climate change is occurring in
large part because of human activity.
House Republicans also rejected an amendment offered by Rep Diana DeGette
(D-Colo) Tue that called on Congress to accept the scientific consensus that
climate change is occurring in large part due to human activity. The amendment
failed in a 21-30 party-line vote. No Republicans voted in favor of the
amendment.
DeGette's amendment says "'the scientific evidence is compelling' that
elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic
emissions `are the root cause of recently observed climate change.'"
"I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject any kind of
fuzzy science," DeGette said.
Rep Jay Inslee (D-Wash) offered a 3rd amendment that says human-caused
climate change is a threat to public health and welfare. That amendment also
failed on a party-line vote of 21-31.
Republicans, in response to the amendments, took issue with climate science
Tue.
"My good friend from California tries to make it clear that the science is
settled. I would say it's not settled," Rep Joe Barton (R-Texas) said of
Waxman's amendment.
The GOP rejection of Waxman's amendment shows "what it means to be on the
wrong side of history and the wrong side of science," Rep Jan Schakowsky
(D-Ill) said.
But Rep Ed Whitfield (R-Ky), the chairman of the panel's Energy and Power
Subcommittee, said Republican legislation to block EPA climate rules is not
about climate science. It is instead about preventing the EPA from passing
climate regulations that Republicans say will hobble the economy.
"For us to be sitting around talking about the science, I think it's a strong
argument to be made on the other side, but the issue here is that the Clean
Air Act is not the appropriate vehicle to regulate something like this,"
Whitfield said.
"I think my friend from Kentucky mae a good argument about why he doesn't want
to see regulation, but it wasn't a very convincing argument about why you
would reject this amendment," Waxman countered. "You can disagree with how
EPA acts, but you shouldn't argue therefore that we shouldn't even consider
the science," he said. "This is science denial. It's not worthy of this
committee."
MYREF: 20110316040940 msg201103165020
[141 more news items]
---
Scientists [and kooks] are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
CORRECTION:
True science, (remember that?) can be trusted, but this "science" is ALL LIES!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 19 Feb 2011 14:46 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
Mike Carlton
The Sydney Morning Herald
March 19, 2011
'A bugger of a day at the office," sighed Cardinal Pazzo, sinking heavily into
a chair. His mistress, the principessa, fussed around him, proffering a peck
on the cheek and plumping a cushion.
"It's the fools I have to suffer," said the cardinal. "This Galileo Galilei
idiot, for example. Claims the Earth is a globe that orbits around the sun. A
wicked heresy. But I'm having the devil of a job getting him to recant."
The principessa splashed some wine into a goblet, a rare old Tuscan Brunello
bottled especially for the Holy Office, the Roman Inquisition, where her lover
held sway as chief enforcer. "Is it not possible that Signor Galileo might
have a point?" she cooed. "It would explain the sunrise and sunset, for
example."
Moments like this irritated Pazzo beyond measure. A woman's opinions in such
matters were worthless. He had thought often of replacing the principessa with
a younger paramour, but then she was still deliciously good in bed. So he
banged a bejewelled hand on the arm of his chair.
"Basta!" he cried. "I spend a lot of time studying this stuff. The Earth is
flat. If it were a sphere revolving around the sun, obviously we would all
fall off it and into the jaws of Hell. God will not be mocked."
"And so what do you propose to do with this Galileo?"
"Oh, the usual ... Pull out a few fingernails, stretch him on the rack, a bit
of how's-yer-father with a red hot poker. Never fails to bring 'em to their
senses. This the 17th century, Cara Mia. Mother Church knows all there is to
know."
Cardinal George Pell's latest rant against the science of climate change
suggests that 4 more centuries have not shone much new light in the
intellectual backwaters of the church. His attack this wk on the head of the
Bureau of Meteorology, Dr Greg Ayers, was extraordinary in its dogmatic
ignorance. In case you missed it, and to cut a long story short, Ayers - an
internationally recognised atmospheric scientist - had explained to a Senate
estimates committee that human-induced climate change is real and growing.
Pell, on the other hand, clings to the fashionable right-wing credo that
global warming is a fraud. He believes climate change is a pagan superstition
and that global temperatures were, in fact, higher in Roman times and the
Middle Ages. "Ayers, when he spoke to the House, was obviously a hot-air
specialist. I've rarely heard such an unscientific contribution," he told the
Herald. "I regret when a discussion of these things is not based on scientific
fact ... I spend a lot of time studying this stuff."
Such folly is unsurprising in a man who believes that prayers to a dead nun
can cure cancer. Not that His Eminence is likely to resort to the thumbscrew
and the rack, though. They probably no longer have these instruments at St
Mary's.
MYREF: 20110319210002 msg2011031927529
[144 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot
Tony Abbott admitted that climate change is real just days ago.
[But today is not even-numbered...]
news.com.au
March 23, 2011 9:24AM
Tony Abbott will address a rally of climate sceptics in Canberra today as the
Opposition tries to defend Labor accusations that it is a party of climate
change deniers.
Strongly supported by right-wing shock jocks, the rally is expected to hear
from a range of voices questioning the scientific evidence for climate change.
Scores of buses, filled with opponents of the planned tax, are heading to
Canberra for a rally outside Parliament House this morning.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard plans to introduce a tax on carbon emitters from
July 2012 but Mr Abbott has said under the coalition the best tax cut
Australians can get is no carbon tax.
The rally will be seen as a key step for Mr Abbott and members of the
Coailtion, who have been forced to defend themselves against accusations that
they are a party of climate change deniers.
An alliance of conservative bodies is planning rallies across the country
today against the Gillard Government's carbon tax with one of the largest
expected outside Parliament House in Canberra.
The Opposition Leader is expected to address the Canberra rally and yesterday
renewed his attack on the Prime Minister's pre-election promise not to
introduce the tax.
He told parliament the PM suffers from truth deficit disorder and is clocking
up frequent liar miles.
But trade unions are attempting to hijack the protest by delivering a petition
in support of the measure to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.
A coalition of climate change advocates - including the ACTU, activist
organisation GetUp, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Greenpeace and
others - also plans to take on the protesters.
ACTU president Ged Kearney and other union figures have already arrived to
personally deliver a petition to Mr Combet prior to the 10.30am rally
The rally comes as manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne yesterday
asked Ms Gillard during Question Time to withdraw the term "climate change
denier".
Mr Pyne argued the term was used by Labor as a weapon to paint the Opposition
as climate change extremists, The Australian reported.
Just days ago, Mr Abbott declared climate change was real after being attacked
for telling a community forum that the science wasn't settled.
Mr Abbott said "whether CO2 is quite the environmental villain that some
people make it out to be is not yet proven".
He infamously declared in 2009 the science was "crap" but has since stated he
accepts humans are contributing to global warming.
Meanwhile, steel boss Graham Kraehe warned that business has lost trust
in the Gillard Government and that any proposed compensation scheme for
emissions trading was like "putting a bandaid on a bullet wound."
Mr Kraehe, who is Bluescope Steel Chairman, said the carbon tax was ill
considered and wouldn't give businesses enough time for consultation.
He called for a sector-by-sector approach to carbon pricing or carbon tariffs.
However, the warning is unlikely to be acknowledged by the Government with
Julia Gillard boosted by a strong recovery in the latest Newspoll which put
her ahead of Mr Abbott as preferred Prime Minister.
The PM is aggressively pushing the case for a carbon tax both in the media and
parliament, despite being hampered by a lack of detail on the
controversial tax.
MYREF: 20110323170001 msg2011032332752
[132 more news items]
---
[A]ll science is lies and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
Mr Posting Robot
Calling someone a climate change denier is akin to calling them a Holocaust
denier, according to Christopher Pyne.
Tony Wright
The Age
March 23, 2011
Pity Harry Jenkins [Speaker of the House]. Asked to adjudicate on the charge
that Julia Gillard was clandestinely trying to equate Tony Abbott with the
wickedness of a Holocaust denier, Harry looked as if he was trapped in a
Grimms fairytale.
Jenkins, the House of Representatives Speaker - a sort of discipline master of
the naughtiest class in school - frequently finds himself struggling to
contain tomfoolery that would embarrass a callow primary pupil.
Yesterday, however, his most recalcitrant charge, Christopher Pyne, tried to
invest his regular antics with a semantic confection that would try the
patience of a linguistics professor.
PM Julia Gillard and her ministers, trying to retail a carbon tax with no
price or packaging, have taken to assailing Opposition Leader Tony Abbott with
the title of "climate-change denier".
This is slightly questionable, if only because Abbott's real view is so hard
to pin down. Exhibit one, the comment of 19 m ago that the science was
"absolute crap", was later explained away as "a bit of hyperbole". These days
Abbott ricochets between declaring that he believes climate change is
occurring to questioning the role of CO2 in the process. Thus, call
him a confused sceptic.
There was a time (much of the 20th century, indeed, when established beliefs
were up for challenge) when scepticism was fashionable. In the currently
overheated period, however, the very words sceptic and (gasp) denier have
become as loaded as the accusation by a mediaeval inquisitor of heresy.
"Denier," cried Ms Gillard. You might hardly be surprised to discover there
was a bonfire being built in the grounds of Parliament House for the ritual
burning of the heretic Abbott.
Mr Pyne flew to what he imagined was his leader's defence.
He demanded that Mr Jenkins force Ms Gillard to withdraw her "offensive
words".
"We all know the connotation the PM is trying to bring about by using the word
'denier'," he fulminated.
"We know she's trying to allude to the Holocaust. It is offensive and it must
stop."
The Speaker, digesting Mr Pyne's leap of logic, declared he had to employ "as
much sensitivity as I can muster" to deal with the matter.
Unsurprisingly, he didn't buy the proposition.
"I think that the construction the manager of opposition business has placed
at this point in time is stretching it," he understated.
Mr Pyne protested. "I make the connection between climate change denier and
Holocaust denier."
Mr Jenkins told MPs to "take a deep breath and behave in a manner that those
that observe us from outside would expect".
His plea was, of course, denied.
MYREF: 20110323233001 msg2011032315494
[133 more news items]
---
The claimed consensus views of hundreds of climate change "scientists" are
fundamentally erroneous.
[Bonzo has elsewhere claimed the germ theory of disease is an "erroneous
consensus view"].
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 19 Jan 2011 15:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
Electa Draper
The Denver Post
03/24/2011
More than 1/2 of Americans believe in a personal God who controls everything,
yet a survey released today finds that most see natural disasters as
increasing in severity because of climate change rather than God's wrath.
In the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the Public Religion
Research Institute surveyed a random sample of 1,008 adults March 17-20. It
found that few believe that God punishes nations for its sins or that
earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters are a sign from God.
"Americans overall resist drawing a straight line from theological beliefs
about a personal God to God's direct role or judgment in particular natural
disasters," said Robert P. Jones, PRRI's chief executive officer. "Americans
have more natural than supernatural views of disasters."
Seven in 10 Americans see God as an entity with whom one can have a personal
relationship. And 56% say God is in control of everything that happens.
Yet the survey found only 38% believe natural disasters are a message from
God. Only 29% believe such calamities are punishment for sins.
However, white evangelical Protestants are the exception, according to the
survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Almost 6 in 10 white evangelical Protestants believe God is sending a sign
with natural disasters. And 53% believe God is judging and punishing nations.
Only one in 5 white mainline Protestants or Catholics believe disasters signal
God's displeasure.
The severity of recent natural evidence is evidence of global climate change,
said 58% of those surveyed. And 44% said it is evidence of biblically
prophesied "end times" or apocalypse.
More than 80% of those surveyed said providing financial support to Japan is
"very important."
MYREF: 20110325140002 msg2011032519608
[135 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
This is what the real climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer said.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 3 Mar 2011 16:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
AAP
March 27, 2011 2:54PM
Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has once again declined to take back
what he says were "absolute crap" comments he made about human-induced climate
change.
Before becoming Opposition Leader in 2009, Mr Abbott a told a meeting in the
central Victorian town of Beaufort the argument on climate change was
"absolute crap".
After becoming Coalition leader he argued he had used "a bit of hyperbole" at
that meeting rather than it being his "considered position".
Today, when asked whether his comments were a mistake and needed repudiation,
Mr Abbott told Sky News: "I've dealt with those comments before ... but I was
talking about the settled science, I wasn't talking about climate change as
such."
When asked whether he still stood by the "absolute crap" comments, he said:
"Climate change is real, mankind does make a difference.
"Sure there will be a scientific debate but overwhelmingly it's clear that
climate change is real."
The current political debate was about how to deal with climate change, not
about climate change "as such".
When asked whether his position still was that the settled science of climate
change was "absolute crap", Mr Abbott said: "The important position is, what
are we going to do deal with climate change."
When quizzed a 4th time, the Opposition Leader said: "There is a scientific
debate, there'll always will be but it's pretty clear from the science that
climate change is real and that mankind is making a contribution."
MYREF: 20110327183002 msg2011032730690
[133 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
mi
Justin Pritchard,Yuri Kageyama
AP
Mar 27, 2011
Tokyo - In planning their defence against a killer tsunami, the people running
Japan's now-hobbled nuclear power plant dismissed important scientific
evidence and all but disregarded 3k y of geological history, an Associated
Press investigation shows.
The misplaced confidence displayed by Tokyo Electric Power Co. was prompted by
a series of overly optimistic assumptions that concluded the Earth couldn't
possibly release the level of fury it did 2 wk ago, pushing the six-reactor
Fukushima Dai-ichi complex to the brink of multiple meltdowns.
Instead of the reactors staying dry, as contemplated under the power company's
worst-case scenario, the plant was overrun by a torrent of water much higher
and stronger than the utility argued could occur, according to an AP analysis
of records, documents and statements from researchers, the utility and Japan's
national nuclear safety agency.
And while TEPCO and government officials have said no one could have
anticipated such a massive tsunami, there is ample evidence that such waves
have struck the northeast coast of Japan before -- and that it could happen
again along the culprit fault line, which runs roughly N to south,
offshore, about 220 miles (350 kilometres) E of the plant.
TEPCO officials say they had a good system for projecting tsunamis. They
declined to provide more detailed explanations, saying they were focused on
the ongoing nuclear crisis.
What is clear: TEPCO officials discounted important readings from a network of
GPS units that showed that the 2 tectonic plates that create the fault were
strongly "coupled," or stuck together, thus storing up extra stress along a
line 100s of miles (kilometres) long. The greater the distance and stickiness
of such coupling, experts say, the higher the stress buildup -- pressure that
can be violently released in an earthquake.
That evidence, published in scientific journals starting a decade ago,
represented the kind of telltale characteristics of a fault being able to
produce the truly overwhelming quake -- and therefore tsunami -- that it did.
On top of that, TEPCO modeled the worst-case tsunami using its own computer
program instead of an internationally accepted prediction method.
It matters how Japanese calculate risk. In short, they rely heavily on what
has happened to figure out what might happen, even if the probability is
extremely low. If the view of what has happened isn't accurate, the risk
assessment can be faulty.
That approach led to TEPCO's disregard of much of Japan's tsunami history.
In postulating the maximum-sized earthquake and tsunami that the Fukushima
Dai-ichi complex might face, TEPCO's engineers decided not to factor in quakes
earlier than 1896. That meant the experts excluded a major quake that occurred
more than 1k y ago -- a tremor followed by a powerful tsunami that hit many of
the same locations as the recent disaster.
A TEPCO reassessment presented only 4 m ago concluded that tsunami-driven
water would push no higher than 18 feet (5.7 metres) once it hit the shore at
the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. The reactors sit up a small bluff, between 14
and 23 feet (4.3 and 6.3 metres) above TEPCO's projected high-water mark,
according to a presentation at a Nov seismic safety conference in Japan by
TEPCO civil engineer Makoto Takao.
"We assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants," Takao asserted.
However, the wall of water that thundered ashore 2 wk ago reached about 27
feet (8.2 metres) above TEPCO's prediction. The flooding disabled backup power
generators, located in basements or on 1st floors, imperiling the nuclear
reactors and their nearby spent fuel pools.
___
The story leading up to the Tsunami of 2011 goes back many, many y --
several millennia, in fact.
The Jogan tsunami of 869 A.D. displayed striking similarities to the events in
and around the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors. The importance of that disaster,
experts told the AP, is that the most accurate planning for worst-case
scenarios is to study the largest events over the longest period of time. In
other words, use the most data possible.
The evidence shows that plant operators should have known of the dangers --
or, if they did know, disregarded them.
As early as 2001, a group of scientists published a paper documenting the
Jogan tsunami. They estimated waves of nearly 26 feet (8 metres) at Soma,
about 25 miles N of the plant. N of there, they concluded that a surge from
the sea swept sand more than 2 1/2 miles (4 kilometres) inland across the
Sendai plain. The latest tsunami pushed water at least about 1 1/2 miles (2
kilometres) inland.
The scientists also found 2 additional layers of sand and concluded that 2
additional "gigantic tsunamis" had hit the region during the past 3k years,
both presumably comparable to Jogan. Carbon dating couldn't pinpoint exactly
when the other 2 hit, but the study's authors put the range of those layers of
sand at between 140 B.C. and 150 A.D., and between 670 B.C. and 910 B.C.
In a 2007 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Pure and Applied
Geophysics, 2 TEPCO employees and 3 outside researchers explained their
approach to assessing the tsunami threat to Japan's nuclear reactors, all 54
of which sit near the sea or ocean.
To ensure the safety of Japan's coastal power plants, they recommended that
facilities be designed to withstand the highest tsunami "at the site among all
historical and possible future tsunamis that can be estimated," based on local
seismic characteristics.
But the authors went on to write that tsunami records before 1896 could be
less reliable because of "misreading, misrecording and the low technology
available for the measurement itself." The TEPCO employees and their
colleagues concluded, "Records that appear unreliable should be excluded."
Two y later, in 2009, another set of researchers concluded that the Jogan
tsunami had reached 1 mile (1.5 kilometres) inland at Namie, about 6 miles (10
kilometres) N of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
The warning from the 2001 report about the 3,000-year history would prove to
be most telling: "The recurrence interval for a large-scale tsunami is 800 to
1,100 years. More than 1,100 y have passed since the Jogan tsunami, and, given
the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the
Sendai plain is high."
___
The fault involved in the Fukushima Dai-ichi tsunami is part of what is known
as a subduction zone. In subduction zones, one tectonic plate dives under
another. When the fault ruptures, the sea floor snaps upward, pushing up the
water above it and potentially creating a tsunami. Subduction zones are common
around Japan and throughout the Pacific Ocean region.
TEPCO's latest calculations were started after a magnitude-8.8 subduction zone
earthquake off the coast of Chile in Feb 2010.
In such zones over the past 50 years, earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater
have occurred in Alaska, Chile and Indonesia. All produced large tsunamis.
When 2 plates are locked across a large area of a subduction zone, the
potential for a giant earthquake increases. And those are the exact
characteristics of where the most recent quake occurred.
TEPCO "absolutely should have known better," said Dr Costas Synolakis, a
leading American expert on tsunami modeling and an engineering professor at
the University of Southern California. "Common sense," he said, should have
produced a larger predicted maximum water level at the plant.
TEPCO's tsunami modelers did not judge that, in a worst-case scenario, the
strong subduction and coupling conditions present off the coast of Fukushima
Dai-ichi could produce the 9.0-magnitude earthquake that occurred. Instead, it
figured the maximum at 8.6 magnitude, meaning the March 11 quake was 4 times
as powerful as the presumed maximum.
Shogo Fukuda, a TEPCO spokesman, said that 8.6 was the maximum magnitude
entered into the TEPCO internal computer modeling for Fukushima Dai-ichi.
Another TEPCO spokesman, Motoyasu Tamaki, used a new buzzword, "sotegai," or
"outside our imagination," to describe what actually occurred.
U.S. tsunami experts said that one reason the estimates for Fukushima Dai-ichi
were so low was the way Japan calculates risk. Because of the island nation's
long history of killer waves, Japanese experts often will look at what has
happened -- then project forward what is likely to happen again.
Under longstanding US standards that are gaining popularity around the world,
risk assessments typically scheme up a worst-case scenario based on what could
happen, then design a facility like a nuclear power plant to withstand such a
collection of conditions -- factoring in just about everything short of an
extremely unlikely cataclysm, like a large meteor hitting the ocean and
creating a massive wave that kills 100s of thousands.
In the early 1990s, Harry Yeh, now a tsunami expert and engineering professor
at Oregon State University, was helping assess potential threats to the Diablo
Canyon nuclear power plant on the central California coast in the United
States. During that exercise, he said, researchers considered a worst-case
scenario involving a significantly larger earthquake than had ever been
recorded there.
And then a tsunami was added. And in that Diablo Canyon model, the quake hit
during a monster storm that was already pushing onto the shore higher waves
than had ever been measured at the site.
In contrast, when TEPCO calculated its high-water mark at 18 feet (5.7
metres), the anticipated maximum earthquake was in the same range as others
recorded off the coast of Fukushima Dai-ichi -- and the only assumption about
the water level was that the tsunami arrived at high tide.
Which, as is abundantly clear now, could not have been more wrong.
MYREF: 20110328083001 msg2011032822014
[132 more news items]
---
[Sucked in:]
> 1/2 of what he posts always contradict the other 1/2.
> One day 50 ppmv is the warming cutoff.
Oh Puuhhleeeeeeze easy with the strawman!
Not "cutoff" but 90% of the warming effect below 50ppm.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 8 Feb 2011 11:27 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
From Cap-And-Trade To Drill-Baby-Drill
Brad Johnson
ThinkProgress
Mar 25th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Newt Gingrich really doesn't like it when Barack Obama takes his advice. It's
not just true of intervention with Libya - it's also the case with fighting
global warming pollution. In short, Newt was for carbon cap and trade, until
Obama became president:
Feb 15, 2007: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a
trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive
program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's
very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support."
[Frontline, 2/15/07]
April 4, 2009: "And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper-which would
help create jobs and save Americans money-President Obama wants to impose a
cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board
energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even
worse-and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate
American job losses." [Newsweek, 4/4/09]
Gingrich's full record on global warming is actually a series of epic
flip-flops over more than 2 decades, with his positions mostly coinciding
with whether the party holding the presidency is a Republican or a
Democrat. Since 1989, when Gingrich supported aggressive climate action
against "wasteful fossil fuel use," until today, as he proposes abolishing the
Environmental Protection Agency, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen from 353 ppm to 391 ppm (from 26% above pre-industrial levels
to 40% above), and the five-year global mean temperature anomaly has
nearly doubled from 0.3°C to 0.56°C.
FLIP
1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming
Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that "the Earth's atmosphere is being
changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human
activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid
population growth in many regions," that "global warming imperils human health
and well-being" and calls for policies "to reduce world emissions of carbon
dioxide by at least 20% from 1988 levels by 2000." The legislation
recognizes that global warming is a "major threat to political stability,
international security, and economic prosperity." [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]
FLOP
1992: Gingrich calls the environmental proposals in Al Gore's book Earth in
Balance "devastatingly threatening to most American pocketbooks and jobs."
[National Journal, 9/5/92]
1995: Gingrich's budget shuts down climate action, killing the US Congress Offic
e of Technology Assessment, NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program, and NOAA glo
bal warming research. Carl Sagan asks, "Is it wise to close our eyes to a possib
ly serious danger to the planetary environment so as not to offend such companie
s and those members of Congress whose reelection campaigns they support?" [Los A
ngeles Times, 7/16/95]
1996: At a speech for the Detroit Economic Club, Gingrich mocks "Al Gore's
global warming," citing "the largest snowstorm in New York City's history":
"We were in the middle of budget negotiations; the football games were coming
up and we noticed on the weather channel that an early symptom of Al Gore's
global warming was coming to the E Coast. And it does make you wonder
sometimes, doesn't it, how theoretical statisticians in the middle of the
largest snowstorm in New York City's history could stand there and say, `I
don't care what it's doing. It's going to get very hot soon.'" [FDCH Political
Transcripts, 1/16/96]
FLIP
1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which
notes CO2 is a "major greenhouse gas" that comes from "products
whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels" and calls on the United States to
"manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere." [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]
2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean
energy. "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading
system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program
for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very
good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support." [Frontline,
2/15/07]
In a debate on climate policy with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich says "the
evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible
steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere," and that we should "do it
urgently." [ThinkProgress, 4/10/07]
2008: In an advertisement made for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection,
Gingrich sat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and said that "we
do agree our country must take action to address climate change." [We
Campaign, 4/18/08]
FLOP
2008: Defending himself to his conservative base, Gingrich then rejects
climate science: "I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global
warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the
center of it." [Newt.org, 4/22/08]
In a Washington Post chat, Gingrich rejects a cap-and-trade system, saying it
"would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact
on the economy." He says he supports "tax credits for dramatically reducing
carbon emissions." [Washington Post, 4/17/08]
In a later post, Gingrich says, "I do not know if the climate is warming or
not." He also rejects Warner-Lieberman, a cap-and-trade system with tax
incentives for clean energy, as "leftwing": "I disagree with leftwing
solutions like Warner-Lieberman, which ignore the economic and national
security implications of their attempts to protect the environment."
[Newt.org, 5/5/08]
"Last week, liberals in Congress voted for the equivalent of a $150 billion
tax increase," Gingrich wrote, of a decision to block oil shale development in
Colorado. "The answer to high energy prices," he said, is "so simple it could
fit on a bumper sticker: Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." [Human Events,
5/20/08]
2009: In his appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference,
Gingrich attacks President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal, claiming the
president "mentioned in passing, using code words, so nobody would recognize
it, he is for an energy tax." [C-SPAN, 2/27/09]
In a Newsweek column, Gingrich calls Obama's cap-and-trade proposal "an
across-the-board energy tax on every American." [Newsweek, 4/4/09]
Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), l
aunches an anti-cap-and-trade campaign. "I hereby petition Congress to reject an
y and all legislation (or regulatory action by the EPA) that would enact new ene
rgy taxes and/or establish a national cap and trade system for CO2 that would, a
s President Obama has said, cause electricity and other energy prices to `necess
arily skyrocket.'" [ASWF, 5/28/09]
2011: Gingrich proposes abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency because
of its "attempts to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and
thereby the entire American economy." [ThinkProgress, 1/25/11]
MYREF: 20110328153001 msg2011032813908
[133 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
Stephan Lewandowsky
[Lewandowsky is a Winthrop Professor and Australian Professorial Fellow at the
University of Western Australia. His research addresses the distinction
between skepticism, cynicism, and denial].
ABC News
28 March 2011
The internet must rank among humanity's greatest technological and social
achievements.
But just like any other revolutionary transformation, the internet has also
given rise to a dark side; namely, a largely ethics-free netherworld that
caters to humanity's lower instincts.
Internet pornography is a booming but exploitative business. Misinformation
is pumped into the web by ideologues and vested interests at a growing
rate. And in one of the more recent developments, a US "security" firm, HB
Gary Federal, has offered its clients techniques to dominate the comment
sections of blogs with an army of "sock puppets", with sophisticated "persona
management" software that allows a handful of people to appear to be many.
Of course, comment sections are abused by more than just sock puppets, but
they are also often abusive, especially for scientists and others who are
engaged in the climate change arena.
For example, some fellow Australian professors who rely on the peer-reviewed
literature to inform their opinions have been likened to Pol Pot, Stalin, and
Hitler. In the U.S., climate scientists have had to endure death threats by
email as well as dead rats in the (physical) mail. And to top it off, [38]as
reported by Clive Hamilton, an Australian activist has received email that
talked of "brutal gang-rape" and "horrible torture" of her children.
Against that background of free-flowing electronic offal, I was not entirely
surprised to receive the following email a few wk back:
Dear Prof Lewandowsky,
We have never met, although we do share a background in the field of
psychology, so I feel emboldened to ask for your professional advice. You see
we have something in common: a passionate concern for averting the looming
catastrophe of runaway climate change.
I recently began blogging, especially about climate change, and after a m my
site was noticed. Noticed by thee wrong people, sadly. Readers of Tim Blair
and Andrew Bolt have swamped my site with genuinely abusive comments, many
relating to my disability, which I find very hurtful.
So my question to you is this: How do you deal with monsters like this?
I have read and savoured every column you have published at Unleashed, and I
have read the hateful comments that, even with an ABC moderator to vet them,
still make it up on the site. The worst charge is that they simply do not take
me seriously, which diminishes me in my humanity. I must confess that, after
the latest round of abuse, I hugged my little cat and cried for an hour.
You have not only shrugged off that abuse, you have also survived the scorn
and ridicule of your fellow W Australian Joanne Nova (I found that while
googling you email adress). It is a species of bravery I do not know if I can ta
p.
I'm a fragile woman and I thought my blog, Verdant Hopes, might be a force for
good in the world. Instead it has made me a victim once again.
Any advice you could share would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Alene Composta
A visit to Alene's blog left me with very mixed and quite uncertain feelings,
but also with the distinct impression of a person who finds life challenging,
perhaps even in the absence of hateful comments.
Being acquainted with research on the effects of unfettered hate speech -- for
example, ethnic epithets have been statistically associated with suicide rates
among immigrants -- I therefore replied as follows:
Hi Alene, thanks for getting in touch. Yes, I know all about those abusive
comments and it is brave for you to reveal as much personal detail as you do
on your blog. Alas, for some people that is an invitation to rip into you and
get a laugh out of that--they are like the school bullies whom no one really
liked and who didn't really have close friends, only followers.
I deal with those comments and actions largely by ignoring them. Wherever
possible, I insert some of them into my talks to point out to the audience
what sort of people are engaging in this assault on science and by what means
they operate. Unfortunately, there presently is not much else that can be done
about those comments.
As far as your blog is concerned, bear in mind that it is yours and that you
can shut down any comment and run any moderation policy that you want. That
still doesn't make it easier to receive those hateful utterances in the 1st
place, but at least it gives you some sense of control to shut them down. Bear
in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we
know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic "personas"
each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.
All the best, Stephan
My concluding sentence appears particularly prescient in hindsight, because it
has subsequently been reported, by the ABC's Jonathan Holmes, that "Alene"
does not exist.
That's right, it seems "Alene" is nothing but a sock puppet -- a fake internet
persona created by persons unknown. I understand that neither "Alene" nor her
cat exist; "her" blog is actually someone else's.
This raises some interesting questions: Why would anyone go to the trouble of
creating an artificial persona, only to engage in correspondence under the
pretence of being a real person?
And why, once having obtained a reply, would they post it on "Alene's" blog,
as happened with the above exchange?
There are presently no definitive answers to these questions, although two
obvious options come to mind.
Perhaps this is just some juvenile fun, as the post-mortem post on
"Alene's" blog suggests (even without having received a personalized
send-off note).
There is also something unfunny about this issue, which has now been taken up
by a tabloid blog. There is much hilarity among commenters there about how
anyone could be gullible enough to believe that a seemingly troubled and
challenged person was actually, well, a troubled and challenged person. By
some leap of logic this "gullibility", in turn, somehow disproves the science
underlying global warming.
However, troubled and challenged persons do exist, and some are troubled and
challenged because of the cyber-hate spewed in their direction. And they
deserve compassion, no matter how foreign that concept may be to the nation's
gutterati.
Fortunately, there is much that we can learn from this episode.
First, the use of sock puppets has demonstrably become a tool in Australia in
what has often been described as a propaganda war on science and
scientists. Second, there are surely ethical issues that arise when someone
impersonates a distressed and disabled person for their own purposes, be it
juvenile amusement or a failed attempt to cause embarrassment.
Finally, it amplifies yet again what is obvious to most of us: the fact
that the climate is changing and that human CO2 emissions are causing it is
now unassailable by conventional scientific means, forcing some of those who
cannot accept this discomforting fact to seek refuge in the ethical twilight
of internet warfare.
MYREF: 20110328170001 msg2011032816410
[130 more news items]
---
>Why is it relevant that the 'chief scientist' is a woman?
Because women are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
Mr Posting Robot
Ben Geman
03/28/11 02:22 PM ET
A conservative group that spent heavily in the 2010 elections is pushing
Senate lawmakers to vote this wk in favor of stripping the Environmental
Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The group Americans for Prosperity - which has strong ties to the conservative
Koch brothers - is sending memos to senators urging them to support Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) amendment to small-business
legislation that's on the Senate floor.
"The Obama administration's attempt to use a decades-old statute to advance
climate change policy via an unelected [irony noted :)] bureaucracy must be
stopped," the group states.
The "key vote" alert also urges senators not to vote for a pair of Democratic
amendments that would limit or delay the rules while keeping EPA's regulatory
authority intact, alleging neither will "alleviate the painful economic impact
or the threat to the separation of powers."
The memo warns that the group will "rate these votes in our congressional
ratings."
Industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity are using ads to press
politically vulnerable lawmakers to vote in favor of scuttling EPA climate
rules.
Votes on the climate measures are expected this week, but the timing is uncertai
n.
MYREF: 20110329140001 msg2011032924090
[127 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
Wendy Zukerman
Short Sharp Science
13:12 5 April 2011
Denial is a "valid response" of people when confronted with tough times, and
this response explains climate change deniers. So said Graeme Pearman, a
climate consultant at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney,
during the Greenhouse 2011 conference in Cairns, Queensland, Australia today.
According to Pearman, a large proportion of sceptics are "the type of people"
that deny any problems facing them. "It is a normal coping mechanism," he
said.
Recently, profiling a typical climate sceptic has become fertile research
ground. Behavioural scientists hope to unpick why so many people continue to
deny human-made climate change, despite strong scientific evidence of its
existence. The research will help policy-makers plan how to change those
seemingly unchangeable minds.
Benjamin Preston, currently at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee,
worked at the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington DC and was
tasked with "educating" Tea Party senators about the risks associated with
climate change. At today's conference, Preston said political persuasions
influenced climate change opinions more than the mere denial of catastrophe.
As a hearing in the US Congress last m showed, people's views on contentious
scientific issues tend to reflect their political
positions. "Egalitarian-communitarians" generally accept the evidence that
climate change is a threat, while "hierarchical-individualists" reject it.
According to Preston:
People who are more conservative, socially and economically, are at the point
where they're not going to believe in any of that environmental stuff.
Following this, a climate-change sceptic, says Preston, is more likely to be
swayed to switch opinions if climate data is presented to them from someone
they politically identify with.
Greg Withers, who works for the Queensland state government, told the
conference that there is more than enough scientific evidence to justify
government climate action:
For policy-makers there's a certain amount of data and information that you
require before you can make recommendations and take action... [with climate
change]... that threshold has been reached and exceeded.
MYREF: 20110407030001 msg2011040732493
[125 more news items]
---
Everyone agrees that the climate is changing, but there are violently
diverging opinions about the causes of change, about the consequences of
change, and about possible remedies.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Universe", 2007.
Mr Posting Robot
"The interesting thing with climate change, I find, is that positioning on
climate change is strikingly predictable based on someone's political
leanings."
-- Andrew J. Hoffman
Felicity Barringer
April 9, 2011, 9:05 am
Andrew J. Hoffman, the Holcim professor of sustainable enterprise at the
University of Michigan, has spent the last y or so applying his tools as a
social scientist to researching the cultural and social underpinnings of the
backlash against climate change science.
He wrote of the need for such work earlier this y for Strategic Organization,
a journal produced by Sage, a British academic publisher.
We interviewed him by telephone from his office at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, where he is on sabbatical. Following are excerpts, edited for
brevity.
Q. The debate over climate science has involved very complex physical models
and rarefied areas of scientific knowledge. What role do you think social
scientists have to play, given the complexity of the actual physical science?
A. We have to think about the process by which something, an idea, develops
scientific consensus and a second process by which is developed a social and
political consensus. The 1st part is the domain of data and models and
physical science. The second is very much a social and political process. And
that brings to the fore a whole host of value-based, worldview-based,
cognitive and cultural dimensions that need to be addressed.
Social scientists, beyond economists, have a lot to say on cognition,
perceptions, values, social movements and political processes that are very
important for understanding whether the public accepts the conclusions of a
scientific body.
So when I hear scientists say, "The data speak for themselves," I cringe. Data
never speak. And data generally and most often are politically and socially
inflected.
They have import for people's lives. To ignore that is to ignore the social
and cultural dimensions within which this science is taking place.
Q. Have you seen this before, this dynamic?
A. (Laughs.) I'm hesitating for a second because I've learned that making
analogies can be tricky. But I do think that there is a process by which, for
example, the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer for decades had a
scientific consensus that this was an issue, then a social process begins, and
then it becomes accepted.
The interesting thing with climate change, I find, is that positioning on
climate change is strikingly predictable based on someone's political
leanings. One-third of Republicans and three-quarters of Democrats think that
climate change is real. That to me speaks to the political, ideological and
cultural dimensions of this debate.
It's interesting because it wasn't always so. In 1997 with the Kyoto treaty,
with the development of regulations that would impact economic and political
interests, sides started to be drawn. We've reached the stage today that
climate change has become part of the culture wars, the same as health care,
abortion, gun control and evolution.
Q. Why is peer-reviewed science rejected?
A. There are many who distrust the peer-review process and distrust
scientists. So that can be step one. I think a lot of people will be
uncomfortable accepting a scientific conclusion if it necessarily leads to
outcomes they find objectionable. People will be hesitant to accept the notion
of climate change if that leads directly towards ideas that are at variance
with values that they hold dear.
Q. What values?
A. Well, do you trust the scientific process? Do you trust scientists? The
faith-and-reason debate has been around for centuries. I just read a book that
I thought was prescient, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," about this
suspicion people have about intellectuals who are working on issues that are
inaccessible, opaque to them, yielding conclusions that alter the way we
structure our society, the way we live our lives.
There's a certain helpless frustration people have: Who are these cultural
elites, these intellectual elites who can make these conclusions in the ivory
tower of academia or other scientific institutions and tell me how to live my
life?
And we can't leave out power. There are certain powerful interests out there
that will not accept the conclusions this will yield to, therefore they will
not accept the definition of the problem if they are not going to accept the
solutions that follow it. I'm speaking of certain industry sectors that stand
to lose in a carbon-constrained world.
Also, if you can't define solutions on climate change and you're asking me to
accept it, you're asking me to accept basically a pretty dismal reality that I
refuse to accept. And many climate proponents fall into this when they give
these horrific, apocalyptic predictions of cities under water and ice ages and
things like that. That tends to get people to dig their heels in even harder.
Some people look at this as just a move for more government, more government
bureaucracy. And I think importantly fear or resist the idea of world
government. CO2 is part of the economy of every country on earth. This is a
global cooperation challenge the likes of which we have never seen before.
Q. And so if you think global cooperation is a dangerous notion, it makes you
see the science as unacceptable?
A. It can in part come down to: Do you trust the message and do you trust the
messenger? If I am inclined to resist the notion of global cooperation --
which is a nice way to put what others may see as a one-world government --
and if the scientific body that came to that conclusion represents that
entity, I will be less inclined to believe it. People will accept a message
from someone that they think shares their values and beliefs.
And for a lot of people, environmentalists are not that kind of person.
There's a segment of the population that sees environmentalists as socialists,
trying to control people's lives.
Q. There are a lot of organizations that I don't believe are seen as elites:
municipal water authorities, a department of the Army that examines future
risks. Are they potential messengers?
A. In our society today, I think people have more faith in economic
institutions than they do in scientific institutions. Scientists can talk
until they are blue in the face about climate change.
But if businesses are paying money to address this issue, then people will
say: It must be true, because they wouldn't be throwing their money away.
And so what I'm laying out is that this is very much a value- and
culture-based debate. And to ignore that - you will never resolve it and you
will end up in what I have described a logic schism, where the 2 sides talk
about completely different things, completely different issues, demonizing the
other, only looking for things that confirm their opinion. And we get nowhere.
MYREF: 20110410190001 msg2011041030940
[130 more news items]
---
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers
of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those
gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation - the radiant heat
energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to
solar heating. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal,
petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth's natural
greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the
start of the industrial revolution in the 1800's.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[something]
Tennessee Legislator Intro's Aqua Net Theory To Support Anti-Science Bill
Brad Johnson
The Wonk Room
Apr 14th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Armed with fantasy and lies, Tennessee legislators are attempting to dismantle
science education in their state's public schools. Last week, the Tennessee
House voted by an overwhelming 70 to 23 margin in favor of a radical bill to
teach the "controversy" about scientific subjects "including, but not limited
to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and
human cloning." During the debate on HB 368, introduced by Rep. Bill Dunn
(R-Knoxville), anti-science conservative Rep. Sheila Butt (R-Columbia)
explained that Aqua Net hairspray could have saved us from global warming, if
it weren't for those pesky scientists:
At the risk of drawing this out, which I hate to do, but I do know, as
Rep. Dunn has mentioned, that I was taught things in science class in high
school which have turned out not to be true. I remember so many of us when we
were seniors in high school, we gave up Aqua Net hairspray. You remember why
we did that? Because it was causing global warming! That aerosol in those cans
was causing global warming. Since then, scientists have said maybe we
shouldn't have given up that aerosol can because that aerosol was actually
absorbing the earth's rays and keeping us from global warming. So, so many
things we learned in science class have turned out not to be true.
Butt's Aqua Net theory of global warming -- an example of the "objective"
examination of "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing
scientific theories" that HB 368 encourages -- is an impressive concoction of
confused science and malapropism. Aerosols are particles that are small
enough to be suspended in air, and can refer to very different things like
hair spray or soot. The world's governments banned the chlorofluorocarbons
that were used as propellants in aerosol spray cans like Aqua Net after
scientists presented unequivocal evidence that CFCs were destroying the
earth's ozone layer. Again, the CFCs were the propellants, not the aerosolized
hair product. This international response successfully cut ozone-destroying
gases worldwide, forestalling one kind of global atmospheric catastrophe.
Meanwhile, unrelated efforts to reduce a completely different kind of
"aerosol" pollution -- pollutants from cars and power plants that causes acid
rain and smog -- have also been successful, saving millions of lives and
restoring forests and streams to health. But that soot also can block the
sun's radiation (not the "earth's rays") from reaching the surface. In the
1970s, levels of that kind of aerosol pollution were bad enough that some
scientists were concerned it could cause global cooling. Since then, that
pollution has gone down as greenhouse pollution has skyrocketed, leading to
the rapid global warming we are now experiencing.
It's unfortunate that Butt's high-school science teachers did not do a good
enough job teaching her that the same word can have different meaning in
different contexts, that stratospheric ozone depletion is not the same as
anthropogenic global warming, and uncertainty and confusion are 2 different thin
gs.
In addition to Butt's fantasy, Rep. Frank Nicely (R-Strawberry Fields) argued
that the "critical thinker" Albert Einstein would have wanted public schools
to teach creationism alongside the science of biological evolution:
I think that if there's one thing that everyone in this room could agree on,
that would be that Albert Einstein was a critical thinker. He was a
scientist. I think that we probably could agree that Albert Einstein was
smarter than any of our science teachers in our high schools or colleges. And
Albert Einstein said that a little knowledge would turn your head toward
atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head toward Christianity.
In fact, Nicely falsely attributed this quotation to Einstein, a Jewish
humanist and professed agnostic, who never argued that scientific knowledge
leads one to Jesus Christ. The statement is actually a mangled paraphrase of
the 16th century philosopher Francis Bacon, who argued that "a little
philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth
men's minds about to religion."
These legislators are trying to reconcile their evangelical Christianity with
science and democracy by perverting all 3 -- trying to wrap the lessons of
faith in pseudoscientific garb, reinterpreting lessons of the observed world
to fit a preconceived fantasy, and then breaking down the walls between
religion and the state that protect them both.
There is another pathway to reconcile religious faith and scientific
knowledge. Religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams explore the moral implications of the polluted world
scientific tools describe in stark terms. Climate scientists like MIT's Kerry
Emanuel and Barry Bickmore are guided by their faith to explain with clarity
what choices man is making with the world we have inherited. As Albert
Einstein actually said, "To know that what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty,
which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this
knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness."
By the way, Butt might be pleased to know that scientists and engineers have
figured out how to return Aqua Net to store shelves, without CFC propellants.
Transcript:
Rep. SHEILA BUTT (R-Columbia): At the risk of drawing this out, which I hate
to do, but I do know, as Rep. Dunn has mentioned, that I was taught things in
science class in high school which have turned out not to be true. I remember
so many of us when we were seniors in high school, we gave up AquaNet
hairspray. You remember why we did that? Because it was causing global
warming! That aerosol in those cans was causing global warming. Since then,
scientists have said maybe we shouldn't have given up that aerosol can because
that aerosol was actually absorbing the earth's rays and keeping us from
global warming. So, so many things we learned in science class have turned out
not to be true.
What about eating chocolate? You know, I was told, don't eat chocolate. Good
dark chocolate is full of what? Anti-oxidants! Some chocolate is good for
you. So many things that we learned in science class.
What this bill does is protects a teacher -- not mandates what a teacher
teaches -- it protects a teacher when a child asks a critical thought question
about something like global warming or evolution. They have the right to ask
that question, and the teacher has the right to not make them feel stupid for
asking!
Rep. FRANK NICELEY (R-Strawberry Fields): I think that if there's one thing
that everyone in this room could agree on, that would be that Albert Einstein
was a critical thinker. He was a scientist. I think that we probably could
agree that Albert Enstein was smarter than any of our science teachers in our
high schools or colleges. And Albert Einstein said that a little knowledge
would turn your head toward atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your
head toward Christianity.
Now I want to quote one other person: Thomas Sowell. In my opinion, the
smartest man in America today. I've read him for twenty years. He's a genius,
and he is a critical thinker. And he says, why in our colleges and in our high
school, why do we spend so much time arguing 2 theories, the theory of
creationism and the theory of evolution, when neither side can prove without a
doubt that they are right, when there are so many cold hard facts that our
children need to know that we could be spending that time teaching? So if I
was a teacher, I would teach them both as theories, and let the child as he
grows up make up his own mind. And I'd spend my time teaching them cold hard
facts like 2 and 2 is 4 and pi r squared.
MYREF: 20110416040002 msg201104161431
[133 more news items]
---
[T]he United States has less than a century left of its turn as top
nation. Since the modern nation-state was invented around the year 1500, a
succession of countries have taken turns at being top nation, first Spain,
then France, Britain, America. Each turn lasted about 150 years. Ours began in
1920, so it should end about 2070.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[something]
The Texas climate change solution: God
As drought and wildfires rage, Gov. Rick Perry takes drastic action: It's time
to pray
Andrew Leonard
Salon
Apr 21, 2011 17:22 ET
After m of a historically unprecedented drought, devastating wildfires are
raging across more than a mn acres of the state of Texas.
Republican Gov. Rick Perry's response? He's officially declaring the next 3
days as "Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas."
Whereas, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans
have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right
and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly
seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;
Now, Therefore, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested
in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby
proclaim the three-day period from Fri, April 22, 2011, to Sun, April 24,
2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all
faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our
land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and
robust way of life.
Notwithstanding the disclaimer that one should never directly connect the dots
between any single weather event and larger patterns of climate change, it
seems like it is at least worth mentioning that the Dust Bowl conditions
currently asserting themselves in Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere in the
Southwestern United States are exactly the kind of climatic catastrophe that
the United States Geographical Society has predicted is likely to occur as
temperatures continue to rise.
Which bring us to an ironic crossroads, particularly insofar as God might be
concerned. As befits the national headquarters of the energy industry, Texas
has long been a flag bearer for climate skepticism, from the halls of Congress
to the pages of public school textbooks. And just across the border in
Oklahoma we have Sen. James Inhofe, perhaps the single most dedicated critic
of climate science in the entire U. S. Congress. It's almost too classic --
let's ignore all the science that might help prepare us to confront the
challenges of the future, and then, when disaster hits, we'll just do a rain
dance! It's not like we're, uh, civilized or anything.
So I ask the good citizens of Texas to consider whether, as they bow their
heads in prayer, they might not have it all backward. God isn't going to
alleviate their misery. On the contrary, God is punishing them for their
flagrant disregard of the human impact on his (or her) beauteous creation!
Doesn't that make at least as much sense as the idea that Hurricane Katrina
was God's punishment for legalized abortion? Clearly, in Texas, God is mad
about something.
MYREF: 20110422160002 msg201104221097
[130 more news items]
---
[Something about "warm bath in sanctimony"]
Pop over to Tim Blair's for a look.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 14 Feb 2011 14:39 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[something]
Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans
[The divide between the US and everyone else].
Americans among least likely to attribute to human causes
Julie Ray and Anita Pugliese
Gallup
April 22, 2011
Washington, D.C. -- World residents are more likely to blame human activities
than nature for the rise in temperatures associated with climate
change. Thirty-five% of adults in 111 countries in 2010 say global warming
results from human activities, while less than 1/2 as many (14%) blame
nature. 13% fault both.
People nearly everywhere, including majorities in developed Asia and Latin
America, are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities
rather than natural causes. The US is the exception, with nearly 1/2 (47%) --
and the largest percentage in the world -- attributing global warming to
natural causes.
Americans are also among the least likely to link global warming to human
causes, setting them apart from the rest of the developed world. Americans'
attitudes in 2010 mark a sharp departure from 2007 and 2008, when they were
more likely to blame human causes.
The world has not reached consensus as to whether it acknowledges at least
some human contribution to climate change. Nearly 1/2 of adults worldwide
(48%) say climate change results from human activities or volunteer that both
natural and human activities cause climate change. In Europe and the United
States, belief in human contribution to global warming has declined since 2007
and 2008.
Implications
People nearly everywhere are more likely to believe humans cause global
warming. In the United States, where residents are less likely to blame humans
for global warming and to see it as a threat, residents could potentially
feel less empowered to act as stewards of the environment in the future.
For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries
Gallup continually surveys, please contact
SocialandEco...@gallup.com or call 202.715.3030.
Survey Methods
Results are based on face-to-face and telephone interviews conducted in 2010
with approximately 1k adults, aged 15 and older, in 111 countries. For results
based on the total sample in each country, one can say with 95% confidence
that the maximum margin of sampling error ranges from ą1.7 percentage points
to ą5.7 percentage points. The margin of error reflects the influence of data
weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the
findings of public opinion polls.
MYREF: 20110423190001 msg2011042325204
[130 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[something]
Twisters, Floods, Drought--What's Wrong With the Weather?
You have to ask the question, when the US is getting walloped by record
tornadoes, record drought and record flooding--all at the same time.
Joel Hilliker
theTrumpet.com
May 4, 2011
Before last week, the most tornadoes America had ever seen in a single day was
148. That's hard to even comprehend. But this 37-year-old record was
shattered, along with countless lives, when, in just 24 hours last Wed, the
southern US got shredded by 312 of them.
That nightmare came in the midst of 4 terrifying days between Mon and Thu,
when a total of 362 twisters hit 7 states. The rampage killed over 350 people,
injured 1000s more, cut power to a mn others, and splintered entire
towns. It was the worst disaster in America since Katrina.
The most violent of the twisters was 20 times normal size. It tore a scar one
mile wide and a record 300 miles long across Alabama and Georgia.
"I don't know how anyone survived," said the mayor of stricken Tuscaloosa,
Alabama. "There are parts of the city I don't recognize and I've lived here my
entire life."
Remarkably, all this hit just days after another devastating rash of 155
tornadoes between April 14 and 16.
The past 10 Aprils have each spawned an average of 161 tornadoes in the U.S.;
the previous April record was 267. But last month, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (noaa) estimates the number of twisters to touch
down on American soil was an unparalleled 600-plus.
"This is a history-making tornado outbreak," said meteorologist Jeff Masters.
The crazy thing is, when it comes to disasters, "history-making" is becoming
commonplace.
Every few wk it seems, the Earth unleashes unprecedented fury of another
sort. One more dreadful record falls, and another constellation of survivors
is left breathless in its wake.
What's wrong with the weather? You have to have blinders on not to at least be
asking the question.
Even with Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri,
Oklahoma and Tennessee in states of emergency from the tornadoes, other
disasters are striking elsewhere in the country.
Texas is withering from its worst drought since 1895. Ninety-five% of
the state is in "severe drought" or worse, a group of national climate experts
said last Thu; over 70% is in "extreme" or "exceptional" drought. This is
demolishing the state's wheat production. Some experts estimate that Texan
wheat farmers have given up on up to 70% of their wheat acreage--which is
certain to hurt already-low global supplies.
The bone-dry conditions have created a tinderbox for wildfires. More than
6,900 separate blazes this y have torched more than 2 mn acres across the
state. "At times, we were literally burning border to border," said a Texas
Forest Service spokesperson. "I've never seen anything like it."
Wildfires are also blazing in Arizona, charring 23k acres so far.
Many people in these parched and blackened regions must be shaking their heads
at the irony as they see other parts of the country being deluged with severe
flooding.
Farmland across Arkansas sits several inches underwater after heavy rains last
wk. Thousands of acres of the state's most fertile farmland have been wiped out.
Communities in Missouri and Illinois are also under threat after heavy rains
and melting snow swelled the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to record
levels. Federal authorities in Missouri were forced to blast a levee that was
creaking under the strain of floodwaters, inundating a 200-square-mile
region. "Nobody has seen this type of water in the system," the president of
the Mississippi River Commission said. "It's an unprecedented flood."
Unprecedented.
These where-did-this-come-from, once-in-a-lifetime, never-before-witnessed
calamities are piling up on top of one another. Why? Scientists are
scrambling for answers.
Climate change models simply do not explain the increase in disasters hitting
the US right now. "Some ingredients that are favorable to tornadoes will
increase in a warming world, others will decrease," says Harold Brooks of the
National Severe Storms Laboratory. "I don't think there's any way of proving
climate change is responsible for the weather patterns this wk and wk before,"
says meteorologist Howard Bluestein of the University of Oklahoma.
Whatever instruments and computer models they consult, however, scientists are
overlooking the most important dimension to this trend.
That is, that weather is not entirely random.
It has a Maker. And it has a Sustainer.
If you believe the Bible, God challenges you to accept its assertion that He
has power over the potent and destructive phenomena that are increasingly
besieging our world. He can create them, and He can prevent them.
Job 38:28, for example, reveals God as the father of rain. He is able to
command storm clouds, tornadoes and hurricanes to serve His purposes: "Out of
the S cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north. By the breath of God
frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened. Also by watering
he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud: And it is turned
round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them
upon the face of the world in the earth. He causeth it to come, whether for
correction, or for his land, or for mercy" (Job 37:9-13).
Yes, sometimes God bathes the Earth with gentle rain to show His loving
concern and mercy--and other times God uses the weather, including floods and
tornadoes, to correct people!
The God of the Bible is not impotent. He likens His judgment against the
wicked to a tornado or hurricane (e.g. Jeremiah 23:19; 30:23-24). He uses the
punitive sword of flood and mildew--and also that of drought (Deuteronomy
28:22; 11:17). Sometimes He wields both at the same time in order to heighten
their corrective power (Amos 4:7).
The Bible also reveals that God has set spiritual and physical laws in motion,
and that in this present age He is allowing mankind to develop its own ways of
living--contrary to those laws--and to reap the natural consequences that
result, including weather upsets.
Further, God, in His great purpose, also allows Satan the devil--the current
(and temporary) god of this world, according to 2 Corinthians 4:4--to have a
role in producing catastrophic weather, for man's ultimate learning (see Job 1).
We should consider the worsening weather trend a warning from God. Biblical
prophecy shows that we can expect this increasingly chaotic weather to get
far, far worse very soon (see Revelation 6:5-8; 8:4-12). The powerful natural
forces are going to be unleashed upon a disobedient world to bring it to its
knees in repentance.
In Leviticus 26, God promises "rain in due season" and that "the land shall
yield her increase" (verse 4)--"if ye walk in my statutes, and keep my
commandments, and do them" (verse 3). Were the nations to do so, we would find
ourselves blessed with beautiful weather and stable climates. We would not
have to fear crop failures and famine, or being killed in a severe weather event
.
We can--and prophecy shows, we will--experience prosperous living with
pleasant weather--when we acknowledge and obey God, His laws and His
benevolent rule.
MYREF: 20110504210001 msg2011050414838
[139 more news items]
---
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a
steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last
50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to
human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[something]
Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism
Pietro Terna
USA Today
May 15 2011
Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a
statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned
scientific support for global warming.
The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and
Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason
University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial
congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The "Wegman Report" suggested
climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global
warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate
change naysayers.
The journal publisher's legal team "has decided to retract the study," said
CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California,
following complaints of plagiarism. A Nov review by 3 plagiarism
experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that
portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The journal study,
co-authored by Wegman student Yasmin Said, detailed part of the congressional
report's analysis.
"Neither Dr Wegman nor Dr Said has ever engaged in plagiarism," says their
attorney, Milton Johns, by e-mail. In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman
blamed a student who "had basically copied and pasted" from others' work into
the 2006 congressional report, and said the text was lifted without
acknowledgment and used in the journal study. "We would never knowingly
publish plagiarized material" wrote Wegman, a former CSDA journal editor.
Plagiarism can result in research sanctions from federal funding authorities,
says federal Office of Research Integrity's John Dahlberg. He would not say
whether ORI was investigating the researchers.
The congressional report, requested by global warming skeptic Rep. Joe
Barton, R-Texas, and the study concluded that climate scientists favorably
publish one another's work because of too-close collaboration. They suggested
this led to the consensus that the Earth is warming.
A 2009 National Academy of Sciences report found that climate studies show
average global temperatures have increased 1.4 degrees in the past century,
for example.
The study concluded that top scientists shouldn't collaborate. Instead,
studies where a "principal author tends to co-author papers with younger
colleagues who were his students" would produce less-biased results. Barton
reiterated his support for the report last fall.
Computer scientist Ted Kirkpatrick of Canada's Simon Fraser University, filed
a complaint with the journal after reading the climate science website Deep
Climate, which 1st noted plagiarism in the Wegman Report in 2009. "There is
something beyond ironic about a study of the conduct of science having ethics
problems," Kirkpatrick says.
Azen says the study seemed novel and important at a time when social
networking studies were "hot." Johns says his clients "stand by their work"
despite the retraction.
George Mason University said in 2010 that it was investigating the charges of
plagiarism. University spokesman Dan Walsch says the study retraction was a
"personnel matter" and declined to comment.
MYREF: 20110516131546 msg201105162959
[182 more news items]
---
We do not know how much of the environmental change is due to human
activities and how much [is due] to long-term natural processes over
which we have no control.
-- Freeman Dyson, essay, 2007.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[usual coal lobby stuff]
Yesterday's emissions, today's denial, tomorrow's climate
Doug Craig's blog
Thu, May 26, 2011
"We've got to engage these big forces, and we've got to do it very
dynamically, because the time, as this chain of freak weather events
makes clear, is running out."
-- Bill McKibben
Ever reasonable, usually concise and often well-informed, Bruce Ross,
editorial page editor of the Record Searchlight, offered us "a helpful
counterpoint to my last blog."
I had referred to Bill McKibben's piece in the Washington Post in which he
made a connection between extreme weather events and climate change.
In response, Mr Ross invites us to visit Reason, "the monthly print magazine
of 'free minds and free markets.'"
While McKibben focused on climate-related disasters all over the planet,
Reason ignored this and zeroed in on tornadoes alone. They found evidence to
suggest that this is not all that unusual and certainly not related to
anthropogenic climate change. "We see no correlation between global or US
national temperature and tornado occurrence."
Also, "The tornado record does not show a steadily increasing trend toward
bigger deadlier storms."
And then there is this: "Since modern records on tornadoes began, the
deadliest outbreak was (over 37 y ago) on April 3, 1974. The 'Super Outbreak'
claimed 310 lives when 148 tornadoes over a 24-hour period swept across 13 state
s."
I remember April 3, 1974. I was a senior in high school when the Xenia Tornado
hit nearby, killing 33. One of my best friends lost his sister and niece that
day as they sought cover in a restaurant bathroom.
But all of this is beside the point. Tornadoes are but one aspect of our
unsettled climate. Imagine a man who smokes cigarettes, drinks excessive
amounts of alcohol and overeats to the point of obesity. As the y go by his
physician could warn him that he should quit smoking and reduce his food and
alcohol intake as blood tests reveal worrying signs of his steadily
deteriorating health.
However, the patient, like many climate deniers, could insist there is no
proof that his health problems are directly related to his lifestyle
choices. He could point to people who suffer with lung disease and don't
smoke, liver disease and don't drink, and heart disease, despite their normal
weight. Or point to others who live long, healthy lives despite smoking,
drinking and eating more than him.
And he would be right, of course, but the argument is absurd. We don't insist
our doctors provide 100% proof that we will die on a specific date if we smoke
that next cigarette. No, if we are smart we look at all the evidence and go
with the odds as we do everything possible to live a long, healthy life.
However, with our planet, our only home, we take the exact, opposite
approach. And like the deniers, who want us to ignore the evidence exploding
across the planet on a daily basis, Reason misses the point entirely. Bill
McKibben explained it well to Amy Goodman this morning:
We don't know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate
change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we're seeing epic
levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things
that climatologists have been warning us about."
McKibben correctly explains that we are "making the earth a more dynamic and
violent place. That's, in essence, what global warming is about. We're
trapping more of the sun's energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and
that's now expressing itself in many ways."
Tornadoes are just one of those ways. And while Americans sometimes forget
that global warming affects the whole globe, not just America, McKibben
reminds us that these extreme weather events are "not confined just to our conti
nent."
You know, even in the last week, the Chinese have pointed out that they're
suffering through the worst drought in the center of the country that they
have on record. In Colombia, the president went on TV last wk to say, 'We've
gotten so much rain in the last year, it's washed away so much of our
infrastructure that it's as if we haven't been doing any development work for
the last 10 or 20 or 25 years.'"
While the "scale of this stuff is immense," the effort by Reason and others to
spin this as "just a series of one-off, isolated disasters," is yet another
example of how we prefer denial over truth.
McKibben properly argues that, "we probably are not asking ourselves the most
important questions. What can we do to stop this destabilization before it
gets much worse?"
McKibben goes on to claim that tornadoes are but one of the worldwide
disasters we should be concerned about. Flooding, for example, is "the biggest
example of what we're doing (in altering the climate.)"
Warm air holds more water vapor than cold. On average, the earth's atmosphere
is about four% wetter than it was 30 y ago, which is an astonishingly large
change in a basic physical parameter. What it does is load the dice for
downpour and deluge and flooding, and one country after another has been
crapping out in the last year, throwing snake eyes."
Because Queensland, Australia, "has a lot of white people and TV cameras," we
have seen the floods there but we don't see "similar pictures from Sri Lanka,
from Vietnam, from the Philippines, from Brazil northeast of Rio, where
they've had similar kinds of megafloods, (and) now Colombia."
When "that...biblical flood...came pouring down the Indus" and nearly drowned
Pakistan last year, "it was...an epic event" and "about a quarter of that
country (was) under water." Last Feb the Red Cross announced "there were still
4 mn homeless people from those floods in Pakistan."
We pretend all this is normal and is nothing to worry about and is unrelated
to our greenhouse gas emissions, but like the sick patient who would rather
deny than face the truth, our symptoms keep getting worse.
You know, it's like Lysenko in the old Soviet Union or something, when there
are too many people willing to believe that their ideology can trump physics
and chemistry. That is a painful delusion to be laboring under. It's one that
we won't labor under for very long, but these are crucial years, and we
really, really have to engage this battle. By that, I mean since we're never
going to outspend the fossil fuel industry--and that's what owns
Congress--we're going to have to figure out some other currency to work
in. It's not going to be money. It's going to be bodies and creativity and spiri
t."
MYREF: 20110527200001 msg2011052723478
[212 more news items]
---
>Remember who you're talking to. :)
>The guy quotes Dyson without knowing Dyson accepts AGW;
Dyson accepts AGW???
News to me!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], Mar 2 16:10 EST 2011
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Why Global Warming Deniers Are Conspiracy Theorists, Not Rational Skeptics
[In related news: A country thought to be in decline; a fragile left; a
populist right; some academics have likened the present US anti-science
movements with the anti-Einstein-relativity of Weimar Republic Germany].
Sahil Kapur
HuffPost
Posted: 05/31/11 05:50 PM ET
The United States is experiencing a golden era of conspiracy theories.
From the 9/11 Truthers to the Obama Birthers to the Trig Birthers and,
most recently, the bin Laden Deathers, alternate theories of
reality are alive and thriving on the American fringes, perhaps more so
than ever in the age of digital media.
One group of conspiracy theorists, however, has escaped the label --
and has even succeeded in bringing its theory into the mainstream.
These are the people who deny that human activity is contributing to
climate change, despite enormous evidence to the contrary -- call them
the Climate Truthers, for lack of a better term.
First the facts: the American and international scientific community
overwhelmingly agree that CO2 emissions are triggering a
slate of harmful effects on the planet. "Climate change is occurring,
is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases
from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human
and natural systems," declares a recent report by the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences. The fact that a small percentage of
scientists disagree -- which is also the case with, say, evolution
-- doesn't mean the issue isn't settled.
Yet unlike their counterparts, Climate Truthers aren't merely an
irrelevant group of rabble-rousers -- on the contrary, the scientific
consensus is denied by the leaders of one of America's 2 great
political parties, as well as the majority of its ideological
base. Speaker John Boehner, the most powerful Republican in the
country, considers the notion that carbon emissions are harming the
planet "comical." In recent years, this viewpoint has become
something of a GOP litmus test, and today it's difficult to
find Republicans who accept the scientific consensus.
Climate Trutherism embodies the lynchpin of conspiracy theories: the
belief that a group of influential people is coordinating a
wide-ranging cover-up to advance their interests by bamboozling the
rest of us. Doubting human-caused climate change requires the same
paranoid logic as, say, doubting that the 9/11 attacks caught Bush
administration officials by surprise, or that President Obama's birth
certificate is authentic. But rather than believing that we're being
lied to by the Bush White House or Obama's mother and the state of
Hawaii, you're required to believe that we're being lied to by nearly
every scientist and scientific institution in the world.
Conspiracy theories are usually traceable back to some small grain of
truth, blown way out of proportion. The thinking goes something like
this: George W. Bush really did use 9/11 to start an unnecessary war,
so he must have had a hand in the attacks. Or, Sarah Palin really does
have a habit of making stuff up, so she must have lied about being the
mother of her youngest child. Or, Barack Obama really does look
different than the other American presidents, so he must be foreign.
And in this case, mitigating global warming really does require
government intervention in the energy industry, so it must be a
left-wing plot. What binds all these conspiracy theorists together is
the belief that their ideological opponents are evil masterminds
engaged in a cabal. That's when healthy skepticism turns pathological
and destructive.
There exists a somewhat tamer brand of Climate Trutherism, which takes
a different tack: rather than attack or challenge the findings head on,
they merely assert that the science is unsettled, based on a few
dissenters. But this is simply obfuscation, designed to exploit
misconceptions. A handful of scientists still dispute natural
selection and the Big Bang, proving that even the soundest
theories retain their share of skeptics, so that's an unreasonable
standard. To wit, the scientific consensus is so strong you either
believe man-made climate change is real or you believe there's a
massive conspiracy going on. No 3rd option.
So why, then, aren't Climate Truthers relegated to the fringes
alongside their brethren? Firstly, Climate Truthers have the support of
a wealthy, powerful industry dedicated to mainstreaming their
theory. Secondly, the Republican Party's anti-regulation policy agenda
is threatened by the realities of climate change, so it's better to
deny there's anything wrong than cede the argument to their
adversaries. And thirdly -- and this is why it self-perpetuates -- the
media likes to stay in good spirits with powerful people, so oftentimes
it can't quite bring itself to unequivocally pronounce one side wrong.
As with other conspiracy theories, it's the media's job to call out
Climate Truthers as such and resist the urge to split the difference.
If journalists failed to do this with other paranoid theorists we'd be
living in a society where 9/11 Truthers and Obama Birthers were
legitimate skeptics rather than outlandish people unable to come to
grips with reality. Yes, it takes more courage to call out Climate
Truthers, because some of them are very influential. But that's what
makes it more important -- because climate change is relevant to our
lives and futures in a way that the speculation about Trig Palin's
birth-mother is not.
None of this means there isn't room for debate about the path forward.
It's completely legitimate to argue over how exactly we should deal
with climate change. It's also fair game to ponder the extent to which
governments should intervene in energy markets. But, as the vast swath
of evidence makes clear, it's illegitimate to write off human-induced
climate change as anything less than a serious problem that deserves
our attention. That's the difference between rational skepticism and
conspiracy thinking.
MYREF: 20110602173002 msg2011060217295
[219 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Are You A Genuine Skeptic Or A Climate Denier?
John Cook
06. 2.11
The following is a guest post by John Cook of Skeptical Science. It originally
appeared on ABC Drum.
In the charged discussions about climate, the words skeptic and denier are
often thrown around. But what do these words mean? Consider the following
definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for
the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that
conflicts with their pre-determined views.
So here's one way to tell if you're a genuine skeptic or a climate denier:
When trying to understand what's happening to our climate, do you consider the
full body of evidence? Or do you find the denial instinct kicking in when
confronted with inconvenient evidence? For example, let's look at the question
of whether global warming is happening. Do you acknowledge sea level rise, a
key indicator of a warming planet, tripling over the last century? Do you
factor in the warming oceans, which since 1970 have been building up heat at a
rate of two-and-a-half Hiroshima bombs every second? Glaciers are retreating
all over the world, threatening the water supply of 100s of millions of
people. Ice sheets from Greenland in the N to Antarctica in the S are losing
100s of billions of tonnes of ice every year. Seasons are shifting, flowers
are opening earlier each y and animals are migrating towards the poles. The
very structure of our atmosphere is changing.
We have tens of 1000s of lines of evidence that global warming is happening. A
genuine skeptic surveys the full body of evidence coming in from all over our
planet and concludes that global warming is unequivocal. A climate denier, on
the other hand, reacts to this array of evidence in several possible ways.
The most extreme form of climate denier won't even go near the evidence. They
avoid the issue altogether by indulging in conspiracy theories. They'll pull a
quote out of context from a stolen 'Climategate' email as proof that climate
change is just a huge hoax. I have yet to hear how the ice sheets, glaciers
and 1000s of migrating animal species are in on the conspiracy, but I'm sure
there's a creative explanation floating around on the Internet.
The hardcore denier, firmly entrenched in the "it's not happening" camp,
denies each piece of evidence. When confronted by retreating glaciers, their
thoughts flick to the handful of growing glaciers while blocking out the vast
majority of glaciers that are retreating at an accelerating rate.
They ignore sea level rise by focusing on short periods where sea levels
briefly drop before inevitably resuming the long-term upward trend. The key to
this form of denial is cherry picking. If you stare long and hard enough at a
tiny piece of the puzzle that gives you the answer you want, you find the rest
of the picture conveniently fades from view.
Some climate deniers have found it impossible to ignore the overwhelming array
of evidence that the planet is warming (cognitive bias does have its limits)
and moved onto the next stage of denial: "it's happening but it's not
us". After all, climate has changed throughout Earth's history. How can we
tell it's us this time?
The answer, as always, is by surveying the full body of evidence. Warming
from our CO2 emissions should yield many tell tale patterns. We don't need to
rely on guess work or theory to tell us humans are causing warming. We can
measure it.
If CO2 is causing warming, we should measure less heat escaping to
space. Satellites have observed this, with heat being trapped at those very
wavelengths that CO2 absorb radiation. If less heat is escaping, we should
see more heat returning to the Earth's surface. This has been
measured. Greenhouse warming should cause the lower atmosphere to warm but
simultaneously, the upper atmosphere to cool. That's indeed what we observe is h
appening.
As far back as the 1800s, scientists predicted greenhouse warming should cause
nights to warm faster than days and consensus of scientists with 97 out of 100
climate experts convinced that humans are driving global warming.
So which camp do you fall in?
Do you look at the full body of evidence, considering the whole picture as you
build your understanding of climate? Or do you gravitate towards those select
pieces of data that, out of context, give a contrarian impression, while
denying the rest of the evidence?
Even for those of us who accept the scientific consensus, there is a more
insidious form of denial - accepting that humans are causing climate change,
but choosing to ignore it. Governments deny the implications of global warming
when they make lots of noise about climate change but fail to back their words
up with action. When we let politicians get away with inaction, we let denial pr
osper.
There are many ways we can roll back climate denial and contribute to the
solution, such as reducing our own carbon footprint. But the greatest
contribution we can make is to let our leaders know we demand climate
action. Politicians may or may not care about the planet's future. But one
thing we know with certainty is they care about their own future, particularly
at the next election.
If we send a strong message to our politicians that we demand climate action,
they will be forced to act.
John Cook's latest book is Climate Change Denial: Heads in the sand.
MYREF: 20110603120002 msg201106034393
[219 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
The Climate Skeptics' Falsity
HuffPost
06/ 7/11 12:00 PM ET
Last week, the Economist's front page stated that we have entered
into the Anthropocene age: the age of man -- scientists now agree that
the human race "has become a force of nature reshaping the planet on a
geological scale." The article argued that the human race is to blame
for a long line of alterations in the earth's natural processes, and
that we are causing these changes on earth to happen faster than ever
before -- the "humans have changed the way the world looks" and acts.
The same week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) documented a
record high increase in global CO2 emissions -- which transforms even
the most extreme climate scenarios from being scare stories into a mere
realistic projections of the future of our planet. The IEA warned that
the "Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is
getting bleaker" due to estimates showing that CO2 emissions reached a
record high in 2010.
These gloomy wakeup calls came just a few days after, the Republican
Gov. Chris Christie announced that New Jersey is dropping out of
the Regional Green House Gas Initiative -- an initiative considered an
important test run for future national and international emissions
trading pacts. His argument was that the initiative is a failure at
cutting pollution and a burden to taxpayers.
The New Jersey case is just the latest example that the climate changes
and the numerous warnings from science is not taken seriously by the
politicians -- that politicians are still allowed to make politics on a
falsity that climate change is not real and that political decisions
not to fight climate change is still considered a winning strategy.
The main responsible group for constructing this falsity is a well
organized and powerful climate skeptics lobby. For y leading
politicians, private industry groups, media, and various organizations
have successfully been downplaying and dismissing human caused climate
change and raised political doubt about the need for action. Through a
well constructed and widely disseminated campaign targeted at the
public and political debate, the climate skeptics' lobby has created
confusion and doubt about the reality of global warming and climate
change. They have presented a picture of an unresolved and contentious
debate within the scientific community about climate change, with
equally weighted camps still producing evidence that continues to
contradict each other -- and are thus conveniently overlooking that
there are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the
underlying science and projections of climate change.
The consequences of their successful campaigns are tremendous. The
political and public debate regarding the reality and extent of global
warming continues. There is still a very big 'maybe' or 'question mark'
connected to the climate change debate and the connection between
climate change and skepticism is very much alive and kicking. 44
percent Americans still believe that global warming is primarily caused
by planetary trends, according to the latest poll from Rasmussen
Reports. And 36% do not believe climate change is a serious problem.
The limited support from the public animates to and justifies the
current lack of action from the politicians. There is still a lot of
votes in climate change skepticism and this represent a political free
card for decisions such as the one made by Gov. Christie. Consequently,
the climate skeptics are successfully delaying and even stopping the
fight against climate change.
The climate skeptics are thus allowed to exert extreme power over the
fate of our civilization. But on what grounds? Do they have the winning
arguments? The answer is no. Their arguments are pointing in very
different directions. They dispute whether global warming is taking
place; suggesting that temperatures maybe falling; yet also argue
global warming is a good thing that will bring many benefits to human
beings. And they lack scientific support. The internet site
Skeptical Science listed the most popular arguments used by
climate skeptics and lined them with current data and science
available. The result: the 10 most popular used arguments from the
climate skeptics are all false.
MYREF: 20110608200001 msg201106087084
[225 more news items]
---
You would think that we'd know the Earth's `climate sensitivity' by
now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
reducing it.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
UN climate chief predicts US turnaround on warming
Charles J Hanley
AP/Nation
Thu, May 12, 2011
New York -- Washington's inaction on climate legislation is a "very serious
hand brake" on world efforts to combat global warming, the UN climate chief
said Thu.
But Christiana Figueres said she believes the US will eventually join the rest
of the industrialized world in mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases.
"I don't think it's a permanent state of affairs that the world will be able
to live with," she said of the failure of the US Congress to cap emissions of
CO2 and other gases blamed for global warming.
Figueres, head of the UN climate treaty secretariat, met with Associated Press
editors and reporters in New York as the National Research Council issued an
authoritative report in Washington on "America's Climate Choices," urging the
federal government to act to "substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Climate change, "very likely caused by human activities," is "one of the most
important challenges facing the United States and the world today," said the
22-member expert panel.
Figueres, a Costa Rican environmental specialist appointed to the UN post
last year, oversees the long-running global negotiations that thus far have
failed to produce a new binding agreement on slashing greenhouse emissions, in
good part because of American opposition.
The US, alone among industrial nations, rejects the existing agreement, the
Kyoto Protocol, whose mandatory, relatively modest reductions expire next
year. Washington says such mandates should apply to poorer but fast-developing
nations, such as China and India, and not just to the developed world.
Although some Democrats in Congress oppose climate action, the main resistance
comes from Republicans, many of whom reject scientific evidence on warming and
climate change. The Republican Party takeover of the US House this y rules out
action for at least 2 years.
Figueres said she sees a "very remarkable dissonance" between the "political
incapacity" in Washington and the United States' technological potential to
lead the world toward a future of clean energy and less dependence on
polluting fossil fuels.
"From an international point of view," she said, it "puts a very serious hand
brake on the whole pace of negotiations."
Faced with these obstacles, the Obama administration for 2 y has promoted a
voluntary approach to emissions reductions. But Figueres said international
negotiators increasingly realize this unreliable "bottom-up" approach will
fall far short of what's needed to keep temperatures from rising more than 2
degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels.
That's the level beyond which scientists predict severe damage from extreme
weather events, droughts, floods, rising seas and other impacts of global warmin
g.
Because of that realization, she said, she believes the annual UN climate
conference, in Durban, S Africa, late this year, might produce movement toward
an eventual legally binding agreement of "predictable" emissions reductions.
"The expectation is that the United States live up to its responsibility, to
its historical responsibility" as the past single greatest source of
greenhouse gases now filling the atmosphere, Figueres said.
Without emissions reductions, the UN network of climate scientists projects
global average temperatures might rise as much as 6.4 degrees C (11.5 F) in
this century. An authoritative scientific assessment issued May 3 forecast sea
levels rising by 90 to 160 cm (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, as oceans expand from
heat and from runoff of melted land ice.
MYREF: 20110610073002 msg201106107156
[221 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Climate change deniers spreading misinformation: Environmental groups
Sanjay Kumar
Daily India/ANI
Jun 18 2011
New Delhi/Bangalore: Several environmental groups, including Climate
Revolution, have criticised the Delhi-based Liberty Institute, the Institution
of Engineers, Karnataka state Centre (IEI-KSC) and the Karnataka Environment
Research Foundation (KERF) for claiming that passive smoking isn't
harmful. They have also questioned as to why these 3 institutions are now
being employed by oil companies to question climate change.
Climate Revolution and other environment groups find hard to believe that
there are still some institutions and people who claim that climate change
isn't a threat and that it's actually good for us, notwithstanding the fact
that global temperatures continue to rise.
Since 1980s, every decade has been much warmer than the decade before.
At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. Then at the end of
the 1990s, it was the warmest decade on record. The 2000's broke records again
and became the warmest decade and 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest y since
records began.
In the same decade, climate related disasters reported a dramatic ten-fold
increase since 1950. Last y alone, we saw catastrophic flooding in Pakistan,
wildfires and extreme temperatures in Russia, severe rain, floods and
landslides in China and unprecedented flooding in Australia. Rainfall broke
records in India too and flash floods left around 200 people dead in the
sparsely populated Leh region.
In its 2007 reports, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had
warned of precisely such disasters. Scientific understanding of climate
systems has advanced rapidly since its release and 100s of new reports and
studies-many of which are thorough scientific assessments as broad in their
scope as the IPCC reports-have shown that the worst predictions are coming true.
The pseudo-scientific report published in 2009 is severely critical of IPCC,
which it claims has exaggerated climate impacts, and argues that variations in
solar activity and not greenhouse gases is the true driver of climate change;
that rising CO2 levels is a boon to the world's forests, farmers and ranchers;
that global warming would increase ecosystem biodiversity; and that it would
actually reduce the number of lives lost to extreme heat.
Manu Sharma, the founder of Climate Revolution, said: "Who would make claims
that go against the overwhelming scientific consensus and what do they gain
out of it? The answer lies in the background of the authors and publisher of
the report".
The 2 authors-S. Fred Singer and Craig D. Idso-have both done research for or
are otherwise affiliated with think tanks funded by oil giant ExxonMobil (all
figures since 1998): Frontiers of Freedom (1.27 mn dollars), George
Marshall Institute (840k dollars), National Center for Policy Analysis (540k
dollars), American Council on Science and Health (150k dollars), The Cato
Institute (125k dollars), and The Center for the Study of CO2 and Global
Change (100k dollars).
The Heartland Institute that brought out the report has received at least
676,500 dollars from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the y Exxon launched a campaign
to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the 2 groups
that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also,
the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter
F Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported
in 2004.
In her excellent book "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Naomi
Oreskes demonstrates how scientists such as Fred Singer aimed to sow seeds of
public doubt on matters of settled science. Both Fred Singer and the Heartland
Institute had previously questioned harmful effects of passive smoking in the
1990s with funding from tobacco major Philip Morris.
After the merger of Exxon and Mobil corporations in 1999, ExxonMobil became
one of the biggest public companies in the world with 2010 revenues at over
383 bn dollars. ExxonMobil funds such individuals and organisations as they do
not want greater public awareness and government legislation on climate
change. If the government mandates higher fuel efficiency cars or electric
cars, for example, the oil companies would be the 1st to lose.
The panelists at the Bangalore event included people from Geological Survey of
India, University of Agricultural Sciences, IIT Chennai, ISRO, IISc, and the
Liberty Institute itself. When contacted many of them said they were unaware
of the background of the organisers. Some have even retracted their
participation. They said their names were published on event promotional
material without their consent.
Prof. J Srinivasan at the Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, IISc
who was a lead author with the last IPCC report and whose name is on the
discussion panel list was most upfront when he said "It's a fraud. I don't
know why Institution of Engineers is involved with such an event." He went on
to add that the organisers put his name on the invite without his
permission. "It's all fraud."
Sharachchandra Lele, a senior fellow at the Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment,said: "I was not consulted before they included my
name on the list. I'm not a part of it and after reading about it, I would not
want to be a part of it."
The Heartland Institute has been thoroughly debunked by others in the W on
several occasions. In April 2008 they published a spurious article titled "500
Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares." When a
website contacted some of the scientists, dozens responded in outrage denying
that their research supports the article.
In June 2009, the Heartland Institute carried full page ads in leading
newspapers in the US targeted at lawmakers who were drafting American Clean
Energy and Security Act at the time. The ads complained that climate deniers
were shut out of the media and political process and accused scientific
community of unethical behaviour.
Manu says that "it isn't the 1st time that The Liberty Institute has partnered
with big oil funded organisation to spread misinformation and outright lies
about climate science in India".
In April 2008, they partnered with UK based Civil Society Coalition on Climate
Change to launch "Civil Society Report on Climate Change" in New Delhi which
also criticised the IPCC and argued that climate change won't be so bad.
It argued that rather than cutting emissions, policies must promote economic
growth and empower the poor so that they are able to solve today's problems
and adapt to tomorrows. Not surprisingly, the Civil Society Coalition was
formed by the International Policy Network (IPN), a well-known ExxonMobil
backed organization based in London.
Unfortunately, rather than restrict the spread of such misinformation
campaigns by climate deniers, the government actually encourages them. The
April 2008 launch of "Civil Society Report on Climate Change" was presided
over by none other than Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the Deputy Chairman of India's
Planning Commission.
Even Jairam Ramesh, India's Environment and Forests Minister has accorded
legitimacy to climate deniers. In a letter to the European committee reviewing
IPCC procedures in March 2010, Ramesh suggested that the panel's draft report
should be sent to all known "climate sceptics" during the review process.
Such support for climate deniers by the government is not only unfortunate but
also questions the legitimacy of their claims that they are serious about
tackling climate change. For the government to seriously address climate
change it must 1st accept the scientific consensus behind it.
MYREF: 20110619030002 msg2011061923380
[218 more news items]
---
[Call me kook:]
>A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
>says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".
>A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!
>The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".
Sorry but 1917 invalidates the trend.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 13:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Fox News Accuses Scientists Of "Doctoring" Sea Level Data
J.K.F. & S.T.
Jun 20 2011
Media Matters For America
Following the lead of the Heartland Institute, Fox News trumpeted the utterly
baseless claim that scientists at the University of Colorado are "doctoring"
sea level data to "exaggerate the effects of global warming." In reality, the
scientists used a standard and transparent procedure performed by other
research groups around the world, and even the climate skeptic cited by Fox
News objects to the implication that the group engaged in scientific wrongdoing.
Fox News Trumpets Claim That Scientists "Doctor[ed]" Data To "Exaggerate"
Climate Change
Last Month Heartland's James Taylor Claimed Research Group "Doctors Sea Level
Data" To Exaggerate Climate Change. In May, Taylor published a Forbes.com
op-ed accusing the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group of
"doctor[ing] sea level data." The post was spurred by news that the group
adjusted its global mean sea level estimate to account for the fact that ocean
basins have deepened, which causes estimates that lack the correction to show
less ocean expansion than has actually occurred. From the post:
The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been
pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This
welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea
level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient
for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount
by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group
has begun adding 0.3 mm pa of fictitious sea level rise to "compensate" for
rising land mass. [Forbes.com, 5/11/11]
Taylor's Post Inspired Fox News Reporter. According to emails obtained by
Media Matters, Fox News' Maxim Lott initially emailed Professor Steve Nerem of
the CU Sea Level Research Group to ask "about your response to this argument
on a Forbes.com blog." [Email exchange, 5/16/11]
Fox News Article Asks, "Are Climate Scientists Doctoring The Data?" From
Maxim Lott's June 17 FoxNews.com article titled, "Changing Tides: Research
Center Under Fire For 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data":
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued - or are climate
scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add
0.3 mm - or about the thickness of a fingernail - every y to its actual
measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an
attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level
rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on
environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.
Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told
FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 mm pa to the actual sea level
measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are
rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.
"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting
slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call
glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).
Taylor calls it tomfoolery.
"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political
agenda," he said. [FoxNews.com, 6/17/11]
Fox Nation Promotes FoxNews.com Article. From Fox Nation on June 18:
[Fox Nation, 6/18/11]
Research Group Made Standard Adjustment To Global Sea Level Estimate
Expert: "There Should Be Nothing Controversial About The Necessity Of Making
This Correction." W.R. Peltier, University of Toronto physicist and director
of the Centre for Global Change Science published research in 2001 and in
subsequent y showing that the correction was necessary. In an email, Peltier
stated that the adjustment "has always been included in the analyses"
conducted by "the leading European scientist working in this area" and "there
should be nothing controversial about the necessity of making this correction":
The physical reason for the necessity of this adjustment to the atimetric
satellite measurements of global sea level rise is due to the fact that, due
to the large mass of water that was added to the ocean basins during the last
deglaciation event of the Late Quaternary ice-age, the ocean basins are
continuing to subside of average by this amount.
I'm assuming that the adjustment that Nerem has been making to his analysis of
the satellite altimetry observations is this adjustment that I have previously
shown to be required. Presumably he has referenced by original papers in
deciding to include. It has always been included in the analyses being
perfomed by the group of Anny Cazenave who is the leading European scientist
working in this area.
There should be nothing controversial about the necessity of making this
correction. Since the need of it was established 10 y ago I'm surprised that
it should be attracting attention! [Email exchange, 6/19/11]
CU Research Group: Adjustment Is Performed By "Nearly All Research Groups
Around The World." In a June 8 post, the Sea Level Research Group explained:
Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due
to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2002,
2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the �0.4 mm/yr
uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least
50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA,
this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is
seen along the coasts.
[...]
Prior to release 2011_rel1, we did not account for GIA in estimates of the
global mean sea level rate, but this correction is now scientifically
well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups
around the world. Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing
previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr. [University
of Colorado, 6/8/11]
* Scientist Gave Fox Reporter Key Fact That Fox Did Not Report. According to
a May 18 email exchange provided to Media Matters, Steve Nerem told Fox News'
Maxim Lott that "This is scientifically a well-understood correction - several
other research groups around the world apply it to their sea level data."
However, Lott failed to include this information in his article. [Email
exchange, 5/18/11]
Glaciologist Tad Pfeffer: These "Are Standard Corrections" And "Very Well
Understood." Contacted through the Climate Science Rapid Response Team,
University of Colorado glaciologist Tad Pfeffer, who is not part of the sea
level research group, stated via email:
What Prof. Nerem calls Glacio-isostatic Adjustment (GIA) corrections are
standard corrections that are used in a wide variety of sea level measurements
by many scientists. There are many papers published on GIA corrections, and
the reasons for making them are very well understood. [Email exchange, 6/19/11]
CU Research Group Was Completely Transparent About The Adjustment
Sea Level Research Group Publicly Announced The Adjustment Prior To Criticism
By Taylor. In a May 5 post on the website of the University of Colorado Sea
Level Research Group, Steve Nerem announced the correction and added, "Simply
subtract -.3mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction":
Welcome to the new webpages from the University of Colorado sea level group!
We apologize for the delay in updating our sea level releases, but the
transition to these new web pages took longer than we thought. In addition, we
have made many improvements to our data (new orbits, new tide model, new
corrections) which ultimately had little effect on global mean sea level, but
brought us up to date with the latest advances in the field.
One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction
of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice
that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier
releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean
basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from
under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract
0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction. [University of
Colorado, 5/5/11]
The Data Release Itself Includes Note Stating That The Correction Was
Applied. The Sea Level Research Group's latest data release includes a note
stating: "Included global mean glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) correction
of -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2009 & Peltier, 2002) for all missions." [University
of Colorado, 5/4/11]
Adjustment Is Used To Produce A Meaningful Estimate Of Global Sea Level
CU Research Group: Correction Ensures That Data "Reflect Purely Oceanographic
Phenomena." In a June 8 post, the Sea Level Research Group explained that "we
apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to
reflect purely oceanographic phenomena ... This is what is needed for
comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datas
ets":
There are many different scientific questions that are being asked where GMSL
[global mean sea level] measurements can contribute. We are focused on just a
few of these:
1. How is the volume of the ocean changing?
2. How much of this is due to thermal expansion?
3. How much of this is due to addition of water that was previously stored as
ice on land?
In order to answer these questions, we have to account for the fact that the
ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water
volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3
mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of
GIA. Removing known components of sea level change, such as GIA or the solid
earth and ocean tides, reveals the remaining signals contained in the
altimetry measurement. These can include water volume changes, steric effects,
and the interannual variability caused by events such as the ENSO. We apply a
correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely
oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be
a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons
to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic
datasets. [University of Colorado, 6/8/11]
Pfeffer: "If You Want To Find Out What Sea Level Is Doing Globally, Or Find
Out Why It's Rising, You Have To Do The GIA Correction." CU Glaciologist Tad
Pfeffer stated via email:
GIA corrections are made to distinguish between the part of sea level rise
that comes from changes in the ocean (ocean water expanding and new water
entering the ocean) from the part of sea level rise that comes from the land
surface changing elevation, or the ocean basin changing volume. As Prof. John
Christy says in the Fox News item, no one disputes that "sea level rise is
what's measured against the actual coast," but if you want to find out what
sea level is doing globally, or find out why it's rising, you have to do the
GIA correction. In Norway, for example, the land surface is rising at some 3
cm pa because it's recovering from the removal of an ice sheet that was there
about 15-20 thousand y ago. So even if the ocean was experiencing no
change, the coast is rising and it would look like sea level was going down in
Scandinavia. At the same time, the mouth of the Mississippi River at New
Orleans is sinking at about 4 mm pa because of the weight of sediments being
added by the river. There, sea level would appear to be rising even if the
ocean wasn't changing. So looking at both Norway and New Orleans, without
making some correction for local land elevation changes, what could you say
about what sea level is doing globally? That's why Nerem and many other
scientists studying sea level apply corrections like the GIA correction.
Changes in land elevation also change the shape of the ocean basins slightly,
and that change in shape alters the level at which ocean water stands in the
basin. The height that water stands in a glass would change if you poured it
from a tall skinny glass in a short wide glass, but you wouldn't think that
the amount of water had changed just because the height changed. Again, that's
the kind of correction that Nerem and his colleagues make to the observational
sea level record - just as Christy says, locally what matters is where the
water stands relative to the land, but if you want to understand what's
happening to the ocean globally you have to work out these corrections. [Email
exchange, 6/19/11]
CU Data Was Not Intended To Measure Sea Level Changes Relative To The
Coasts. The CU Sea Level Research Group provides an estimate of the global
mean sea level from satellite information, which differs from relative sea
level, a fact that Fox completely obscured. From a May 18 post by the research g
roup:
The global mean sea level (GMSL) we estimate is an average over the oceans
(limited by the satellite inclination to � 66 degrees latitude), and it cannot
be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts. As an average,
it indicates the general state of the sea level across the oceans and not any
specific location. Local tide gauges measure the sea level at a single
location relative to the local land surface, a measurement referred to as
"relative sea level" (RSL). Because the land surfaces are dynamic, with some
locations rising (e.g., Hudson Bay due to GIA) or sinking (e.g., New Orleans
due to subsidence), relative sea level changes are different across world
coasts. To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume
changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA,
tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al.,
2010), must also be considered.
[...]
GMSL is a good indicator of changes in the volume of water in the oceans due
to mass influx (e.g., land ice melt) and density changes (e.g., thermal
expansion), and is therefore of interest in detecting climate
change. [University of Colorado, 5/18/11]
IPCC: "To Extract The Signal Of Sea Level Change Due To Ocean Water Volume And
Other Oceanographic Change, Land Motions Need To Be Removed." From the 2007
report by Working Group 1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Processes in several nonlinearly coupled components of the Earth system
contribute to sea level change, and understanding these processes is therefore
a highly interdisciplinary endeavour. On decadal and longer time scales,
global mean sea level change results from 2 major processes, mostly related to
recent climate change, that alter the volume of water in the global ocean: i)
thermal expansion (Section 5.5.3), and ii) the exchange of water between
oceans and other reservoirs (glaciers and ice caps, ice sheets, other land
water reservoirs - including through anthropogenic change in land hydrology,
and the atmosphere; Section 5.5.5). All these processes cause geographically
non-uniform sea level change (Section 5.5.4) as well as changes in the global
mean; some oceanographic factors (e.g., changes in ocean circulation or
atmospheric pressure) also affect sea level at the regional scale, while
contributing negligibly to changes in the global mean. Vertical land
movements such as resulting from glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA),
tectonics, subsidence and sedimentation influence local sea level measurements
but do not alter ocean water volume; nonetheless, they affect global mean sea
level through their alteration of the shape and hence the volume of the ocean
basins containing the water.
Measurements of present-day sea level change rely on 2 different techniques:
tide gauges and satellite altimetry (Section 5.5.2). Tide gauges provide sea
level variations with respect to the land on which they lie. To extract the
signal of sea level change due to ocean water volume and other oceanographic
change, land motions need to be removed from the tide gauge measurement. Land
motions related to GIA can be simulated in global geodynamic models. The
estimation of other land motions is not generally possible unless there are
adequate nearby geodetic or geological data, which is usually not the
case. However, careful selection of tide gauge sites such that records
reflecting major tectonic activity are rejected, and averaging over all
selected gauges, results in a small uncertainty for global sea level estimates
(Appendix 5.A.4). Sea level change based on satellite altimetry is measured
with respect to the Earth's centre of mass, and thus is not distorted by land
motions, except for a small component due to large-scale deformation of ocean
basins from GIA. [IPCC Working Group 1, 2007]
Failing To Account For GIA Can "Significantly Bias Our Understanding Of The
Magnitude And Sources Of Present-Day Global Sea Level Rise." From a paper in
Oceanography by Drs. Mark E. Tamisiea and Jerry X. Mitrovica:
As ice sheets gain or lose mass, and as water moves between the continents and
the ocean, the solid Earth deforms and the gravitational field of the planet
is perturbed. Both of these effects lead to regional patterns in sea level
change that depart dramatically from the global average. Understanding these
patterns will lead to better constraints on the various contributors to the
observed sea level change and, ultimately, to more robust projections of
future changes. In both of these applications, a key step is to apply a
correction to sea level observations, based on data from tide gauges,
satellite altimetry, or gravity, to remove the contaminating signal that is
due to the ongoing Earth response to the last ice age. Failure to accurately
account for this so-called glacial isostatic adjustment has the potential to
significantly bias our understanding of the magnitude and sources of
present-day global sea level rise. [Oceanography, 2011]
Even Climate Skeptic Quoted By Fox Objects To Accusation Of Wrongdoing
Fox Suggested John Christy Accused CU Of Attempting "To Exaggerate The Effects
Of Global Warming." The second paragraph of the FoxNews.com article states
that the adjustment to the sea level research group's global mean sea level
data is "sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to
exaggerate the effects of global warming." The article quoted 2 experts: James
Taylor of the Heartland Institute and John Christy, a climate scientist who is
listed among the Heartland Institute's approved experts who "dispute the
notion that 'global warming is a crisis'":
Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were 2
different things.
"To me ... sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he
told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."
Taylor agreed.
"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going
to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea
level, not about global water volume." [FoxNews.com, 6/17/11]
Christy: "I Would Object To Making That Accusation." When asked if he agrees
with the implication that the CU scientists were motivated by an intent to
mislead people about the effects of global warming, Christy stated: "I would
object to making that accusation. What they did was defensible from a purely
scientific point of view, but a little misleading from a practical point of
view." Christy also said that the sea level adjustment "is not my area of
specific research." [Email exchange, 6/17/11, 6/20/11]
Who Is James M. Taylor?
James M. Taylor Is A Lawyer From Right-Wing Heartland Institute. Taylor is
managing editor of the libertarian Heartland Institute's Environment & Climate
News and a senior fellow focusing on environmental policy. Taylor has a law
degree from Syracuse University. [Heartland Institute, accessed 6/19/11]
* Heartland Institute: Policymakers Should Do "Nothing" About Climate
Change. From "About Global Warming Facts" by The Heartland Institute:
If global warming is not a crisis, what should policymakers do about it? The
answer, obviously, is "nothing." This is not a problem that needs to be
solved. The case should be marked "closed" and policymakers should move on to
other, more important, issues. [Heartland Institute, accessed 6/19/11]
* Heartland Institute Was Tied To Phillip Morris, Claims Secondhand Smoke Is
"No Danger." The Heartland Institute published an article titled: "Scientific
Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger." It states: "Millions of
dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions
of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with 1000s of
highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to
millions of smokers." [Heartland Institute, 7/08] The Heartland Institute has
recieved funding from Phillip Morris, an executive of which also sat on
Heartland's board of directors. [Heartland Institute, accessed 6/20/11] The
American Journal of Public Health reported in July 2010 that in the 1900s, "To
supplement direct outreach, Philip Morris organized grassroots lobbying by
right-leaning think tanks. At Philip Morris's request, for example, Heartland
Institute staff met with 2 Republican congressmen 'to encourage opposition to
the Clinton plan and FET [Federal Excise Tax] hikes.'" [American Journal of
Public Health, July 2010, via Nexis]
* Heartland Institute Receives Funding From Energy Companies. According to
the organization's website, the Heartland Institute receives 34% of its income
from corporations, including "5% from energy producers." [Heartland
Institute, accessed 6/19/11]
Taylor: It's "Alarmist Propaganda" To Say That "Global Warming Is A
Human-Caused Problem That Needs To Be Addressed." From a June 1 op-ed by Taylor:
So how did Chris Christie manage to buy into the alarmist propaganda that
global warming is a human-caused problem that needs to be addressed?
It didn't help that Christie appears to have sought the counsel of only one
side of the debate. Christie said he "sat down with experts both inside the
government and outside the administration in academia and other places to
discuss the issue in depth." Christie did indeed recently invite alarmists
from Rutgers University to meet with him about global warming. But Christie
has identified no such skeptics with whom he has met. [Forbes.com, 6/1/11]
Taylor: IPCC Is "The Star Chamber Of The Global Warming Cartel." From a May 25
op-ed by Taylor:
While Harold Camping spends this wk trying to wipe egg off his face after
real-world events spectacularly falsified his prediction that the Christian
rapture would occur on May 21, global warming alarmists are similarly trying
to wipe egg off their faces after real-world events spectacularly falsified
their predictions of an imminent polar ice rapture.
[...]
The Star Chamber of global warming cartels, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claimed in its most recent
report that global warming is likely to rapture away the Himalayan glaciers by
2035. When investigators discovered there was no scientific evidence to
support the claim, and a good deal of scientific evidence countering the
claim, the rapture prediction was canceled. [Forbes.com, 5/25/11]
Taylor Suggests That Addressing Global Warming Will Cause A Return To "The
Little Ice Age" That Spawned "The Black Death." From a June 15 op-ed by Taylor:
Mitt Romney spoke on behalf of many earlier this m when he told a town hall
meeting that (1) the planet has recently warmed and (2) humans have
contributed to this warming. Romney then made the questionable assertion that
we must do something to change this.
Since when were the Little Ice Age and the Black Death the Good Old Days?
Since when did the growth in crop production, decline in famine and plague,
lengthening of human life spans, and enrichment of the earth's biosphere
become things to fight tooth-and-nail simply because they would not have
"naturally" occurred but for human intervention?
This nonsensical yearning for the Good Old Days of naturally bleak weather,
famine, and the Black Plague has its roots in the near-religious myth that
anything humans do to affect the natural course of Mother Earth is evil and
wrong. Few will dispute that the naturally occurring Medieval Warm Period was
good for the human condition and the biosphere. Few will dispute that the
naturally occurring Little Ice Age was harmful to the human condition and the
biosphere. Yet when evidence suggests humans are contributing - in whatever
small measure - to the Modern Warm Period that has rescued us from the depths
of the oppressive Little Ice Age, not only Big Government liberals but many
self-professed Small Government conservatives tell us we need to do everything
possible to restore the climate to The Natural Condition of the oppressive
Little Ice Age. [Forbes.com, 6/15/11]
Who Is FoxNews.com Reporter Maxim Lott?
Maxim Lott Smeared Kevin Jennings, Had To Issue A Correction. On September 30,
2009, FoxNews.com Maxim Lott reported as fact that more 21 y ago, as a young
teacher in Massachusetts, Kevin Jennings "didn't report that a 15-year-old boy
told him that he was having sex with an older man."
At the time, there was substantial evidence available that Lott's claim was
false. As Media Matters pointed out, a publicly available 2004 letter from
Jennings' lawyer stated that the student was actually 16 y old when the
conversation took place. The Massachusetts age of consent is -- and was at the
time -- 16; Jennings was under no obligation to report anything. (The student
later said that he "had no sexual contact with anybody at the time.")
On Oct 1, after reporting as fact that the student was "15," Lott apparently
decided to check whether this claim was true. As Media Matters revealed, Lott
sent a Facebook message to the student, asking if the "rumor" - which Lott had
already reported as fact -- that he was 15 at the time was "accurate."
On Oct 2, 2 days after Lott's story ran, Media Matters published a statement
from the student and a copy of his driver's license, definitively proving that
he was 16 at the time of his conversation with Jennings. That same day, the
student wrote to Lott and demanded a correction. Eventually, Fox added the
following editor's note to the top of Lott's article: "Since this story was
originally published, the former student referred to as 'Brewster' has stepped
forward to reveal that he was 16 y old, not 15, at the time of the incident
described in this report." [Media Matters, 12/14/09]
Fox News Has Long Established Itself As Source Of Unreliable And Misleading
Climate Coverage
Fox Boss Ordered Staff To Cast Doubt On Temperature Record. In the midst of
global climate change talks in Dec 2009, a top Fox News official sent an email
questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's
journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled)
in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are
based upon data that critics have called into question." [Media Matters, 12/15/1
0]
Opponents Of EPA Climate Action Dominate Fox Airwaves. Media Matters analyzed
television news guests who discussed the Environmental Protection Agency's
role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from Dec 2009 through April
2011. Driven largely by Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, results
show that in 76% of those appearances, the guest was opposed to EPA
regulations while 18% were in favor. Of the appearances by elected
officials, 86% were Republican. Only one guest in 17 m of coverage across 9
news outlets was a climate scientist -- industry-funded Patrick Michaels.
[Media Matters, 6/7/11]
Fox Escalates War On Climate Science As House GOP Readies Attack On EPA. As
congressional Republicans drafted legislation to prohibit the Environmental
Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,
Fox repeatedly promoted the view that "there is no global warming," dismissing
the extensive body of evidence supporting the scientific consensus on climate
change. [Media Matters, 2/4/11]
FoxNews.com Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miserably. In an article
titled, "Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever," FoxNews.com
sought to debunk the fact that Earth has warmed over the past 30 years, as
well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming. But Fox
largely ignored climate science and botched basic facts in the article,
portions of which "are utter nonsense" and "do not make sense" according to
climatologists consulted by Media Matters, including one of the skeptics cited
by Fox. [Media Matters, 1/27/11]
Fox News' Top 10 Lies About Climate Science. Fox News has done more than any
other major news outlet in the United States to sow confusion about climate
change. See Fox News' top 10 climate science distortions here.
MYREF: 20110621190001 msg2011062116347
[227 more news items]
---
[In the search for credible quotes, "skeptics" can unknowingly promote
the views of scientists that actually accept AGW].
Well said Freeman!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 28 Feb 2011 16:35 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Aussie climate scientists get death threats
Reuters/Sun Times [S Africa]
21 June, 2011 08:10
Australian climate scientists say they have received death threats, emails
with sexual slurs and other insults in a surge of abuse that appears to be a
coordinated campaign of intimidation.
The threats have come as the government tries to step up the fight against
climate change by trying to win agreement on a deeply unpopular scheme to
price carbon emissions, which the political opposition says will cost jobs and
raise fuel and power prices.
Anna-Maria Arabia of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological
Societies said she received a death threat on Mon and that police were
investigating the threat.
"There's no doubt that there is an orchestrated campaign," Arabia told Reuters.
"I think there are political motivations, people who have a view for and
against the response to the climate science and are using as their outlet an
attack on the scientists. So it may be people who don't agree that there
should be a carbon tax."
Climate scientists globally have been attacked in emails and blogs and for
several years, with campaigns in the United States linked to funding by big
energy and chemical firms fearing costs from policies that curb greenhouse gas e
missions.
Others have been linked to people railing against what they perceive as
governments impinging on their freedoms.
But the cyber abuse seems to have stepped up in Australia at a time when the
country has been ravaged 1st by drought, deadly bushfires and then floods that
killed dozens of people and cost the economy billions of dollars, prompting
debate on the real cause of the extreme weather.
"I don't think it's an accident that this nastiness is emerging at a time of
extreme political debate in this country about what issues Australia as a
society should take to minimise the impact of climate change," said Suzanne
Cory, president of the Australian Academy of Science.
Scare campaign
She said many Australians were conflicted about climate change, despite the
increase in bad weather.
"Many Australians are very concerned about doing something on climate
change. On the other hand, many Australians are feeling the pinch financially
and they worry about arguments that say they will be worse off," she told Reuter
s.
Corey said many Australians were vulnerable to people seeking to take
advantage of the confusion, given the often complex nature of climate change sci
ence.
The Academy, the country's top science and research body the CSIRO and the
government have stepped up a public education drive about the science and
impacts of global warming, such as more extreme droughts, floods, fires and
rising seas.
This month, the government said coastal assets such as roads, rail and
commercial buildings worth $226 bn were at risk from rising sea levels. On
Mon, the CSIRO formally launched a Web site that allows the public to see raw
greenhouse gas measurement data -- http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/ .
The site shows measurements of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases from a
remote location in Tasmania. The data shows that levels of carbon dioxide, the
main greenhouse gas, have risen 40% since the 1800s because of human
activities and are at the highest level in more than one mn years.
Efforts to price carbon emissions in Australia, a top coal exporter and
heavily reliant on coal for power, have polarised the political debate,
pitting the government's efforts to rein in rising emissions with an
opposition scare campaign on costs.
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies has
launched a campaign to demand policymakers respect science. In the meantime,
some scientists have moved to more secure offices or limited their public engage
ments.
MYREF: 20110622080002 msg2011062228357
[224 more news items]
---
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[fossil lobby spin]
Global warming deniers to pow-wow in Washington
Oil-funded group wants to `restore scientific method' to climate science
Bob Berwyn
Summit County Citizens Voice
June 25, 2011
Summit County -- If it weren't so dangerous, it would be funny. The Heartland
Institute, a conservative think tank funded by Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch,
is once again rounding up its stable of climate change deniers for the 6th
annual Conference on Climate Change (June 30, July 1) in Washington, D.C.
The group is literally playing with fire by trying to slow and block any
meaningful policy changes that might slow the accumulation of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. It works hard to confuse the public about the veracity of
climate science.
This year's conference is centered on the theme of of "restoring the
scientific method," and will begin with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) who has
described global warming as the the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the
American people" in 2003 and described it as "hysteria" in 2008.
Inhofe continues disputing the science, backing legislation that would strip
the EPA of their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ignoring
the extreme storms, flooding, droughts, and rising sea levels that the world
has been experiencing.
The Heartland Institute website says the conference acknowledges the fact that
claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are
based on "post-normal science," which substitutes claims of consensus for the
scientific method.
"This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society.
Abandoning the scientific method led to the "Climategate" scandal and the
errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change ... "The scientists speaking at this conference, and the 100s more
who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific
method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate
change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our
understanding of the planet's ever-changing climate."
MYREF: 20110625180416 msg2011062510522
[222 more news items]
---
The claimed consensus views of hundreds of climate change "scientists" are
fundamentally erroneous.
[Bonzo has elsewhere claimed the germ theory of disease is an "erroneous
consensus view"].
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 19 Jan 2011 15:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Deniers win climate battle, but they'll lose war
Paul Hanley
StarPheonix
June 28, 2011 4:04 AM
Climate change deniers have won the battle for the hearts and minds of the
masses. That is why the governments of Canada and the US, not to mention
Saskatchewan, are essentially doing nothing to address the biggest threat ever
to civilization.
Although the scientific academies of every nation and 98% of climate
scientists have affirmed the reality of climate change, a few pseudo
scientists-for-hire, paid by the oil and coal lobbies, have effectively used
the media to cast doubt on the climate change "theory." This has muted public
concern, allowing politicians, many bought off by campaign donations, to avoid
action that would upset the status quo. For all the sordid details read the
story by Al Gore in the current issue of Rolling Stone (http:
//acp.repoweramerica.org/ rollingstone).
But a battle is not a war.
One flood or drought or tornado or hurricane or heat wave after another will
ultimately wake us up and force us to transform our collective
climate-altering behaviour. And the good news is that some of the behaviours
that trigger climate change are already changing in the heart of the
oil-addicted consumerism, the United States of America.
With world oil production peaking, the price of oil and subsequently gasoline
is way up and US fuel consumption has begun to decline.
US gasoline prices rose, in real terms, by around 40% between 2000 and 2010,
which, in tandem with the recession, caused US gasoline consumption to peak
in 2006. By 2010, consumption was about eight% below its peak, while
consumption per person has fallen more than 10 per cent.
According to a top Australian blogger, economist John Quiggin
(johnquiggin.com), a one% increase in price reduces gasoline demand by 0.25
per cent, so a 40% increase should reduce demand by 10 per cent.
That's roughly in line with the observed outcome in the US.
Over time, a sustained upward trend in prices will induce the development of
energy-saving innovations, so consumption could fall as much as 70% below the
level that would be expected had prices remained at the 2000 level.
As fuel consumption declined, US vehicle miles peaked in 2007 and have
remained lower since. The size of the US car fleet peaked in 2008 and dropped
by two% in 2009. Could it be Americans are beginning to grow weary of their
stressed-out consumer lifestyles and the cost thereof ?
US shopping mall floor space has peaked too, and virtually no new malls are
being built.
Meanwhile, demand for big houses is declining and small (relatively speaking)
is now beautiful as a result of the recession and the housing market collapse.
As consumption shows signs of decline in the top consumer nation, alternatives
are on the ascendant. The cost of solar photovoltaic electricity (PV), for
instance, has fallen dramatically and is almost certain to fall further.
It is reaching the point, blogs Quiggin, where PV may become the cheapest
large-scale alternative to carbon-fuelled electricity generation, and
competitive (at reasonable carbon prices and in favourable locations) with new
coal-fired power.
In 2010, 17GW of peak PV capacity was installed and capacity for annual output
of new solar modules is now approaching 50GW (peak). At that point solar PV
would be one of the main sources of new generating capacity, comparable to
wind and gas.
This is not to say that PV will ultimately solve climate change, but to argue
that, with a price put on carbon, through a carbon tax and emissions trading,
and supporting policy instruments, some combination of lowered demand, energy
efficiency, and green technologies such as solar and wind could produce major
reductions in emissions at relatively low cost.
A combination of crisis - resulting from the impacts of climate change and
peak oil, and opportunity - created by the roll out of better technologies at
competitive prices will win the war to convince the masses about the need for
measures to address climate change. At that point, the dinosaurs opposing it
will fall into line and adapt, as dinosaurs always do.
MYREF: 20110629013001 msg2011062918802
[227 more news items]
---
Everyone agrees that the climate is changing, but there are violently
diverging opinions about the causes of change, about the consequences of
change, and about possible remedies.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Universe", 2007.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Global conferences are an 'elite conspiracy' of polluters
Legalbrief
Tue 28 June 2011
'Judging by what transpired at this month's global climate negotiations in the
former W German capital, Bonn, it appears certain that in just over 5 m time,
the SA port city of Durban will host a conference of procrastinators, the 'COP
17' (Conference of Parties), dooming the earth to the frying pan,' writes
Patrick Bond, Director of University of KwaZulu-Natal's Centre for Civil
Society in Durban, in the Daily Trust.
'Further inaction on climate change will leave our city's name as infamous for
elite incompetence and political betrayal as is Oslo's in the Middle East,' he
claims. 'What everyone now predicts is a conference of paralysis,' Bond
states, going on to say that he believes 'not only will the Kyoto Protocol be
allowed to expire at the end of its 1st commitment period (2012). Far worse,
Durban will primarily be a conference of profiteers, as carbon trading - the
privatisation of the air, giving rich states and companies the property-right
to pollute - is cemented as the foundation of the next decade's global climate
malgovernance'. In conclusion, he quotes Bolivia's ambassador to the United
Nations, Pablo S�lon, who said 'SA is the place to fight against the new
apartheid against Mother Earth and its vital systems'.
Full Daily Trust report
http://allafrica.com/stories/201106240442.html?page=2
MYREF: 20110629020002 msg2011062919522
[225 more news items]
---
[Assault on Vostok icecores:]
YOU are the one presenting the "evidence." Your evidence MUST be
performed using proven standards, not untested guesswork.
-- Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net>, 24 Feb 2011 19:49 -0600
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[sour grapes from the coal lobby]
When science is undone by fiction
The myth of Climate-gate has endured because of media failings.
Jo Chandler
The Age
June 29, 2011
Geologist and long-time climate change denialist Bob Carter materialised on
this page on Mon, reprising a weary routine - tiptoeing through the scientific
archive to find the morsels of data that might, with a twirl here and a shimmy
there, contrive to support his theory that global warming is a big fat
conspiracy.
Meanwhile, in real news, the journal Nature Geoscience published a paper by
American and British scientists that found W Antarctica's Pine Island glacier
is now melting 50% faster than in 1994.
In an effort to better understand the hidden mysteries of ice sheet dynamics,
which have obvious implications for every coast on the planet, the team also
sent a submarine beneath the floating portion of the ice. It found the glacier
had broken free from the ridge that once grounded it, allowing warmer waters
to circulate and melt it from beneath. This had long been the theory - now
they had some observed evidence.
The hastening retreats of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers have been
closely monitored by scientists for decades. Their collapse is a nightmare
cited as one of the tipping-point scenarios scientists most fear - potentially
pulling the plug to drain the western ice plateau, and possibly even
destabilising the sleeping giant next door: the E Antarctic ice sheet.
The uncertainties of these processes are to blame for the wide, wild
variations in anticipated global sea level rise - the hottest, most disputed
topic in forecasts for a warmer world. So you might imagine that this latest
insight would merit a mention. But it didn't make the cut for publication in
any Australian newspapers.
The murky, under-the-waterline mysteries of media dynamics are no less
confounding than those determining the movement of glaciers, and no less
potentially catastrophic in terms of implications for informing policy debate
and climate action.
But there are no laws of physics or nature to provide a framework to explain
the vagaries of the media machine, which seems utterly overwhelmed by the task
of telling the story on climate science. There is, in truth, nothing very
scientific about the processes that determine what makes news in this critical
debate. It's a crap shoot. Often, you get crap.
At the heart of Carter's argument against the science is the claim that the
credentials of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - and hence
its authority in underpinning policy such as a carbon tax - were "badly
damaged by the leaked 'Climate-gate' emails in Nov 2009". He's right -
terrible damage was wrought by the accusations that scientists had behaved
without integrity or honesty.
What Carter fails to then mention is that, at last count, there have been 8
separate inquiries by British and US government agencies, independent panels
and universities. Their findings have consistently upheld the honesty and
integrity of the scientists. None have identified wrongdoing, and the science
was unassailed.
The great scandal of Climate-gate is the failure of the media to recognise and
report the findings of these inquiries. That failure allowed the shadow of
Climate-gate to endure, and it has been identified as a powerful, albeit
hollow, thief of public confidence in critical, evolving science.
Climate-gate, a triumphant moment in the machinery of manufactured doubt,
continues to be used to obscure where the live debate is actually
occurring. If you want a taste of the fiery end of it, you might like to pay
heed to a gathering in Melbourne next m of international experts contemplating
a future with 4 degrees or more of warming. (fourdegrees2011.com.au).
It might be argued that the devotion of scientists to identify consensus on
climate forecasts - and the sensitivity of the media to brokering anything
that might be labelled alarmist - has also nobbled debate.
The valiant efforts of scientists to deliver to policymakers and the public a
coherent, consensus voice on climate change moderates the messages,
substituting worst-case for best-guess, itself a distortion. As veteran
British climate writer Fred Pearce reflected in the wake of the 2007 IPCC
report, "some people accuse the IPCC of being alarmist. On the contrary, my
reading is that [it] worked so hard to assuage the concerns of its critics
that it left out all the things its authors really fear."
Further distortions in the debate are rendered by clumsy efforts of the media
to achieve "balance", or contrived efforts to drum up controversy. But as new
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb argued last week, "if 99 people say one thing and
one person says another thing, the one person has a right to have their view
on the table, but they don't have a right to be given the same amount of time
and space as the 99 without qualification".
Recent surveys of active climate scientists (those publishing in the area)
calculate that 97 in every 100 have views which reflect those of the
international academies of science: the planet is warming, this is human
caused, and it is dangerous. Most are unlikely to ever have the gift of this
page to explain their findings.
Therefore, a more balanced, rigorous and honest rendering of their work is
critical to elevating the political and public debate on climate. "The media
has a particular and important role to play," said Chubb, "and the sooner they
play it better, the better."
MYREF: 20110629133001 msg20110629480
[221 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
[Still pointing the way for industries with public liability issues...]
Philip Morris threatens to sue Australia over packaging
Michael Perry
Reuters
Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:37am EDT
* Philip Morris looking at billions of dollars in compensation
* Australian PM rejects legal action, says laws will go ahead
* New cigarette packaging laws expected Jan 2012
* Laws could cause industry to consolidate to save costs
Sydney -- Tobacco giant Philip Morris is threatening to sue the Australian
government for possibly billions of dollars over its plan to be the 1st
country to introduce plain, brand-less packaging for cigarettes.
The tobacco firm is fearful that plain-packaging will damage its cigarette
brands like Marlboro and Alpine and reduce their ability to compete against
other brands.
The Australian government argues that reducing brand identification will make
smoking less attractive and in turn reduce smoking rates and the health costs
associated with smoking, which is said by Australian health authorities to
kill 15k people a y in the country.
The fight over cigarette packaging is being closely watched by other tobacco
firms and governments, with New Zealand, Canada and Britain among countries
considering similar laws.
Analysts also say plain packaging would hit tobacco firms in emerging markets
where they are seeking to lure smokers away from cheap brands to more
expensive ones and, if widespread, could lead to takeovers in the industry to
cut costs.
Philip Morris Asia said on Mon it had served a notice of legal claim on the
government under Australia's bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong, which
holds the government responsible to protect Hong Kong investments in Australia.
The notice sets a mandatory three-month period for the 2 sides to negotiate an
outcome. If there is no agreement, Philip Morris Asia said it would seek
compensation.
"Failing that, we aim to go ahead with a compensation claim for the loss to
our business in Australia that would result from plain packaging," said Philip
Morris Asia spokeswoman, Anne Edwards.
Compensation would be decided under United Nations trade rules.
"It will be up to the panel that will operate under the United Nations
international trade rules to look at which evaluation method they would use
determine the loss to our business," said Edwards.
"We estimate it may be in the billions (of dollars), but ultimately it will be
up to this panel to decide."
Edwards told Reuters that Philip Morris could not be more specific about
compensation because it was still calculating the value of its brands in
Australia.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Mon she would go ahead with the new
packaging laws, which are expected by Jan 2012.
"We're not going to be intimidated by Big Tobacco's tactics, whether they're
political tactics, whether they're public affairs kind of tactics out in the
community or whether they're legal tactics," Gillard said.
"We're not taking a backward step. We've made the right decision and we'll see
it through," she said.
The legal action is not expected to delay the new laws. It may take m to
even be heard, said law professor Donald Rothwell from the Australian National
University.
"NANNY STATE"
The tobacco industry has been running TV advertisements against the plain
packaging laws, asking Australians do they want to live in a "nanny state."
British American Tobacco , whose brands include Winfield, Dunhill and Benson &
Hedges, has said the government's plans would infringe upon international
trademark and intellectual property laws and has also raised the possibility
of pursuing legal action.
"The tobacco industry is watching this with obvious interest and it's aiming
to put as much pressure on as many states as possible who are thinking of
pursuing this type of action," said Jurgen Kurtz, director of international
investment law at the University of Melbourne.
The new laws would restrict tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and
promotional text appearing on packs, with the only distinguishing marks being
the brand and product name in a standard text and colour.
Olive green packaging had been decided upon because research showed smokers
found it the least attractive colour.
Philip Morris said it had manufactured and sold cigarettes in Australia since
1954 and built up well-known brands such as Marlboro, Alpine and Longbeach.
It said plain packaging would "rob" Philip Morris of its ability to use these
brands to differentiate its brands from those of its competitors, effectively
turning tobacco products into a commodity.
Analysts say that if plain packaging succeeds in commoditising the tobacco
industry, it could raise pressure for takeovers to cut costs.
Smoking-related illnesses kill more than 15k Australians each y and cost
the economy A$31.5 bn in health costs, according to Australian government
health authorities. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of disease and deat
h.
Australia already bans all outdoor and media advertising of cigarettes and
cigarette packets are covered with graphic photographs of the affects of cancer.
Australia's tobacco market generated total revenues of A$9.98 bn ($10.4
billion) in 2009, up from A$8.3 bn in 2008, although smoking generally has
been in decline.
MYREF: 20110629143433 msg201106293560
[222 more news items]
---
[W]omen are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 11:28 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Senator Inhofe Sends His Regrets Comments
John M. Broder
NY Times
June 30, 2011, 11:31 am
Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, the most outspoken climate
change skeptic in Congress, was scheduled to be the kickoff speaker at the
nation's most prominent gathering of those who doubt or deny the science of
global warming, which began on Thu morning in Washington.
But the combative Mr Inhofe sent a note expressing regret that he could not
attend, saying he was "under the weather" (although presumably he's still on
top of the climate). In a written statement to the group, gathering at a big
Washington hotel Thu and Fri, he thanked the attendees for their work in
spreading the word.
"Your efforts have gone a long way to stop the global warming alarmist
agenda," he said.
The occasion is the 6th climate conference sponsored by the Heartland
Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian organization dedicated to questioning
the science of global warming and opposing government actions to combat it. It
is financed by corporations, foundations and individual donations.
Scheduled speakers include some of the nation's best-known global warming
skeptics, including Anthony Watts, a television weatherman; Timothy Ball, a
former University of Winnipeg professor who has been sued for libel by Michael
Mann, a prominent mainstream climate scientist; and Alan Carlin, a former
Environmental Protection Agency analyst who claims he was muzzled when he
raised questions about the agency's finding that atmospheric CO2 is a threat
to human health and the environment.
Mr. Inhofe reminded the delegates that the last time the group assembled in
Washington, the House had just passed a sweeping cap-and-trade bill to address
global warming by putting limits on emissions of CO2 and other
climate-altering gases. At the time, the Congress was dominated by Democrats
and President Obama was pushing hard for solutions to global warming.
Times have changed, Mr Inhofe noted.
"Today the mood in Washington is significantly different," he said. "Everyone
readily admits that cap-and-trade legislation is dead on Capitol Hill -- even
our good friend, Senator Boxer. So our efforts have shifted to stopping
President Obama from imposing through regulation what he was unable to achieve
through legislation. I am pleased that the House has passed the Upton-Inhofe
bill--which would stop the E.P.A.'s cap-and-trade agenda -- with overwhelming
bipartisan support."
He noted that former Vice President Al Gore was frustrated with the lack of
progress on climate change in Washington. Yet Mr Obama continues to pursue his
so-called green agenda, Mr Inhofe noted, so it was no time for the denier
community to relax.
"I hope you agree with me that our work is far from over and we now have to
focus on holding back the regulatory overreach and oppose nominees who have
the mistaken belief that government is the answer, when we know that more
often than not it is the problem," he said.
The theme of the skeptics' conclave is "End of the Delusion."
MYREF: 20110701093002 msg2011070119435
[221 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Bring It: Geoff Fox Takes On Climate Change
Rick Green
June 22, 2011 8:33 AM
The new weather guy on Fox CT likes to throw a punch, which makes him a great
weather guy, in my view.
Fox outs himself as a climate change non-believer on his blog today, stepping
into the scientists vs. TV weathermen debate. He joins other climate deniers
such as Art Horn, a.k.a. "The Art of Weather," who has a traveling show titled
"Global Warming Exposed."
In 2007, the American Meteorological Society adopted a formal position on the
topic, noting that it is "consistent with the vast weight of current
scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U. S. National Academy of
Sciences, and the U. S. Climate Change Science Program."
The AMS statement, in part, reads:
there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate
simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are
warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that
further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human
societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st
century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission
scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures
will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and
rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level
rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the
relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global
climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so
critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.
I hope we hear more on this topic from Geoff. I mean really, who are you going
to believe, your TV weatherman or a climate scientist?
MYREF: 20110701183001 msg2011070122136
[219 more news items]
---
[Call me kook:]
>A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
>says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".
>A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!
>The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".
Sorry but 1917 invalidates the trend.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 7 Feb 2011 13:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Climate Change Skeptics Unite At Heartland Conference
[While the S US roasts, speakers predict continued global cooling.
Forecasts for Washington area include temps into the mid 90s over the
weekend, with an extreme UV warning for the palefaces].
HuffPost
07/ 1/11 06:18 PM ET
Washington -- Prominent climate change skeptics gathered at the Heartland
Institute's 6th international conference on climate change on Fri to take on
the body of scientific evidence showing that human emissions are contributing
to global warming.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, a famous climate change denier, was set to headline the
event's kickoff on Thu, but canceled when he came down with a cold. Instead
the Oklahoma Republican, who has long called climate change a hoax,
insisting "we're in a cold spell," sent a statement alleging that while
President Obama may have scaled back his speechifying on energy and the
environment, he has not given up trying to push forward a green agenda in
creative ways.
"He understands that the green agenda is not popular but that doesn't mean he
has given up trying to implement it," Inhofe said in a written
statement. "Take a good close look at the President's administration. With
sky high unemployment and a weak economy, who does he ask to head the
Department of Commerce? The founder of the Natural Resource Defense Council,
John Bryson. That's right, a committed green activist who supported
legislation that would have imposed huge costs on consumers and shipped
American jobs overseas."
Heartland's conference, held at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel,
featured presentations from scientists skeptical of climate change, including
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who argued humans are
either having a limited impact on climate change or no impact at all.
Michaels said that public figures are overestimating the extent to which
climate change can be attributed to humans, which in turn is leading to
costly, ineffective polices that will not help reverse the warming
trend. (Michaels, a self-described "luke-warmer," had his research called into
question earlier this year, when Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member on
the House Energy and Commerce committee, asked fellow Republicans to
investigate how much of his research funding was coming from the oil
industry.)
But if there was only a tiny sliver of the scientific perspective on climate
change in attendance, it wasn't for lack on an invitation. Heartland
Institute communications director Jim Lakely said it's a "myth" that only
skeptics are invited to the conference.
President of the Pacific Institute Peter Gleick, a scientist who supports the
findings behind man-induced climate change, said he wouldn't consider
attending. Story continues below
"I go to many meetings as it is, and the interesting science is being done
elsewhere," he said on a "pre-buttal" conference call hosted by the Center For
American Progress. "This is not a science conference, it's a political
conference. It's a way for a small community -- and I would argue a
diminishing community -- to get together in a self-support kind of way. There
is no science that's going to be discussed there that's new or that's
interesting ... it's just not worth a real scientist's time."
MYREF: 20110702083210 msg2011070222798
[219 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
ExxonMobil Still Paying for Climate Confusion
Tina Casey
Triple Pundit
July 5th, 2011
ExxonMobil continues to fund climate change deniers Despite the overwhelming
consensus of scientists, a recent Gallup poll found that 43% of Americans
still believe that global warming is caused by natural conditions, not by the
emission of greenhouse gas pollutants from human activity. For an issue of
settled science, that figure is startlingly high - after all, how many people
still believe that the sun revolves around the earth? - but it's not an
accident. The oil company ExxonMobil is among the corporations that have paid
out millions to lobbying organizations and academics who question whether
global warming is a real phenomenon, or who claim that a link between global
warming and human activity has not been established.
Investing in Anti-Science
Responding to shareholder concerns at a 2008 meeting, ExxonMobil pledged to
reduce its support for organizations that deny climate science. One example
would be ExxonMobil's support for The Heartland Institute, a lobbying group
also known for its long time work for the tobacco industry. ExxonMobil has
also been a major funder of the well known climate denier Wei Hock Soon. A new
report from Greenpeace U.S.A. indicates that ExxonMobil does appear to be
spending less on climate denial, though as of last y it was still devoting
some funds to the effort.
Climate Denial Investment Pays Off
Reducing its investment in climate deniers may have had more to do with a
sound business decision by ExxonMobil than an exercise in corporate social
responsibility. The investment has already paid off in the form of increased
public confusion over the reality of climate change, so there is no
justification for continuing to spend money at the same rate. Compared to just
3 y ago the aforementioned Gallup poll found that significantly fewer people
now believe that the effects of global warming have already begun, and fewer
people believe that man-made pollution is the cause of global warming. More
people also doubt that the effects of global warming will ever occur. The
Gallup report concludes that "Americans are clearly less concerned about
global warming and its effects than they were a few y ago."
ExxonMobil and Profitability
Much has been written about the corporate culture of ExxonMobil, but it can be
summed up as a singular - and singularly successful - focus on profits. Over
the past few years, while other oil companies invested in alternative energy
projects that did not always pan out, ExxonMobil invested in a public
relations exercise that has paid enormous returns by dampening public support
for alternative energy, which after all would compete directly with its core bus
iness.
Other Ways to Support Climate Change Denial
As for the follow-through on its pledge, ExxonMobil may have followed the
letter of that agreement by reducing support for high profile lobbyists and
academic personalities. However, as of this writing it appears that ExxonMobil
is still represented on the Board of Directors of the American Legislative
Exchange Council, an organization that writes and disseminates model
legislation at the state level. In addition to its recent involvement with
controversial state-level legislation on union rights, immigration, and
student voter identification, ALEC's templates have generated bills and
resolutions that withdraw states from regional greenhouse gas reduction
agreements. Until ExxonMobil adopts a more diversified energy profile, expect
to see a continued investment in actions that work against climate change manage
ment.
MYREF: 20110706080001 msg2011070614652
[220 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
mankind is responsible for that warming.
Mr Posting Robot
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[mining lobby spin]
Heartland Institute's Climate Contrarians Enjoy Media Platform
Jocelyn Fong
July 07, 2011 12:41 pm ET
Last wk the libertarian Heartland Institute held its 6^th "International
Conference on Climate Change" in Washington, DC, bringing together a varied
batch of vocal climate contrarians to rail against the scientific consensus
that human-induced climate change is a serious problem.
The speakers seemed to be more united by political ideology and a common enemy
than by their grievances about the science. Among their assertions:
* "CO2 was found guilty in contradiction to the evidence because as we are now
all aware, the temperature changes before the CO2, it is not the other way
around, as is the fundamental assumption that is made for the AGW." -- Tim Ball
* "I agree with the IPCC that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some
warming. Where we differ is the degree of warming." -- Roy Spencer
* "I believe that this warming shown here [after 1979] is not real, does not
exist." -- Fred Singer
* "From the mid-1970s," the earth warmed ".17 degrees C per decade in the
surface record, .14 degrees in the satellite record." -- Pat Michaels
* "I do not agree" that "the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due
to man." -- Steve Goreham
* "There's no question that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that the
primary cause is human." -- Fred Singer
* "We know enough about the climate science that we do want to
regulate. ... We can handle very modest regulations. " -- Robert Mendelsohn
* "We have a position. It's do nothing." -- Willie Soon
Heartland senior fellow James Taylor claimed that the event is about "getting
the science out to people," but several of the speakers indicated that this is
by no means your typical scientific conference (if the repeated Atlas Shrugged
references didn't give that away):
* "I guess I'm not a climate skeptic, just an economist. I don't know enough
about the climate science to be skeptical about it." -- Robert Mendelsohn
* "I'm a lawyer, not a climate scientist." -- Barry Brill
* "I'm not a climate scientist. ... I'm a space guy." -- Larry Bell
* "I'm just a layperson ... I'm also a relative newcomer to the climate
battle." -- Steve Goreham
* "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm kind of -- I'm
not a scientist, you may be aware. ... I leave the science stuff to you guys
and I think it's good that we stick to our jobs." -- James Delingpole
One of the attendees complained to me that the media would ignore the
conference because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative. As it turned out,
the New York Times posted an uncritical Greenwire article about the event
before it had even ended, which Heartland president Joseph Bast then praised
as "really nice" and "balanced."
But Heartland doesn't need the news media to cover these events. The endgame
is increased visibility of those who challenge the global warming consensus
and there's evidence that this endeavor has been successful.
Maxwell Boykoff of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at
the University of Colorado has noted that on the issue of climate change,
"Outlier voices have gained more prominence and traction in mass media over
time through a mix of political economic, cultural, and social
factors. Moreover, institutional workings of mass media - such as journalistic
norms, values and practices - can contribute to such patterns."
Indeed, with regard to media coverage on climate science, one's expertise is
often a weak predictor of the media attention given them. Take, for instance
atmospheric scientist Scott Denning, the only speaker at the conference who
presented what the Heartland Institute called the "warmist case." (While other
mainstream climate scientists have hesitated to accept Heartland's invitation,
Denning contends that "strong and persuasive engagement" is necessary.)
Denning has published 36 peer-reviewed climate articles since 2007. According
to a search of articles/segments mentioning "global warming" or "climate
change" in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, USA Today, Associated Press, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS,
and ABC, and NPR, Denning has been quoted or hosted only twice since 2007: In
Feb 2009 AP articles on the NASA satellite that malfunctioned.
The following chart shows how Denning, a strong communicator who says he is
"very responsive" to media requests, compares to 2 other speakers at the
conference: Climatologist Pat Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute, who
delivered the keynote address and has received funding from fossil fuel
interests for decades, and Chris Horner of the libertarian Competitive
Enterprise Institute, who is not a scientist but often comments on climate
science in media appearances:
(Fox News accounted for 13 of Michaels' appearances and 34 of Horner's
appearances.)
This is not to say that most climate contrarians garner this level of media
attention or that news outlets ignore highly-qualified mainstream scientists
(though I'd argue that Fox News does.) But clearly, media-savvy individuals
with outlier views on climate change can be disproportionally represented in
the national news media regardless of the level of their expertise.
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE STRIVES TO CLOUD THE CONSENSUS
Heartland president Joseph Bast acknowledged at the conference that "the main
motivation, frankly, for the Heartland Institute being involved in this
debate" is to prevent the US government from adopting policies that favor
renewable energy, which he claims would cause an "economic disaster for the
country." (But it's the other guys who are "alarmist.") In other words, the
organization approaches the science with a policy agenda already determined,
making Heartland an unlikely champion of "Restoring the Scientific Method,"
which was the theme of the conference.
In his closing remarks, Bast said: "I am absolutely convinced that if you open
the hood and look at the science on climate change, you're going to come away
convinced that the science is very sketchy, very uncertain, and as a result it
doesn't justify the kind of public policies that are being advanced."
In the interest of forestalling government action designed to reduce fossil
fuel use, the Heartland Institute seeks to popularize the message that "the
mainstream of the scientific community ... does not believe that global
warming is a crisis." The media is certainly among the intended recipients of
this message. But the 5 sources Heartland's website cites support this
claim are not persuasive:
1. HEARTLAND CLAIM: "Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists,
including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part,
'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate.'"
* REALITY: This petition actually dates back to 1998, not 2007. Organized by
chemist and failed 2010 Republican Congressional candidate Art Robinson, it
does not tell us anything about the consensus on global warming because, as
Gary Whittenberger wrote in Skeptic magazine, a consensus is not "defined by
some large absolute number of persons." Rather, "It is determined by a large
percentage of persons in a relevant sample," and Robinson's petition "reports
neither the total number of persons to whom he sent petition cards in the 1st
place nor the number of persons to whom he sent petition cards who
subsequently returned only messages of disagreement." The petition defined as
a "scientist" anyone who claims to have at least a bachelor's degree in a
variety of fields including math, medicine and engineering. Only 12% of
the signatories hold degrees in "atmosphere, earth & environment" according to
the petition's website, and no information is given on how many of those
individuals are active scientists, how many have advanced degrees, or how many
have actually conducted research related to climate change. The names and
degrees have not been independently confirmed and Robinson acknowledged that
fake names have made their way onto the petition.
2. HEARTLAND CLAIM: "A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with
530 responding) found only 9.4% 'strongly agreed' and 25.3% 'agreed'
with the statement 'climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic
causes.' Some 10.2% "strongly disagreed.'"
* REALITY: It's notable that Heartland cites this 8-year-old survey by Hans
von Storch and Dennis Bray, who have since released a more recent survey. More
importantly, Bray and von Storch have acknowledged that the 2003 survey
question was "problem[atic]" because it did not distinguish between current or
future climate change and climate change in general, which has obviously been
driven by non-human forces in the past:
[T]he question refers to "climate change" in general. We intended to ask for
responses to the statement "Ongoing climate change is mostly the result of
anthropogenic causes", but some respondents may have considered Holocene
climate change in general. Thus, "disagreement" with the statement does not
necessarily signal doubt about the perspective of a dominantly man-made
climate change in the coming decades, but it mostly reveals an assessment of
presently emerging climate change. The problem is that some commentators
interpret our numbers as responses to "Future climate change is mostly the
result of anthropogenic causes."
Additionally, Heartland incorrectly suggests that respondents were given the
options "agree" and "strongly agree," when in fact, they were presented with a
scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Heartland only
provided the results from 1, 2, and 7.
3. HEARTLAND CLAIM: "A 2006 survey of scientists in the US found 41 percent
disagreed that the planet's recent warmth 'can be, in large part, attributed
to human activity,' and 71% disagreed that recent hurricane activity is
significantly attributable to human activity."
* REALITY: This is not a "survey of scientists" but rather a survey of
"environmental practitioners," defined as "those who implement environmental
policies and regulations for government and industry." The survey found that
"59% respond that current climatic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over
100 y of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human
activity." It also found that "76% believe it important to include tighter
controls of greenhouse gases such as carbon and methane in future US
environmental regulations."
4. HEARTLAND CLAIM: "A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal
articles on 'global climate change' found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly
endorse the 'consensus view' while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that
human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years."
* REALITY: Anthropologist Benny Peiser, the author of this "review," has since
admitted that "some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 'reject or
doubt' category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."
Demonstrating that his review cannot inform on the status of the consensus,
Peisner said that "the vast majority of papers published on global warming"
were not included. In contradiction to the Heartland Institute's claim, he
also acknowledged that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed
that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact," while
maintaining that it is not "unanimous."
5. HEARTLAND CLAIM: "In June 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page report, titled Climate Change
Reconsidered, that presented the 1st comprehensive rebuttal of the reports of
the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With
contributions from more than 30 scientists and citations to more than 4k
peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report concluded that climate change is not a c
risis."
* REALITY: This report was published by the Heartland Institute and says
nothing about the views of "the mainstream of the scientific community." The
lead authors of the report are retired physicist S. Fred Singer and geographer
Craig Idso, and both previously worked with fossil fuel companies. Climate
scientists commenting on the NIPCC report have said it is "dishonest" and
makes "some embarrassing mistakes in basic logic."
PUBLIC CONFUSED ABOUT VIEWS OF SCIENTISTS
Although the evidence provided by the Heartland Institute is not robust, their
message appears to have gained traction, with significant chunks of the
American population unaware of the extent to which scientists agree that
human-induced climate change is happening.
In a Nov 2009 Associated Press survey, 66% of respondents said "there is a lot
of disagreement among scientists" about "whether or not global warming is
happening." Sixty-seven% also said "there is a long of disagreement
among scientists" about "the causes of global warming."
Gallup also reported on March 11, 2010 that "The percentage of Americans who
think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13
points from 2 y ago, and is the lowest since the 1st time Gallup asked this
question back in 1997."
And a nationwide poll conducted in May 2010 by Virginia Commonwealth
University found that only 37% "believe the evidence is widely accepted in the
scientific community":
Perceptions of scientific consensus about global warming lean to the view that
scientists are divided over global warming. A plurality (49%) believes that
many scientists have serious doubts about the evidence on global warming; 37%
believe the evidence is widely accepted in the scientific community.
Not surprisingly, beliefs about global warming and scientific consensus are
linked. Among those skeptical about global warming 71% say many scientists
have doubts about the evidence on global warming, 17% think there is
scientific consensus on this. Similarly, among those who believe global
warming is mostly due to natural causes 67% say that many scientists have
doubts about the evidence on global warming and 19% think there is scientific
consensus. Among those who believe global warming is due to human causes the
opposite pattern occurs; 57% of this group says the evidence on global warming
is widely accepted in the scientific community while about a 3rd (32%) think
that many scientists have serious doubts about the evidence on global warming.
The University of Maryland also reported in a Dec 2010 poll that "a
substantial 45% of voters thought that most scientists think climate change is
not occurring (12%) or scientists are evenly divided (33%). Fifty-four%
recognized that most scientists think that climate change is occurring."
(The poll also found that "those who watched Fox News almost daily were
significantly more likely [by 30 points] than those who never watched it" to
reject the notion that most scientists think climate change is occurring. The
poll further stated that "these effects increased incrementally with
increasing levels of exposure" to Fox News.)
The most recent poll, a May 2011 Yale/George Mason University survey, found
that 40% of respondents think "there is a lot of disagreement among scientists
about whether or not global warming is happening." Only thirty-nine% said
"most scientists think global warming is happening."
CREDIBLE SURVEYS SHOW VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE HUMANS
ARE CHANGING THE CLIMATE
Many efforts have been made in recent y to guage the level of agreement among
scientists about climate change.
According to a 2007 George Mason University survey of scientists belonging to
the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union,
"Eighty-four% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring."
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of Germany's Institute for Coastal Research
conducted an international survey of climate scientists in 2008 and asked,
"How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is,
or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Eighty-four% answered either 5,
6 or 7 on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The scientists were also
asked, "Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to
be" unconcerned (1) or very worried (7). Eighty-four% answered 5, 6, or
7. Only 5% answered 1, 2, or 3.
In July 2009, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a
report compiling data from public opinion polls and a survey of over 2,500
scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the "world's largest general scientific society." The report stated:
[T]he near consensus among scientists about global warming is not
mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the
earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning
fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.
A 2009 survey published by the American Geophysical Union also found that of
over 3k Earth scientists, 90% said average global temperatures have risen
compared with pre-1800s levels and 82% said human activity is a
"significant contributing factor" in that trend. The study further concluded
that "as the level of active research and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the 2 primary questions." Of those who
specialize in climate science, 97.4% (75 or 77) said human activity is
contributing to rising global temperatures.
The following scientific bodies have also issued statements recognizing the
strong body of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change: *
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "The scientific understanding of climate
change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
* US National Research Council: "[T]he preponderance of scientific evidence
points to human activities -- especially the release of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of
the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades."
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The vast preponderance
of evidence, based on y of research conducted by a wide array of different
investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate
change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take
action is urgent."
* American Chemical Society: "[C]omprehensive scientific assessments of our
current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is
real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially
a very serious problem.
* American Physical Society: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming
is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in
the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and
human health are likely to occur."
* American Geophysical Union: "With climate change, as with ozone depletion,
the human footprint on Earth is apparent."
* Geological Society of America: "Concurs with assessments by the National
Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has
warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for
most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
* American Meteorological Society: "Despite the uncertainties noted above,
there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate
simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are
warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that
further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human
societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st
century and beyond."
* American Medical Association: "Scientific evidence shows that the world's
climate is changing and that the results have public health consequences."
MYREF: 20110708034416 msg2011070813047
[229 more news items]
---
If AGW could predict future climate I would believe it is true.
Currently it does no better than simple extrapolation of current trends.
Which you can do without even measuring atmospheric CO2.
-- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 25 Nov 2010 11:41 +1100
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
The arid Southwest's 10 great climate deniers
As consensus mounts, and their states confront torrid heat, these politicians
maintain global warming is a hoax
Peter Finocchiaro
Salon
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 17:14 ET
Much of the southern US is currently suffering through one of the most severe
dry spells of the past century. It's impossible to say with certainty that
this particular drought -- caused by a lingering La Niña event in the Pacific
-- is a direct result of global warming. But, as we noted yesterday,
scientific consensus is overwhelming that shifting weather patterns
drastically increase the probability of devastating droughts from Texas on
west. Yet, in spite of this, many GOP politicians from some of the worst
afflicted Southwestern states maintain that man-made global warming is an
elaborate hoax. We've compiled a list of 10 such prominent climate change
deniers and compare their statements against their constituents' current
climate woes.
Texas
1. What Gov. Rick Perry believes: In his 2010 manifesto, "Fed Up! Our Fight to
Save America From Washington," Perry called man-made climate change "all one
contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." Then, in
April, he issued a proclamation asking Texans to literally pray for an end to
the drought, notes Rolling Stone.
2. What Rep. Ted Poe believes: In a 2009 statement on the floor of the House,
Poe pointed to that year's Climategate controversy as reason to doubt climate
science. (Note: An independent panel has since exonerated the scientists
involved in the "scandal.") He also pointed to scientists who, in 1974, argued
that Earth might be cooling, as evidence that scientists have no earthly idea
what they are talking about, now or then. "We are going to try to trust the
world's climate predictions to a group of people from the 1970s and now, 2000,
to a group of people who can't even predict correctly tomorrow's weather," he
said.
How Mother Nature has responded: Texas has arguably been the state hardest hit
by the current drought. Of the state's 254 counties, 213 have been declared
disaster areas. The Texas Tribune says the situation qualifies as a
"significant natural disaster." The m from Oct to June have been drier
than in any comparable stretch in the state's history.
Oklahoma
3. What Sen. James Inhofe believes: Both time and space restrictions prevent
us from printing all the dubious statements Inhofe has issued about global
warming. He is, by all accounts, the standard bearer for climate change denial
in the Senate. Between his suggestion that the EPA is a "Gestapo bureaucracy"
in 2004, and his insistence that climate change projections are "the
second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation
of church and state," you get the basic gist of his position on the subject.
4. What Sen. Tom Coburn believes: At a town hall meeting in 2009, Coburn --
perhaps alluding to his earlier career as an obstetrician -- told audiences
that, "I am not the smartest man in the world, but I have been trained to read
scientific documents, and [man-made global warming] is malarkey."
How Mother Nature has responded: Average rainfall across Oklahoma is down 12
inches since last fall, marking the second-driest Oct-to-June stretch in the
state's history. Temperatures have topped 100 degrees in at least one portion
of the state on 54 separate days this year. Poor wheat yields and a dearth of
freshwater have forced many ranchers to sell off their livestock, which they
find themselves unable to sustain.
Kansas
5. What Sen. Jerry Moran believes: Last year, when Moran was a member of the
House of Representatives, he cosponsored a "resolution of disapproval" that
would ignore the EPA's finding about the harmful impact of greenhouse-gas
pollution and prevent the agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate
emissions.
How Mother Nature has responded: "Drought emergencies" have been declared
throughout 1/2 of Kansas, and some portions of the state are suffering through
half-normal rainfall averages. As in Oklahoma, ranchers across the state have
been forced to sell off cattle for an inability to feed them.
Colorado
6. What Rep. Cory Gardner believes: The freshman congressman has said that he
thinks the world is warming, but that he doesn't "believe humans are causing
that change to the extent that's been in the news." He has argued forcefully
that any attempts to legislate climate change "will devastate the economy" and
kill the economic recovery.
How Mother Nature has responded: The US Department of Agriculture has
designated 10 counties in southern Colorado as primary natural disaster areas
since last month. Farmers have been especially hard hit by the drought. In
Fremont county, for example, apple producers lost 60% of crop yields over a
four-day stretch spanning the end of April to early June.
New Mexico
7. What Gov. Susana Martinez believes: As a candidate in 2010, Martinez
mischaracterized consensus among scientists on the issue of climate change,
saying "There is disagreement in the science community concerning the causes
of global warming." She also told Politico that "I'm not sure the science
completely supports" the notion that it is a man-made phenomenon.
8. What Rep. Steve Pearce believes: Pearce, who was ushered into Congress in
last Nov's Republican landslide, has invoked Climategate as evidence that the
science behind global warming is shaky. He asked, in particular, "If [the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn't] believe it, why should the
rest of [us] be penalized in our standard of living for something that can't
be validated?"
How Mother Nature has responded: New Mexico registered "by far the driest y
going back to 1896," while temperatures were 1.3 degrees above average through
2011's 1st 6 months. John Fleck and the Albuquerque Journal reports that the
resulting drought and wildfires -- including the current Las Conchas fire,
which has seared through 148k acres of land -- marks a "new normal."
Arizona
9. What Rep. Trent Franks believes: Franks has said, "While I am concerned
about the potential effects of global warming, I have yet to see clear and
convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations." He's also
pledged to oppose any federal bill that would increase revenue for the purpose
of combating climate change.
10. What Rep. Ben Quayle believes: The newly elected congressman (and son of
former VP Dan Quayle) has argued that the science on climate change is
inconclusive and that history suggests global warming might be a natural
phenomenon: "Our planet has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time," he
said in an interview with the Arizona Republic last year.
How Mother Nature has responded: Tucson suffered an 81-day stretch, from April
9 to June 30, without a drop of rain, the fourth-longest such period on
record. And much of the state has been pummeled by wildfires, including one in
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests that burned through more than 500k
acres in the state earlier this month. Toward the end of June, 3 such blazes
occurred simultaneously.
MYREF: 20110714130002 msg201107145949
[227 more news items]
---
And the thing with danger for the polar bears is breathtaking nonsense,
because these bears do not eat icecubes or like to skate. They go onto
the ice, because they hunt at the coastline, what is behind the ice.
-- Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>, 11 Jul 2011 03:59 +0200
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Like it or not, planet is warming
NOAA reports 2010 was one of 2 warmest years on record.
Whit Gibbons
[Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the
University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory].
Salisbury Post
Fri, July 15, 2011 12:00 AM
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2010 State
of the Climate report released last week, "The y 2010 was among the 2 warmest
y globally since the . . . late 19th century."
The statement has qualifications and caveats, but the point, according to the
American Meteorological Society, is that "Earth's atmospheric and oceanic
temperatures are rising unabated" and "the world continues to warm."
Despite the report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, some people will
reject the idea that global climate change is a problem.
First, some will reject the body of data because the information comes from a
"government agency," automatically making the data suspect.
Second, the information is collected by scientists, and some people are
inherently distrustful of the scientific community, suspecting conspiracies or
data manipulation or both, especially when the scientific findings are
unpopular. (This is not a new phenomenon. The Vatican refused to accept
Galileo's assertion that the earth revolves around the sun because it seemed
to contradict the Bible.)
Negative opinions about the NOAA report will also come from those who dispute
that today's global warming is caused primarily by atmospheric increases in
greenhouse gases, such as CO2 from industrial and other commercial sources.
In other words, temperatures are rising around the world but humans are not
responsible. The earth was warmer eons ago than it is now, so why fret? (Is it
worth noting that humans did not live during those times?)
Others accept the fact that temperatures are rising and that human activity is
the root cause, but they stubbornly oppose any proposal to ameliorate the situat
ion.
One global warming denier is Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., who has declared that
"the threat of catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people."
I can certainly think of a hoax or 2 that would challenge concerns about
global warming for "the greatest." Nonetheless, Inhofe has proposed
legislation that would limit the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
I am certainly not a proponent of all government regulation, state or
federal. But supporting the EPA's authority to curtail pollution that is
profiting a few and doing serious harm to the rest of us seems like a
no-brainer. When a US senator outright opposes that authority, I wonder what
his motives are.
In case you do not recall the documented changes that are a consequence of
global warming, here is a sampling: in the Arctic the winter season has been
shortened, melting the icy habitat that is essential for survival of polar bears
.
Individual polar bears have been reported to have lost weight and be producing
fewer cubs.
According to the American Meteorological Society, commenting on the NOAA
report, "The Arctic warmed about twice as fast as the rest of the world,
reducing sea ice extent to its 3rd lowest level on record."
Many species of plants unquestionably bloom earlier each year, and many
animals indisputably breed earlier in the season now than they did a few y ago.
Whether you think these facts are worth worrying about is opinion; whether you
trust the federal government to look out for our best interest and try to
alleviate the problems is a political position. The changes themselves,
however, are real regardless of how you feel about government reports or scienti
sts.
Global warming, aka climate change, is an emotional issue involving politics,
commercial interests, environmental positions and personal egos to such a
point that no clear consensus will be reached and no uncontested resolution
will be forthcoming in the near future.
I appreciated the comments of Mike Huckabee when he was considering running
for the Republican presidential nomination.
He said, "We have to be good stewards of the earth."
And although he said he was not convinced that climate change was driven by
human activities, he contended that we should put controls on the emission of
greenhouses gases anyway.
Some issues we just cannot afford to be wrong about. Most scientists believe
that global climate change is one of them.
MYREF: 20110716080002 msg2011071628753
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Climate dissenter holds his ground
As the planet battles weather extremes, an Auckland climate scientist is still
unconvinced about the role of human-induced global warming.
Chris Barton
NZ Herald
5:30 AM Sat Jul 16, 2011
It never rains, it pours. Or it burns.
It began with the China floods in May last year, coinciding, in June, with
widespread fires and drought in Russia, coinciding with record breaking
monsoon flooding in Pakistan that killed 1,500 people and left 20 mn
homeless. That was followed by a "once-in-a-century" drought in the Amazon -
except that the last once-in-a-century event in the region happened just 5
years before.
In Dec a mn hectares of Colombia was underwater. Sri Lanka had its
heaviest rains for 100 years. The Philippines had 4 wk of sustained rain in
Jan, Brazil had catastrophic mudslides killing 600 people and then Queensland
was inundated - the flood waters covering an area larger than Germany and
France combined.
In April the mighty Mississippi and Missouri rivers swelled to record levels
causing spillways to be opened and mass evacuations, followed by one of the
largest tornado outbreaks in American history. Meanwhile a nine-month drought
continues to parch Texas and Oklahoma and China evacuated some 500k people in
June from floods along the Yangtze River following the worst drought in 50 years
.
Climate scientists have predicted such scenarios for decades - that as global
temperatures rose more extreme weather would be a side effect. Yet none of
this is discussed in the climate section of the introductory Geography 101
course at University of Auckland. Odd because, while what's behind such
climate model forecasts is immensely complex, the underlying science is pretty s
imple.
Increased heating leads to greater evaporation. Warm air holds more
moisture. Hence increased water vapour and more energy in the
atmosphere. Sooner or later the trapped energy has to go somewhere, and
inevitably it ends up as weather. Thus increased surface drying, thereby
increasing the intensity and duration of drought. And storms - whether with
thunder, rain, snow or cyclones - are supplied with increased moisture,
producing more intense precipitation events.
Associate professor Chris de Freitas, who teaches the stage one course,
wouldn't dispute the basic science.
"I do not dispute that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is largely from the use
of fossil fuels," he tells the Herald.
"No doubt rising CO2 could 'change the climate'. The basic physics is there to
support this view. But where is the evidence that the putative change would be
large or damaging?"
In more extreme weather events perhaps? De Freitas doesn't accept that extreme
weather events are linked to human induced climate change (global warming).
"It is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate
variation," he wrote in 2007. As far as he's concerned the climate has always
changed - naturally. And the fact that global CO2 emissions last y
rose by a record amount to almost 31 bn tonnes is neither here nor there.
"The so called 'human fingerprints on climate change' can also be attributed
to causes or processes other than those related to fossil fuel-caused CO2
increase," he says.
As he sees it, extreme weather events have always happened and what's
happening now is not particularly unusual. "Violent weather and worst case
scenarios are scary, easily dramatised and thus captivating," he said in a
2007 conference paper.
Professor Martin Manning disagrees.
"What we are now starting to see is a collective extreme event which is
occurring simultaneously across wide regions," says the director of Victoria
University's NZ Climate Change Research Institute. "There is a huge spread of
these events that makes them new and different."
A difference that hinges on the fact that extreme events are happening in
several places at once.
"We may now be on the verge of seeing another surprise in the way climate
change plays out."
But according to some students of de Freitas's 101 course on the basics of
climate you won't hear about how climate scientists are now seeing such
patterns Or about the building evidence that human-induced climate change is
changing precipitation and the hydrological cycle, especially the extremes.
And that 2010 ranked as the warmest y on record, together with 2005 and 1998,
making the 1st decade of the 21st century the warmest ever according to the
World Meteorological Organization.
Or discover that the earth's 2010 record warmth was unusual because it
occurred during the deepest solar energy minimum (period of least solar
activity in sun's 11-year activity cycle) since satellite measurements of the
sun began in the 1970s.
"No, nothing," a student in the course told the Herald. "I learned all that in
my Environmental Science class."
The Geography 101 lecture workbook confirms the lack of such
information. There seems little, if any, reference to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its landmark 2007 reports were not listed
in the course reading material. Climate scientists shown the workbook were
surprised at how out of date much of the material was.
"I use both new and old material in my slides. Some of the best science is
quite old," said De Freitas. "He didn't use any hockey stick graphs that show
the extreme change in our climate since human activity - he didn't show us
anything like that," said the student.
The "hockey stick" refers to a graph documenting the 1000-year temperature
record that rises steeply from the end of the 19th century after a
centuries-long gradual decline. The image has been the public face of climate
science during the past decade and has been widely debated.
"I was shocked. I thought there was no more debate about climate change,"
another student said of the course. "The last section was most alarming
because I left thinking maybe the science isn't settled. In fact I was quite
convinced by the last lecture. It was the one when he was talking about the
tree rings and had old pictures. He'd say things like: 'We can see there was
ice here, so it has happened before. This is evidence we that climate change
is not human induced - it's part of the natural cycle. It's happened before'."
Asked why there is no mention of extreme weather events in 2010-11 that fit
with climate model predictions de Freitas said: "To claim otherwise would be mis
leading."
Asked about the lack of information in Geography 101 regarding IPCC reports
and anthropogenic climate change he said: "In several of my courses I focus on
these." De Freitas points out he lectures on climatology in 5 courses. "I deal
extensively with the 'hockey stick' issue in my lectures."
The Herald asked Professor Glenn McGregor, director of the School of
Environment at Auckland University where Geography 101 is taught, whether he
agreed with De Freitas's view.
"There is no debate over the direction of change. Global warming is happening
and will continue to happen and it is driven by human activities so the recent
warming is not part of a natural cycle."
So are the Geography 101 students being let down by getting only one view on
the basics of climate change?
"If Chris has not mentioned the IPCC, that is regrettable because the IPCC
process is very important," says McGregor. He says de Freitas plays "a kind of
critic and conscience role" which he sees as important to the essential nature
of universities.
"I think Chris has every right to criticise climate science. Within
universities we adhere to the right to academic freedom which the university
encourages. So you can freely express opinions when delivering material to stude
nts."
Shouldn't the students be presented with both sides of the argument? "We
don't want to micromanage the content of lecture material, that's not what we
are about in the university."
Victoria University's Manning disagrees: "I think Auckland University does
have a bit of a problem with a course looking like it is taking one side of
the story and a minority view of that." Yes, he believes in freedom expression
and that it should be deeply ingrained in the structure of the
university. "The right to have individual views is something that's preserved
because it is important - but there does become a point when you have to ask
should you be teaching that?"
Manning says those who are teaching students need to cover the full range of
what goes in to scientific literature in a balanced way. "When you are
teaching courses to students you really have a responsibility to cover the
range of understanding and not just be dominated by a personal stance," he
says. "Courses in universities and schools should not be personal opinion."
To explain de Freitas's view it's necessary to acknowledge that he is one of a
rare breed of climate scientists who oppose the climate change consensus as
declared by the IPCC in 2007.
That: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations." In IPCCspeak, very likely means more than 90%
chance which is about as good as odds as you'll ever get from scientists.
De Freitas, who is listed as science advisor for the Ottawa-based
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) lobby group, its New Zealand
branch, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, plus American right-wing
think tanks the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute,
is not alone in his views.
But the company he keeps numbers just 6 in New Zealand and 142 worldwide
according to the ICSC which keeps a register of "climate experts" who
challenge "the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change". De
Freitas points out he was also an "expert reviewer" in 2 IPCC assessment
reports and has been an adviser to Greenpeace. "I am happy to give advice on
climate science themes on which I have some expertise, if asked."
Manning says the science - while it may have some uncertainties in some areas
- is sufficient overall for many businesses to sit up and take notice. He
cites Deutsche Asset management which manages $US700 bn in funds with
about $US7 bn now going into climate change products. And the Institutional
Investors Group on Climate Change, representing 259 investors with assets over
$US15 trillion, which said last Nov that climate change "poses serious
financial risks that are not going away and will only increase the longer we
delay enacting sensible policies to transition to a low-carbon economy."
Then there's the global insurance industry which says: "The data is clear:
weather-related disasters have become significantly more frequent and more
extreme in recent decades and this trend will not cease anywhere in the
mid-term future."
Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the
world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters. "Our figures
indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only
be fully explained by climate change," Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo
Risks Research Climate Centre told Scientific American in June. "It's as if
the weather machine had changed up a gear."
A second line of evidence comes from the developing field of climate
attribution - scientists forensically examining individual events for telltale
"fingerprints" of climate change. Fingerprints that are beginning to show in
extreme weather. That's not to say the storms or hot spells wouldn't have
happened at all without climate change.
But as scientists like Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the United
States National Centre for Atmospheric Research point out, they wouldn't have
been as severe if humankind hadn't already altered the planet's climate.
Such a view marks a dramatic change. For decades all scientists would ever say
- cautiously - was that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the
predictions of climate change.
"Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened
the same way without global warming," says Trenberth. "When natural
variability is compounded by human influences on the planet this is what we
get. Records are not just broken, they are smashed."
MYREF: 20110716180002 msg2011071630704
[227 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
'Dean of climate skeptics' slated to speak Mon at CSU
Bobby Magill
The Coloradoan
Jul 15 2011
Outspoken climate change and global warming skeptic Fred Singer will speak at
Colorado State University on Mon.
Singer, who also is known for his skepticism about the health impacts of
second-hand cigarette smoke, will speak about the disparity between climate
models and climate observations and what he calls "chaotic uncertainties" and
how to overcome them.
Singer is an emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia and is known as the "dean" of climate skeptics.
"The central issue is the cause of global warming - is it natural or is it
manmade?" he said in a statement. "While the IPCC (International Panel on
Climate Change) claims to be 90 to 99% sure that the warming of the late 20th
century is anthropogenic, they have no solid evidence to back up this
claim. To the contrary, their own data argue the opposite."
State Climatologist Nolan Doesken, director of the Fort Collins weather
station at the Colorado Climate Center at CSU, said skeptics are vital to
climate change science.
Climate scientists need their work vigorously reviewed by their peers to find
the uncertainties and "weak links" in the science, he said.
"So, it's good to have as many views on the table as you can," Doesken
said. "What's curious in the great world of the climate change discussion is
that people, instead of just wanting to listen and learn, there are those who
also want to be in one camp or the other without hearing and knowing the other
side's concerns. So, the very well- spoken skeptics have a very important
place in the whole debate - and they should."
Singer, who has a background in meteorology and physics, will speak at 7:30 pm
Mon in Room 130 of the Glover Building on the CSU campus.
The Glover Building is E of the Lory Student Center and S of the Engineering
Building. Recommended parking is on the S end of the student center next to
the Morgan Library.
MYREF: 20110717000001 msg2011071711246
[226 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Abbott told by Lord Monckton to ditch direct action
Mark Kenny
The Advertiser
July 20, 2011 12:00AM
Global warming sceptic Christopher Monckton has called on Tony Abbott to scrap
his direct action policy.
Lord Monckton - who has been warned by British Parliament to stop calling
himself a member of the House of Lords - argued the Opposition Leader's
taxpayer-funded policy is pointless.
In Canberra to campaign against the carbon tax, Lord Monckton offered the
Coalition no comfort, declaring its multi-billion-dollar policy futile.
"Yes, the Coalition should, in my opinion, ditch it because there is no need
to take any action about CO2 at all," he told the National Press Club.
The divisive figure, who yesterday suffered the humiliation of being outed by
the British Parliament for falsely claiming membership of the House of Lords,
said CO2 played no role in causing global warming, and CO2 from industry,
fossil fuels and farms "on any view is not a pollutant, it is plant and tree foo
d".
He said a doubling of atmospheric CO2 this century would be good because it
would increase food yields from "certain staple crops" by 40 per cent.
His appearance sparked ferocious debate on Twitter, many objecting to the
press club's decision to host him.
He appeared in a head-to-head debate with climate change advocate and
economist Richard Denniss.
Lord Monckton's comments are unlikely to help the Opposition convince voters
its policy is a serious response to climate change and followed just one day
after Mr Abbott admitted the 5% reduction in emissions that his policy sought,
would be wiped out within days by China's growth.
Senior Opposition figures hit the airwaves to reassure voters the Coalition's
policy was not merely the "fig-leaf" the Government had dubbed it, and that
the Coalition remained a believer in human induced global warming.
The Monckton appearance sent the Twittersphere into a frenzy with most
comments opposed to the peer who says questions on his membership of the Upper
House were "impertinent" and "futile and drivelling", citing his passport
title as the Viscount of Brenchley.
That brought derision from tweeters including AWU boss Paul Howes. "If I
change my name to the Rt Hon Lord Howes of Unionland and get a new passport
does that make me a member of the House of Lords?" he wrote.
MYREF: 20110720190001 msg2011072029495
[225 more news items]
---
[Something about "warm bath in sanctimony"]
Pop over to Tim Blair's for a look.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Feb 2011 14:39 +1100
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing
Shauna Theel
Media Matters For America
July 20, 2011 10:43 am ET
With an unusually intense heat wave sweeping the nation, Fox News has been
silent on global warming, which scientists say makes heat waves like this one
more likely. By contrast, Fox News repeatedly used winter storms to mock
global warming -- one of several problems with Fox's coverage of climate
change highlighted in a new mini-documentary by Media Matters Studios:
Most flagrantly, Fox Nation and Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Glenn
Beck, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Stuart Varney, and Eric Bolling all
seized upon the Feb 2010 blizzard to mock Al Gore and suggest that the storm
undermines the science supporting global warming. That same winter, Fox News
Washington managing editor Bill Sammon ordered the network's journalists to
cast doubt on climate change data.
In reality, that winter included "the eighth warmest Dec" since records began
in 1880, the "fourth warmest" Jan, and the "six warmest" Feb according to
global temperature data from NOAA. 2010 tied for the warmest y on record, and
2000-2009 was by far the warmest decade on record.
Over the past week, Fox News has not mentioned human-induced climate change or
global warming while reporting on or discussing the current heat wave,
according to a search of Snapstream video and Nexis transcripts.
The Washington Post reported that this "long duration, widespread heat wave
continues to bake virtually the entire central US" and "969 daily high
temperature records were either tied or broken in the country" through July
16. The Post further reported:
Climate change research indicates that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases
may already be increasing the likelihood of extreme heat events like this one,
including the 2003 European heat wave that killed tens of thousands. Also,
recent studies have projected much hotter summers beginning as soon as just a
few decades from now as the climate continues to warm. However, it will take m
if not y for scientists to determine whether climate change has played a role
in turning up the heat so far this summer, and in this heat wave specifically.
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told Media Matters it's "very probable that
any particular heat wave happening now will be shown to have become more
likely because of global warming," adding: "Of all the different extreme
events that can happen, the partial attribution of heat waves to ongoing
climate change is one of the easier connections."
Schmidt explained that there are a number of questions to ask when considering
whether global warming may be contributing to extreme weather events:
1) A sniff test - does it make any sense that this effect might be linked?
(this doesn't mean that non-obvious things can't happen, but the burden of
proof is higher).
2) Are there analyses in the scientific literature that indicate that models
do in fact show a change in this extreme as a function of increasing global
temperatures? Are these analyses credible? (this will depend on the scale
involved, etc.), do all models show the same thing?
3) Have we seen increases in the data already? (this can be hard since the
data on extremes is not very extensive).
4) Are the expected changes in the statistics commensurate with what has been
seen? (i.e. if models predict a 10% increase but the increase has been 100%,
then it's not clear we have understood what is going on).
In the case of heat waves, the answer to each of these questions is yes,
Schmidt said.
The National Research Council explained in a recent report that heat waves are
expected to become "more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting" in the
United States and around the globe as a result of human-induced climate
change.
This conclusion echoes the findings of the US Climate Change Science Program,
which stated in a 2009 assessment of climate change impacts in the United
States that "with rising high temperatures, extreme heat waves that are
currently considered rare will occur more frequently in the future." The
report added:
Recent studies using an ensemble of models show that events that now occur
once every 20 y are projected to occur about every other y in much of the
country by the end of this century. In addition to occurring more frequently,
at the end of this century these very hot days are projected to be about 10°F
hotter than they are today.
Extensive long-term and global data show that the climate is warming and the
recent heat wave is consistent with scientists' expectation of more frequent
and longer-lasting extreme heat events. Avoiding discussion of global warming
while covering the current heat wave is a bit like ignoring the economic
recession while discussing mass layoffs. The climate system is shifting. Will
Fox take notice?
MYREF: 20110721130001 msg2011072131731
[226 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
This is what the real climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer said.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 3 Mar 2011 16:29 +1100
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change
A review of the BBC's science coverage has concluded that its drive for
impartiality lends too much credence to maverick views on MMR, climate change
and GM
Gavin Esler was criticised in the review for being soft on climate sceptics in
an interview on BBC2's Newsnight.
Ian Sample
Guardian
Wed 20 July 2011 16.17 BST
The BBC is to revamp its science coverage after an independent review
highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent
controversy of scientific news stories such as climate change, GM crops and
the MMR vaccine by giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints.
The wide-ranging review found the network's science reporting was generally of
high quality, and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but
urged the broadcaster to tackle several areas of concern.
Commissioned last y to assess impartiality and accuracy in BBC science
coverage across television, radio and the internet, the review said the
network was at times so determined to be impartial that it put fringe views on
a par with well-established fact: a strategy that made some scientific debates
appear more controversial than they were.
The criticism was particularly relevant to stories on issues such as global
warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given
equal weighting to broad scientific consensus, creating what the report
describes as "false balance".
The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, emeritus
professor of genetics at University College London, and an in-depth analysis
by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC
in May, June and July of 2009 and 2010.
In his report, Jones lamented the narrow range of sources that reporters used
for stories, poor communication between journalists in different parts of the
organisation, and a lack of knowledge of the breadth of science.
"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in what BBC science is
doing. It is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, though,
there is a but," Jones told reporters on Wed.
Jones likened the BBC's approach to oppositional debates to asking a
mathematician and maverick biologist what 2 plus 2 equals. When the
mathematician says 4 and the maverick says five, the public are left to
conclude the answer is somewhere in between.
The report will disappoint some climate change sceptics who hoped it would
find the BBC at fault for promoting a green agenda. "There is a consensus in
the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," Jones
said. By failing to move the debate on, the BBC was missing other stories, he
added.
Alison Hastings of the BBC Trust said the corporation must avoid "bias by
elimination" and include dissenting voices in debates over science issues. But
she added that clearer identification of individuals' expertise and agendas
would help audiences judge their comments.
In further criticisms, Jones called on the BBC to be more proactive in finding
stories. Many came from the SE of England and some 75% were based on press
releases, he said. "Simply by the BBC feeding rather than hunting, it is
missing large amounts of scientific information," he said. Another concern was
the lack of women who either covered or appeared in stories.
The BBC Trust welcomed the review and announced a raft of changes, approved by
the BBC executive, to address the concerns raised. Journalists will be
offered training on impartiality, and a forum will be set up within the
corporation to foster better links between science journalists working in
different parts of the organisation.
The BBC executive said it would also appoint a new science editor to raise the
profile of science in BBC news and oversee the other planned initiatives.
Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said the report "highlights
the issue that, from time to time, a drive for 'impartiality at any cost' by
the BBC can lead to a highly misleading presentation of science in situations
where the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction rather than
another. It is encouraging that the BBC executive and BBC Trust accept this
criticism and will work with programme makers to improve their understanding
of this issue."
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: "The BBC has played a
significant part in creating the current surge of interest in science. The way
in which it covers science is generally of a very high quality. It is,
however, important that the need to separate opinion from evidence in coverage
of some topics has been recognised. It is important to have debate, but
marginal opinion - prominently expressed but not well based on evidence - can
mislead the audience. The BBC usually respects this but the challenge is to
get it right all of the time."
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of
Economics, said it was crucial for the BBC to "challenge inaccurate and
misleading claims made by bloggers, campaigners and politicians who 'reject
and deny the findings of mainstream science for ideological reasons.'
"The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the
coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet it is
well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow
self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' to mislead the public with
unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements," he said.
MYREF: 20110721180001 msg201107211548
[226 more news items]
---
>Why is it relevant that the 'chief scientist' is a woman?
Because women are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nyms] wrote:
>[mining lobby spin]
Green helmets
www.ocregister.com
Jul 21 2011
It was only a matter of time. The climate change frenzy has spawned the latest
Global Warming Absurdity of the Day - green-helmeted green cops.
"UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping," is the headline
in the UK's Guardian.
A special meeting was called to discuss how the UN can "intervene in
conflicts" caused by rising seas levels and shrinking resources. Considering
sea levels are rising by the alarming amount of about a fingernail's width or
length (depending on which preposterous "measurement" you rely on), we don't
see a whole lot of "conflicts" needing intervention.
But, judging from the UN's track record, that shouldn't deter their "police
action." On your behalf, of course. This mercifully may be a ways off, despite
silly alarmism like this:
"The security council should join the general assembly in recognising climate
change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as
great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism," Marcus Stephen, the
president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.
The Guardian reports that "there is a deep divide over whether the security
council should even consider climate change as a security issue. China, for
example, argues that the security council should leave climate change to the
experts."
Ha! There's a brainstorm. Now all they have to do is find "experts." Just
think, the touted UN can bring to climate change the same insightful,
considerate crisis management it brought to the oil-for-food and rape of
Congolese women. If these folks can't save us from horrid rising seas of
upwards of a fraction of an inch, who can?
MYREF: 20110722142645 msg2011072228488
[226 more news items]
---
[W]omen are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Abbott says he and Turnbull are at one
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has played down talk of a rift with Malcolm Turnbu
ll.
Australian News Channel
18:10, Fri July 22, 2011
But some of their coalition colleagues remain unconvinced by Mr Turnbull's
motives at a time when Mr Abbott and the coalition are riding high in the
opinion polls.
The government had no doubts about a split between the pair with Prime
Minister Julia Gillard suggesting the 2 were at odds over the science of
human-induced global warming.
Not so, Mr Abbott said when quizzed by reporters in northern Tasmania on Fri.
'I agree with Malcolm, the science has to be taken seriously and that climate
change happens,' he said, reiterating his position that humanity was making a
contribution to global warming.
Mr Turnbull, in a speech on Thu night, took aim at 'vested parties' saying
they were waging a war against scientists in order to suit their own financial i
nterests.
'On this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists
both here and abroad and rely instead on much less reliable views,' he said.
Mr Turnbull denied his comments were an attempt to undermine Mr Abbott, who
once described the science of human-induced climate change as 'absolute crap'.
'You couldn't be more wrong on that,' he said on Fri.
'The point that I made last night was that the Liberal Party's policy is to
support the science, that is to say Tony Abbott's policy is to support the scien
ce.'
Mr Abbott appeared satisfied with the explanation, saying Mr Turnbull put
things 'in his own way' and was entitled to do so.
But one senior opposition MP said the former leader's views were not shared by
everyone inside the party.
Andrew Robb said there were 'certainly many people with different views' on
the issue.
Senior Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce suggested Mr Turnbull might consider
doing a better job of 'self management' when espousing personal views that
could be at odds with coalition policy.
'The Australian people demand that with one party comes one policy,' he said.
Ms Gillard, continuing the hard sell of her carbon pricing plan in Townsville,
remains unconvinced about Mr Abbott's commitment to the science.
'The leader of the opposition has been known to say even recently 'so-called
carbon pollution" she said.
The government had some explaining to do about compensation at least two
states under its carbon pricing plan.
The Queensland and NSW governments want assistance for their state-owned
electricity generators, fearing a carbon tax will require an asset writedown.
Both states have missed out on a $5.5 bn package of free carbon credits and
cash that largely go to Victoria and S Australia.
Treasurer Wayne Swan wasn't keen to buy into the argument when quizzed by
reporters in Brisbane.
'Queensland is doing pretty well,' he said, adding the state was the site of a
$460 mn solar project at Chinchilla.
'There's a lot for Queensland already but we are having a talk about the
generators and more broadly about the package.'
MYREF: 20110722220001 msg2011072223626
[225 more news items]
---
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[mining lobby spin]
Turnbull attacks climate sceptics
[Political reporters say behind the scenes fellow Liberals (the Australian
term for "conservative") are calling for the removal of Mr Turnbull from the
front bench. He is again being described as a "loose canon" and other things
that can't be repeated in this timeslot].
ABC [Australia]
Sabra Lane
Fri, July 22, 2011 08:00:00
TONY EASTLEY: The former Liberal leader and senior frontbencher Malcolm
Turnbull has delivered a vigorous defence of climate change science.
Mr Turnbull says taking action to curb CO2 emissions isn't a cry from
ultra-radical socialists and to support his argument he told his audience even
Baroness Margaret Thatcher had advocated cutting greenhouse gases.
He says many people oppose cuts to emissions because it doesn't suit their
financial interests.
From Canberra, chief political correspondent Sabra Lane reports.
SABRA LANE: Last night, Malcolm Turnbull delivered the inaugural Virginia
Chadwick Foundation speech in honour of the late Liberal state minister who
fought passionately to protect of the Great Barrier Reef. MALCOLM TURNBULL:
The question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global
warming is not a matter of ideology let alone of belief. The issue is simply
one of risk management.
(Applause)
SABRA LANE: He told the mainly Liberal audience in Sydney that human induced
climate change is the biggest threat facing the reef.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and
believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions then
taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark
of incipient Bolshevism.
(Laughter)
SABRA LANE: Mr Turnbull lost the Liberal Party leadership in late 2009 over
his decision to support the Rudd government's carbon pricing scheme. The
current leader, Tony Abbott, once described the climate change science as
crap.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: It is undoubtedly correct that there has been a very
effective campaign against the science of climate change by those opposed to
taking action to cut emissions, many because it does not suit their own
financial interests and this has played into the carbon tax debate.
Normally, in our consideration of scientific issues we rely on expert advice,
agencies like the CSIRO or the Australian Academy of Science are listened to
with respect.
Yet on this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists
both here and abroad and rely instead on much less reliable views. So in the
storm of this debate about carbon tax, direct action and what the right
approach to climate change should be do not fall into the trap of abandoning
the science.
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that what Lord Monckton says or what
some website says is superior to what our leading scientists would say.
SABRA LANE: The Opposition's communications spokesman says the attack on the
science is a war.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: If we form a government and then seek to meet that 5 per
cent target through purchases of carbon offsets from farmers and payments to
polluting industry to cut their emissions, the opponents of the science of
climate change will be criticising that expenditure too as pointless and
wasteful with as much vehemence as they are currently denouncing Julia
Gillard's carbon tax.
SABRA LANE: Australia is the highest CO2 emitter per capita on the planet.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Chinese, whose emissions are about one-fifth of ours and
the Indians whose are less than one-tenth of ours find our regular references
to their emissions and why should we do anything until the Chinese or the
Indians do something, incredibly galling.
And those of us who have represented Australia at international conferences on
this issue know how incredibly embarrassing statements like that are when you
actually confront the representatives of those countries.
SABRA LANE: Those points will no doubt be put to Mr Abbott today, as he often
cites India and China as reasons why Australia shouldn't have a carbon tax.
TONY EASTLEY: Chief political correspondent, Sabra Lane.
MYREF: 20110722220605 msg201107222708
[225 more news items]
---
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a
steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last
50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to
human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nym shifts], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Fox News Inspiring Climate Science
Amy Westervelt
Forbes
Jul. 22 2011 - 4:52 pm
Fox News would seem to be an unlikely source of inspiration for climate
scientists, but amid the pundits and the botched infographics, Rupert
Murdoch`s fair and balanced news team struck a nerve on climate change. The
news reported was this: Despite all this talk about global warming, the past
decade actually saw less warming than the previous 30 years. Explain that,
climate changers!
While it is true that temperatures plateaued from 1998 to 2008, that fact,
taken out of the broader context of climate, leads to all sorts of false
assumptions. And so it is that, when confronted by yet another member of the
public citing the Fox News stat, climate scientist Robert Kaufmann set about
finding a scientific explanation.
The thing is, there's nothing at all straightforward about climate
science. Kaufmann's initial report, published earlier this m in Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, and a paper by another group of researchers
trying to explain the cooling, published yesterday in Science, are just the
latest examples. As the BBC's Richard Black points out, "Emitting excess
greenhouse gases is only one of the ways in which human industry, agriculture,
and transport are affecting the atmosphere."
The latest studies point out that both humans and nature emit sulfate aerosols
(tiny particles)-humans by burning fossil fuels, and nature by kicking around
dust and volcanic ash (hey, watch it, nature). Although other theories remain
about why this past decade was cooler than those previous, scientists seem to
be converging around this idea that sulfate particles, which reflect the sun,
are the culprits. Kaufmann's paper pointed at the rapid increase in coal
production in China, and the consequent emission of sulfate particles in the
low atmosphere, as the cause.
So ... coal combats global warming? Erm, no. Although sulfate particles may
have had the short-term effect of cooling temperatures, in the long run,
pumping CO2 into the atmosphere spells trouble. And in fact those same sulfate
particles are a primary ingredient in acid rain, so loading the atmosphere
with them is probably not a good idea either (although geoengineering
proponents have suggested doing exactly that to help cool the climate).
Other scientists have noted that while coal production has been increasing in
China over the past several years, it has been decreasing elsewhere. According
to Hiram Levy, a climate modeler at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory, there has been an overall increase of 10% in sulfate emissions
over the last decade, which wouldn't be enough to explain the slowdown.
Enter this month's second big climate science paper, which includes new
research from NOAA as well as other groups. Their theory builds upon
Kaufmann's, positing that it was sulfate particles released in the
stratosphere-not the atmosphere-that caused cooling, and that the sulfates
could have come from human activity, natural causes, or a combination of the two
.
All of which illustrates one of the big problems with climate science:
communication. How do you explain to people who don't study climate that what
is often referred to as "global warming" doesn't mean a steady warming of
temperatures over time? That today's weather may have nothing at all to do
with the climate on the whole? That there are multiple natural and human
activities happening in tandem and having various, complex effects on the
climate? That, as Mike Lemonick of Climate Central eloquently puts it,
"Anthropogenic warming has never been predicted to be steady. Understanding
episodes of faster and slower warming has always been a goal of climate scientis
ts."
It has taken some of the brightest scientists in the world over a year's worth
of research to look at all the inputs into the climate and come up with some
plausible theories to explain what it's doing. And that was all sparked by a
Fox News citation. The trouble is, the 600 or so words above don't fit neatly
into a soundbyte or an infographic, nor do the complexities of climate
science, so the chances of mainstream audiences getting a truly fair and
balanced view of climate change remain slim.
MYREF: 20110723190002 msg2011072325821
[227 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
mankind is responsible for that warming.
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE:
The Politics of Climate Denial Science
Simon Butler
Feb 5, 2010
The politics of climate denial and climate greenwash share much in common -
both are ways of denying reality. The comeback of climate denial is out of
step with views on climate change in most of the world.
It might seem bizarre that although the science of human-caused climate change
is more conclusive and worrying than ever, climate denial could enjoy a
resurgence. But it's happening - at least in Australia and a handful of other
developed nations.
The comeback of climate denial is out of step with views on climate change in
most of the world.
... [T]here are reasons why a political space for climate denial remains
open. The 1st of these is that climate deniers have it easy.
Climate scientists are required to deal skeptically with facts and measurable
data before drawing firm conclusions. Climate deniers have no such
constraints. They don't have to prove or justify anything, but merely have or
throw enough mud in the hope some of it will stick. This gives deniers an
advantage in public debates.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen explained something of the problem in his
recent book on the science of global warming Storms of my Grandchildren.
He said climate deniers
"tend to act like lawyers defending a client # presenting only arguments that
favour their client.
"This is in direct contradiction to my favourite description of the scientific
method, by Richard Ferryman: `The only way to have real success in science #
is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel
it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about
it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard
integrity and honesty'."
Hansen continued:
"The scientific method, in one sense, is a handicap in a debate before a
nonscientific audience. It works great for advancing knowledge, but to the
public it can seem wishy-washy and confounding.
"The difference between scientist-style and lawyer-style tends to favour the
[denier] in a discussion before an audience that is not expert in the science.
"I long ago realised that the global warming `debate', in the public mind,
would be long-running. I also noted that [deniers] kept changing their
arguments as the real-world evidence for global warming continued to
strengthen, conveniently forgetting prior statements that were proven wrong."
Australian paleoclimate scientist Andrew Glickson has referred to another
typical denier tactic.
Typically, deniers "scan the field for real or imagined, major or minor
errors, inferring such errors undermine major databases, theories, or even an
entire branch of science," he wrote on ABC's Unleashed blog in July.
Glickson compared climate deniers approach to "the eternal search for errors
and gaps in Darwin's evolution theory by creationists, based on their belief
in a supernatural creator."
A recent example of this strategy was the hype about a small error in the 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the predicted timeframe
for Himalayan glaciers to melt completely.
A paragraph in the IPCC report said that chances the glaciers would "disappear
# by the y 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high". On Jan 20, the IPCC
announced this particular prediction was wrong after leading glaciologists
drew attention to the mistake.
However, it said:
"Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent
decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century # This
conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying
science and the broader IPCC assessment."
The loss of meltwater from retreating glaciers could affect the water security
of up to one-sixth of the world's population.
But this hasn't stopped deniers from seizing on this one small error to allege
the whole 938-page IPCC report is fraudulent and the entire science of climate
change is bogus.
A second reason climate denial is winning some new support is that it exploits
peoples fear of change and the unknown. The science of climate change is
frightening. It makes plain that unless radical changes are made in our
economy and society, humanity faces an uncertain future.
People are responding differently to such an all-encompassing threat. A
growing number are determined to win a safe climate for future generations and
want to force governments to deal with the problem. But some have become
despondent and assume runaway climate change is inevitable and cannot be
stopped.
Others respond with denial - finding it easier to believe nothing is wrong at
all, rather than accept modern capitalism is driving humanity to a
precipice. For many, climate denial is a soothing psychological balm and
reflects a desperate need to escape from a troubling reality.
A 3rd reason for the recent rise in climate denial is that denial is now a
well-funded industry in its won right.
PR consultant Jim Hoggan, author of the 2009 book Climate Cover-up, has said
he has found it "infuriating # to watch my colleagues use their skills, their
training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate
on climate change."
"Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this
attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of
disinformation - one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in
history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the
best PR talent in the world," he wrote on the Desmogblog in June.
The mainstream media's coverage of climate change must also share some of the
blame. Despite the scientific consensus, "journalists continued to report
updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the
unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if
both were equally valid," Hoggan said.
The highly publicised Australian tour of prominent British climate denier,
Lord Christopher Monckton, laid bare this problem.
Monckton is not a scientist, but a former journalist, a semi-professional
eccentric and a one-time advisor to the conservative British PM Margaret
Thatcher. Yet despite his lack of qualifications his climate denial speaking
tour generated a vast amount of media coverage.
Monckton lies at the most kooky end of the climate denier spectrum. Even
National Party leader Barnaby Joyce, himself an uncompromising climate denier,
has said Monckton's views are on the "fringe." Even so, federal opposition
leader Tony Abbott met with Monckton to discuss climate policy on Feb 4.
Among Monckton's most absurd claims are that the Copenhagen climate conference
was "a sort of Nuremburg rally," that US President Barack Obama wants to use
climate change as an excuse to set up a world communist government, and that
the young protesters calling for strong climate action outside the Copenhagen
summit were akin to the Hitler youth.
While in Australia, he even claimed NASA sabotaged the launch of its own
multi-million dollar satellite a y ago because the satellite, designed to
measure atmospheric CO2 levels, would have given evidence that climate change
is untrue.
Monckton has a history of making wild claims. In 1987, he wrote that AIDS
victims should be locked away to stop the spread of the disease. He claims to
have found the cure for diseases such as Graves' disease, multiple sclerosis
and influenza. In a letter to US senator John McCain he also falsely said he
had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A final reason for resurgence of open climate denialism in Australia is the
federal ALP government's closet climate denialism.
PM Kevin Rudd is fond of ridiculing climate denial, but his own climate
policies do nothing to address the climate crisis. The proposed Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme will cost taxpayers billions and reward the big
polluters. Yet it will do nothing to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions.
By promising to take strong action on climate change, but failing to do so,
the Rudd government has opened the door for climate deniers to make ground. In
the face of obvious government greenwashing, some are concluding that the
threat may not be all that severe after all.
The politics of climate denial and climate greenwash share much in common -
both are ways of denying reality. To win against the climate deniers also
requires victory against the business-as-usual policies of the major parties,
which acknowledge the science in words but betray it in practice.
MYREF: 20110729150001 msg201107297370
[224 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers
of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
This is what the real climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer said.
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
This wk in global-warming denial
Peter Finocchiaro
Salon
Fri, Jul 29, 2011 18:30 ET
Why is a questionable study from a controversial researcher overshadowing
actual science?
PHOTO: University of Alabama scientist Roy Spencer
July has been marked by an abundance of new evidence and arguments that point
to the adverse effect of man-made climate change. But, surprisingly, it's
been a controversial study from a controversial scientist that has generated
the most buzz. Unsurprisingly, a slew of prominent right-leaning websites are
pointing to it as proof that global warming is a hoax.
The report, by University of Alabama scientist Roy Spencer and published in
the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing, argues that heat is actually
escaping from Earth much more quickly than current climate models
predicted. This assessment, if accurate, could mean that the dramatically
rising temperatures that scientists currently anticipate would not ultimately
occur. The hypothesis hinges, as LiveScience points out, on the idea that
clouds trap heat in our atmosphere, not carbon dioxide, and there's nothing we
could, or should, do to affect that.
Of course, in the highly charged arena of global-warming politics, a study
like this is catnip for climate-change deniers. Forbes columnist James Taylor
sparked a furor on Wed when he published a piece that claimed: "New NASA data
blow gaping hole in global-warming alarmism." From there, the usual suspects
(e.g., Fox News, the Daily Caller, NewsMax) piled on, along with the
International Business Times, the Newark Star-Ledger, the Kansas City Star and
other outlets.
But what exactly does the science say?
According to prevailing theories on climate change, carbon emissions warm up
the atmosphere, which causes greater quantities of water around the world to
evaporate. This, in turn, increases the rate of cloud formation, which
exacerbates the warming. (While greenhouse gases are certainly effective at
trapping heat in our atmosphere, clouds are even better at it.) The additional
warming causes even more evaporation, followed by cloud formation and more
warming, still. This kind of self-reinforcing cycle is called a "positive
feedback loop," and it's a central idea in climate-change science.
But Spencer argues -- pointing to NASA satellite data from 2000 through 2011
-- that temperatures, as they actually occurred, didn't match up with
projections from climate-change models. He argued that cloud formation was a
much better predictor of temperature, and that random cloud generation --
dictated by the chaos of global weather patterns, not by greenhouse-gas
emissions -- is what really drives changes in temperature.
But there are very real problems with Spencer's analysis, according to climate
scientists. LiveScience interviewed several experts, none of whom agreed with
the conclusions of Spencer's research. One NASA climatologist pointed out that
nobody -- including Spencer -- knows what causes the mismatch between
temperature projections and satellite-based climate data. Others blasted
Spencer's conclusion (that cloud formation drives temperature change) as
unrealistic. Others still questioned the statistical significance of his
findings. The overwhelming sentiment is that the satellite data is
inconclusive, but when compared against a large body of evidence from other
sources, Spencer's findings seem unremarkable.
Then there are the curiosities of Roy Spencer himself. As Discover's "Bad
Astronomy" blog points out,
[Spencer] is an author for the �ber-conservative Heartland Institute (as is
James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial
funding from -- can you guess? -- ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with 2
other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.
Not to mention that Spencer's satellite-based research has been disputed, and
refuted, in the past. In 2005, he and a colleague were compelled to apologize
for a report in which they suggested that the lowest layer of our atmosphere
is cooling, when the data he used actually supported the entirely opposite concl
usion.
What may be most galling is that, while Spencer and his study hog the majority
of attention, a whole spate of other climate-related developments paint an
incredibly bleak picture for the future of our planet.
According to a report issued by the United Nations earlier this month:
It is rapidly expanding energy use, mainly driven by fossil fuels, that
explains why humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability
boundaries through global warming, biodiversity loss, and disturbance of the
nitrogen-cycle balance and other measures of the sustainability of the earth's e
cosystem.
Meanwhile, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN's secretary-general, argued this wk for swift
action to combat man-made climate change, noting that "extreme weather events
continue to grow more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike,
not only devastating lives, but also infrastructure, institutions, and budgets
-- an unholy brew which can create dangerous security vacuums."
At the same time, a group of American researchers released a study showing
that rising temperatures in the Arctic could exacerbate climate problems as
massively carbon-producing forest fires light up the once-permafrost region.
And, even looking beyond the statements of credible sources, both in academia
and on the world stage, ample evidence contradicts Spencer's conclusions. The
vicious confluence of weather anomalies in recent y -- and, even just this y
we've seen a rash of devastating floods, tornadoes and droughts -- suggest
that shifting climate patterns are having adverse and wide-ranging effects on
our ecosystem.
In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that
extreme weather in the US has caused $32 bn worth of damage so far this
year. 8 such disasters have cost more than $1 bn each, one shy of a record.
Given the abundance of bad news about the impact of climate change, it's
surprising that the one study that does garner attention has only the weight
of a discredited contrarian to back it up.
MYREF: 20110730150001 msg2011073020769
[231 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
The suspicious suspension of a climate scientist
Natasha Lennard
Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:30 ET
PHOTO: A lone polar bear -- bedraggled, exhausted and starving -- collapses on
an isolated patch of floating ice and awaits death. Such images -- symbolic of
global warming -- have helped galvanize a generation of environmentalists.
Charles Monnett was the 1st scientist who warned that a warming Arctic
threatened polar bears. But now, the federal agency where Monnett works is
suspending him, while putting his work under official investigation for
possible scientific misconduct.
The details of Monnett's suspension are unclear, but the timing is considered
suspicious by a number of groups.
"You have to wonder: this is the guy in charge of all the science in the
Arctic and he is being suspended just now as an arm of the interior department
is getting ready to make its decision on offshore drilling in the Arctic
seas," Jeff Ruch, president of the group Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, told the Guardian. "This is a cautionary tale with a deeply
chilling message for any federal scientist who dares to publish groundbreaking
research on conditions in the Arctic."
Ruch's group has filed an official complaint with the government over the
issue, demanding Monnett's reinstatement and an apology. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement -- where Monnett is employed --
has been criticized over its work in the Arctic in the past, reports the Guardia
n:
A 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office found huge gaps in
Boemre's research on the impacts of drilling in the Arctic. And the Alaska
Wilderness League stated: "Alaska Boemre has continued to ignore science and
traditional knowledge in its decision-making about oil and gas development."
However, climate change deniers are already jumping on Monnett's suspension. A
post from Investors.com, aggregated by Fox News, proclaimed, "The global
warming fraud is coming apart faster than the alarmists can repackage and
rebrand their fairy tale."
MYREF: 20110730160001 msg2011073030806
[230 more news items]
---
Ever seen film of the Polar bear bashing through the ice to get seal
cubs? Less ice more food for the Polar Bear
-- george <gbl...@hnpl.net>, 27 Oct 2010 15:55:37 -0700
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Climate Science Once Again Twisted Beyond Recognition By Conservative Media
Jocelyn Fong
Media Matters For America
August 01, 2011 8:53 pm ET
"Has a central tenant [sic] of global warming just collapsed?" That's the 1st
sentence of a July 29 Fox News article about a recent study which shows
nothing of the sort, demonstrating just how broken climate change coverage is
at news outlets like Fox, where scientific illiteracy meets political slant.
Last week, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), one
of the few climate scientists who think we don't need to worry much about
global warming, published a paper purportedly challenging mainstream climate
models that is both limited in scope and, by many accounts, flawed. After a
Forbes column by James Taylor of the libertarian Heartland Institute
misinterpreted the study and declared that it blows a "gaping hole in global
warming alarmism," an avalanche of conservative media outlets, including Fox,
followed suit:
Christian Post: Scientist Says His Study May Disprove Global Warming
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianpost.com%2Fnews%2Fscient
ist-says-his-study-may-disprove-global-warming-53091%2F
Fox Nation: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnation.foxnews.com%2Fglobal-warming%2
F2011%2F07%2F29%2Fnew-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hole-global-warming-alarmism
Investor's Business Daily: Junk Science Unravels
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.investors.com%2FNewsAndAnalysis%2
FArticle%2F579823%2F201107281902%2FJunk-Science-Unravels.htm
FoxNews.com: Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space?
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fscitech%2F2011%2F07
%2F29%2Fdata-cooling-on-global-warming%2F
Newsmax: NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2FNewsfront%2FNASA-Gl
obal-Warming-Alarmists%2F2011%2F07%2F28%2Fid%2F405200
Hot Air: Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2011%2F07%2F2
8%2Fsky-high-hole-blown-in-agw-theory%2F
Daily Mail: Climate change far less serious than 'alarmists' predict says NASA s
cientist
http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-
2020427%2FClimate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html
In fact, not one of these headlines is supported by the study, which itself
suffers from important shortcomings, according to climate experts.
Even Spencer, who has said that part of his job is "to minimize the role of
government," says media outlets "are overstating what the research found,"
according to the Associated Press. On his website, Spencer wrote that the
Forbes column makes a key error: "Taylor's article makes it sound much more
certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the
long term." It is important to note, however, that the UAH press release also
overstates the findings and appears designed to attract this type of media atten
tion.
Several climate scientists noticed the inability on the part of conservative
media outlets to consider the study with an ounce of caution or nuance:
* NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said: "If you want to do a story then write
one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press
release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime."
* Kerry Emanuel of MIT said those seizing on the study are misstating
Spencer's findings and that their reports have "no basis in reality."
* Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a frequent critic of
the IPCC, wrote of the Forbes piece: "it may be appropriate to use the word
'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a
computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken
seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics."
* Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said via email
that "a well-orchestrated effort to hype" the paper accounts for the media
attention it has received, rather than its scientific merit or importance.
Indeed, the fact that this paper has attracted this level and type of media
coverage, while other more robust research goes unmentioned, is exasperating
for many climate scientists.
MEDIA COVERAGE SPINS OUT OF CONTROL
Conservative media outlets hyping the study repeated the false claim from the
UAH press release and Taylor's Forbes column that the study refutes climate
models' predictions of future warming. Fox News anchor Bret Baier even adopted
Taylor's language, asserting that "satellite data from the last decade appears
to be blowing a hole in global warming":
Working from the UAH press release and Taylor's Forbes piece, a number of
conservative media outlets added their own faulty conclusions:
* The FoxNews.com article claimed the study shows that "the planet isn't
heating up."
* NewsMax declared that the paper was a "NASA study" that "may prove
global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along."
* The website Hot Air claimed the study "shows that the effects of
carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated."
* The Christian Post claimed Spencer "thinks that data from a NASA satellite
can disprove the theory of global warming."
* The 700 Club claimed that the study means "much less greenhouse gases are
trapped in the upper atmosphere and that global warming is not a problem"
* Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business network said the study indicates "that global
warming is not occurring at a rapid rate that others have warned about." (He
also announced that Spencer will appear on the show to discuss the study this we
ek.)
These claims are not supported by Spencer's paper. They represent an
interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of data.
SPENCER'S PAPER DOES NOT SHOW THAT CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG ON FUTURE WARMING
The reason scientists are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions is not just
because they cause the planet to warm by allowing less energy to escape to
space, but also because that increase in temperatures changes the climate
system in ways that amplify the warming.
Water vapor is an example of one of these "positive feedbacks" as it is a
powerful greenhouse gas that increases in the atmosphere when the temperature
increases. Melting sea ice also amplifies warming because sunshine that would
otherwise be reflected by the ice is now being absorbed. Scientists try to
account for all of these positive feedbacks as well as any negative feedbacks
to determine "climate sensitivity," or how much warming we can expect from a
doubling of greenhouse gases compared to pre-industrial levels.
Spencer thinks climate models are overestimating the magnitude of the positive
feedbacks, but concedes that his paper doesn't prove that to be the
case. Rather, he says his study had the limited aim of responding to a
previous publication by Andy Dessler of Texas A&M University which estimated
cloud feedback in a way Spencer believes is faulty. "Our paper would never
have been written if not for the need to answer Dessler's paper," he said.
Spencer's study compared temperature measurements from 2000-2010 to data from
a NASA satellite on how much energy is leaving the atmosphere. He then
compared that information to 6 climate models ("the 3 most sensitive models
and the 3 least sensitive models") over the 1900-1999 period and found what he
calls "huge discrepancies" between the models and the observations regarding
the relationship between temperature changes and the energy radiated. But he
added: "While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate
sensitivity of the real climate system," a variety of other factors affecting
the statistics "preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback
difference is."
In response to Spencer's paper NCAR scientists Kevin Trenberth and John
Fasullo ran their own comparison of the models and the observations and
concluded that the results depend largely on which models are chosen. In other
words, if you select the models in a different way from the 6 used by Spencer,
the "huge discrepancies" disappear. Trenberth and Fasullo concluded that
"there are some good models and some not so good," but "the net result is that
the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations." They also
stated that Spencer's paper "has very basic shortcomings because no
statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given
either in the figures or discussed in the text."
In the paper, Spencer goes on to use what's called a simple climate model to
interpret his results and concludes that you can't estimate feedback from
satellite data because "natural cloud variations" driving temperature changes
can be mistaken for cloud feedback. This conclusion does not speak to the
validity of the climate models but rather to the validity of attempts to test
the models' estimates of climate sensitivity with satellite observations. For
their part, Trenberth and others take issue with Spencer's model and say
temperature changes drive cloud behavior, not the other way around.
Judith Curry wrote that the analysis by Trenberth and Fasullo "points out some
significant flaws" in Spencer's paper. Curry said that while she agrees with
part of the paper, Spencer and his co-author were "concluding too much from
their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models," addi
ng:
It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set,
Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated
with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice
sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models
are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.
Kerry Emanuel similarly stated that "there is nothing in the paper that casts
in doubt what the IPCC models are telling us, only that a particular technique
for diagnosing climate feedback from short-term observations (not models) is
suspect." He also said the paper "has no implications whatsoever" for the
question of whether global warming is an urgent problem.
MYREF: 20110802180002 msg20110802718
[230 more news items]
---
[T]he United States has less than a century left of its turn as top
nation. Since the modern nation-state was invented around the year 1500, a
succession of countries have taken turns at being top nation, first Spain,
then France, Britain, America. Each turn lasted about 150 years. Ours began in
1920, so it should end about 2070.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the
Universe", 2007.
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Rush Limbaugh, global warming and our weather
Rush Limbaugh sees the reporting of the heat index as a piece of government
propaganda designed to convince people that it is hotter than it actually is.
Don Shelby
MinnPost
Tue, Aug 2 2011 9:20 am
Last m we set a record for the highest dew point ever recorded at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Chicago recorded the very same
thing. Yesterday, the news came that there is more land in the United States
in extreme drought than in the history of the country. And it has been wet,
too. In Alexandria, for instance, folks can't raise their docks any higher, so
many people are simply pulling them out. Of course, Australia and Pakistan
have seen more rain in the last 5 m than they've seen in their history. The
Horn of Africa is in a drought worse than the one currently hammering Texas.
Is this just weather? Or, is it climate?
The reason I ask is to turn the question on its head. I hear from a lot of
global warming skeptics and deniers. I listen to a lot of conservative radio,
and I often hear riffs on the same melody. I usually hear it in the when the
weather is cool or when Atlanta or Washington, D.C., see snowfall. Those local
events rarely produce a statistical blip on the summary of the continued
warming of our whole planet, but the deniers say, "Where is your global
warming, now?"
Over the past 2 or 3 decades, the scientists have been careful in pointing out
that "single weather events can't be attributed to global warming." It is,
after all, climate change we are talking about and not weather change. To be
clear, the scientists have repeated that line whether people were asking about
hot, cold, wet or dry weather.
But even scientists are beginning to change their minds about what we are
witnessing through our windows. These extreme events, taken together, may be a
sign of things to come. The chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has said, "...climate change and its impacts
are not off in the future, but are here and now."
There are 2 ways to explain what is happening. One is scientific and the other
is political. You are familiar with the political arguments, but let me cite
one of the most recent. A couple of wk ago, during the most intense part of
this year's summer heat wave that settled across the upper United States, TV
weather people, newspaper writers and internet reporters were telling folks
what the air temperature would actually feel like. They were reporting the
"heat index." It was a formula developed in 1978 that combines relative
humidity with the temperature at any given place and point in time, and the
result is what the inventor called the "humiture." The National Weather
Service adopted the heat index a y later. It isn't much different than our
much beloved wind-chill factor -- the combining of temperature and wind to
create a new temperature that tells us how cold it will "feel."
Limbaugh rant
During this last heat wave, Rush Limbaugh began to meltdown a little on his
radio show. He saw the reporting of the heat index, a number usually higher
than the actual temperature, as a piece of government propaganda designed to
convince people that it was hotter than it actually was. You can find the
always entertaining Limbaugh rant below.
I am much obliged to Dr Joseph Romm at Climate Progress for pointing out that
Limbaugh told listeners that the government was "playing games with us on this
heat wave, again."
Thank goodness we have Rush Limbaugh to give us a coolheaded response to
killing heat.
On the other side of the ledger is science, and some of its best practitioners
are doing the heavy lifting required to establish or refute any links between
today's very odd weather systems and rising global temperatures due to
increased CO2 in the atmosphere. If you are interested in getting an up close
look at that work, you can visit a three-part series produced for Scientific
American by John Carey.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC
Scientific Assessment. He spends a lot of his time trying to tease out what
weather events are naturally occurring and part of the planet's normal
background noise, and what events are exacerbated by global warming.
Trenberth says that the extreme drying like those happening in Texas and the
Horn of Africa happens from time to time. But the intensity and duration of
these naturally occurring events is made worse by global warming. "Higher air
temperatures, essentially, suck the moisture out of the soil. Warmer air can
hold more moisture. This further dries out the soil, but moistens the
atmosphere...the result is longer lasting and more intense droughts."
Heavy rain falls, flooding and monsoons in India and China are seen by a
growing segment of the climate science community as examples of the same
problem. All the moisture being sucked up out of the earth and oceans ends up
circulating around the planet, and what goes up, must come down. Eventually
the moisture drops out of the atmosphere as rain, sleet and snow. More and
more these days, it is coming down in greater amounts, and because Mother
Nature is sometimes fickle, it comes down exactly where it isn't needed.
Paul Douglas explains
Americans get their scientific information (and this is no joke) primarily
from television weather casters. Most TV weather folks aren't prepared to talk
about long-range climate realities as they focus their attention on the
five-day outlook. An exception is Paul Douglas, formerly of KARE-TV and
WCCO-TV, he is now the head of WeatherNation.
He says: "One instrument playing out of tune would be noise and
insignificant. We have an entire global orchestra playing out of tune with all
these weather extremes happening simultaneously. At some point you have to
recognize that this is not your grandfather's weather system. I'm seeing
things I've never seen before."
Then he adds, "Just last month, in July, we had 2,676 records broken. The
most ever. The hottest in Washington, D.C., since 1871. There is more moisture
in the atmosphere than we've ever seen before."
I asked Paul what more moisture means to our weather. "It means a greater
potential for extreme events. One study showed that extreme precipitation
events increased 24% in the United States between 1948 and 2006. That's snow,
as well as rain."
Then, I ask, why aren't TV meteorologists telling folks these facts?
Douglas says: "My colleagues in the weather forecasting business are skeptics
when it comes to climate models. We have been burned so many times on the
short-term weather models that they find it hard to accept climate models that
stretch out 30 years. What they don't understand is that they are 2 entirely
different sciences."
Douglas: "Thirty y ago, the climate scientists told us what to expect with
global warming. We are seeing it now."
Limbaugh: "They [the government] are playing games with us."
For y I've been telling people to avoid making assumptions about global
warming by simply looking out one's window. It was good advice back then. It
is not anymore.
MYREF: 20110803120001 msg2011080326758
[232 more news items]
---
>Why is it relevant that the 'chief scientist' is a woman?
Because women are easier prey for scams such as The Great Global Warming Hoax!
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Extreme summer temperatures reduce chicken consumption in Turkey
[You have to ask yourselves, who benefits from global warming. Turns out it
isn't the mice].
Today's Zaman, İstanbul
August 03, 2011
Above-average temperatures have negatively affected chicken consumption this
summer, Beyza Pili� General Coordinator Necmettin �alı�kan said on Wed.
In remarks to the Anatolia news agency �alı�kan said that the Turkish meat
chicken sector was beginning to recover from the effects of the 2008 global
financial crisis but has been hit hard again by extreme weather conditions
this summer. "Just when we were expecting to see increased sales during
Ramadan, the opposite is happening. People are consuming less chicken due to
extremely hot summer temperatures coinciding with the holy month. They prefer
meals with more vegetables," �alı�kan said. "Usually in Ramadan, people
prefer to eat white meatbecause it is healthier than red meat. However,
customers say chicken spoils too quickly in hot weather. This has seriously
affected our sales." He added that although the price of a whole chicken has
dropped from TL 5.50 to TL 5.00, sales have not risen as expected.
�alı�kan said that extreme weather conditions have necessitated killing many
chickens before they would normally be slaughtered. "In normal conditions we
do not slaughter a chicken before it reaches 2.5 kilograms, but many chickens
are dying due to the recent weather, with temperatures exceeding 40
degrees. These temperatures are risky for animals. In order to minimize our
losses, we have been forced to slaughter chickens at weights below 2.5
kilograms, which means the industry, which is already struggling, faces the
risk of losing more customers by being forced to sell lower-quality meat."
�alı�kan also noted that this year's uprisings in the Middle E and North
Africa have negatively affected Turkey's chicken export figures. Normally, 10
to 15% of Turkey's total meat chicken production is sold abroad. "For
instance, the developments in Syria have made exporting to that country
difficult," he said.
MYREF: 20110804070002 msg2011080430491
[229 more news items]
---
[A]s a Conservative, I have no tolerance for ambiguity.
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Fox's Latest Assault on Climate Science: Attack SpongeBob
[Absorbant and square and green is he!]
Peter H. Gleick
HuffPost
8/3/11 06:17 PM ET
Today's (August 3) edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends included a remarkable
exchange on the issue of SpongeBob Squarepants, climate change science, and
the state of science education in the US.
Apparently, using cartoons to teach children about important science issues of
the day raises hackles at Fox, especially when those issues are at odds with
their political perspectives. In particular, Fox & Friends attacked SpongeBob
for an episode in which the role of human emissions (or at least SpongeBob and
Mr Krab's emissions) of CO2 in global warming is made clear -- a
scientific fact well understood for over a century.
Fox's Steve Doocy acknowledges that the planet is warming; but doesn't
understand why. He says "the big question is, 'is it manmade, or is it just
one of those gigantic climatic phases that we're going through.'" A colleague
says "It's unproven science."
But for Gretchen Carlson, it isn't enough that the show tackled an issue of
public concern, she just doesn't understand SpongeBob at all. She said "it's
hard to even follow sometimes," while another commentator is heard saying "I
don't get it."
Of course, the idea that humans are largely responsible for the growing
changes in climate that we are observing around the world is not
scientifically controversial -- just politically controversial at places like
Fox & Friends. Every single professional scientific organization in the
geosciences and every single national academy of sciences acknowledges the
major contribution of humans to climate change -- [129]here is just a partial
list. There is still controversy, especially over how policymakers should
tackle the problem, but the "scientific controversy" is only evident in the
right-wing media among commentators, bloggers, and editorial boards.
What is particularly ironic about this Fox & Friends episode is that after
misrepresenting the science themselves, they lament the state of science
education in the US and call for improvement. Perhaps we could start with the
commentators at Fox & Friends.
MYREF: 20110804161852 msg2011080422030
[228 more news items]
---
Temperatures don't follow the 11-year solar cycle.
Other than that 11-year cycle the total solar output
is reasonably constant.
-- BONZO [numerous nyms], 5 Jun 2011 00:08 +1000
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Lou Dobbs Breaks His Promise To "Debunk Climate Change"
Roy Spencer fails to support extreme skeptics.
Jill Fitzsimmons & Jocelyn Fong
Media Matters For America
August 04, 2011 5:56 pm ET
Promoting an interview with scientist and climate skeptic Roy Spencer, Fox
Business' Lou Dobbs claimed last wk that Spencer's "new findings throw the
entire global warming theory into question." Not to be misunderstood, Dobbs
slowed down and repeated the claim: "I said new facts throw the entire global
warming theory into question."
Dobbs teased the interview again at the end of his August 2 show, stating:
"Debunking climate change -- new evidence from NASA. The whole thing. Well
tune in, Al Gore, tomorrow."
But on August 3, Dobbs changed his tune. His interview with Spencer did not
address whether global warming is happening or whether humans are contributing
to it, but what the "effects" will be. In fact, at the end of the interview,
Dobbs concluded: "[T]here's no question about climate change. What there is an
issue about is the effect of it primarily, and really not much of a discussion
about cause either."
That doesn't mean, however, that the claims made by Dobbs (and Spencer) during
the show were actually supported by Spencer's study. Nor did Dobbs bother to
mention that many climate scientists have criticized Spencer's methodology and
disputed the study's conclusions.
Dobbs wasn't the only media figure quick to grossly exaggerate Spencer's
findings. As we detailed, conservative media outlets ran sensational headlines
this week, falsely claiming that Spencer's study refutes the notion that
climate change is a problem. Today Rush Limbaugh claimed the paper showed that
"the whole thing has been" a "hoax."
Even Spencer, who makes known his conservative political views, said media
outlets "are overstating what the research found," according to the Associated
Press. On his website, Spencer conceded that he "did not actually 'prove'"
that "the models produce too much warming in the long term." However, Spencer
himself overstated the findings during his television appearance.
Dobbs claimed Spencer's research shows "the future effects of warming could be
far less than what most computer models to this point have predicted." And
Spencer said that contrary to IPCC model projections of 3 degrees C of
warming, "We're finding from the real satellite data of how the real climate
system operates that it might be more like 1 degree C of warming, and maybe
even less." But these statements are not supported by the study, which only
looked at the past 10 y and cannot speak to long-term warming projections.
Asked about Spencer's performance on Fox Business, MIT atmospheric scientist
Kerry Emanuel said:
I cannot see how Spencer's statements to Fox are supported by his data. I must
say I am disconcerted to hear him spinning his own work.
Similarly, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a frequent
critic of the IPCC, wrote that Spencer and his co-author were "concluding too
much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of
models," adding:
It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set,
Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated
with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice
sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models
are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.
MYREF: 20110805113702 msg2011080532716
[226 more news items]
---
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[coal lobby spin]
Why It's Impossible for Humans to Cause Global Warming -- Fox
TreeHugger
Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York
08.10.11
As of late, Fox News has been particularly egregious in it's never-ending
quest to sew doubt about the unequivocal scientific consensus that humans are
causing the climate to warm -- see the SpongeBob SquarePants debacle, the moon
volcano proof, the heat index nonsense, the list goes on. But this one takes
the cake: Fox had the gall to get Joe Bastardi, the network's resident global
warming "expert" (he works for the WeatherBELL meteorological consulting
firm), to do a segment called "Why CO2 Can't Cause Warming" that was
explicitly staged to explain that humans could not possibly be contributing to
climate change.
It was, as one climate scientist retorted, "utter nonsense".
As in, not the kind of nonsense that belies traditional climate skepticism --
skeptics usually focus on some outwardly plausible concept and twist the
evidence to sew doubt (sun spots! the climate's not that sensitive to CO2
concentrations! it's natural cycles). No, this is the level of nonsense that
requires you to check your Physics 101 textbook at the door. Or, more
accurately, I suppose, pretend that it never existed.
Here's Media Matters:
Joe Bastardi ... declared that the theory of human-induced climate change
"contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be
neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the
atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."
It's not clear what to conclude from this except that Fox and Bastardi are not
familiar with the greenhouse effect. Climate scientists aren't claiming that
humans are creating energy. They're saying that humans are trapping more
energy by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Joe Bastardi, ignoramus though he may be, is certainly aware of this -- which
makes the segment that much more despicable, since he's clearly lying through
his teeth in order to serve the network's ideological agenda.
For further evidence of just how full of it Bastardi and Fox are, we turn it
over to Duke University scientist William Chameides, who called Fox's claims
"utter nonsense," explained via email:
It is true that global warming requires a source of heat. In this case it
comes from the sun. What CO2 does is trap a larger amount of the heat from the
sun, preventing it from escaping and thus driving up temperatures. To argue
otherwise is to argue that the greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact the
existence of the greenhouse effect was established by scientists more than a
century ago. It would be impossible to explain the temperatures of Mars and
Venus, as well as the Earth, without invoking this effect.
It's pretty clear here that science has nothing to do with this. Fox was just
expecting its viewers to nod along with all of the big words, providing them
some empty fodder with which to reinforce their already-steadfast beliefs that
global warming is a hoax (beliefs made steadfast, of course, due largely to
Fox and co relentlessly inculcating such talking points into their skulls for
the last 5 years).
And you know what? That's probably exactly what happened.
MYREF: 20110811120002 msg2011081117367
[226 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
Warming@globalscamagw AGWscamGlobal
"Mr Posting Robot v2.1" <ro...@kymhorsell.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:4e4337e8$0$2447$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>>[coal lobby spin]
>
> Why It's Impossible for Humans to Cause Global Warming -- Fox
>
Yep.
So far, NO EVIDENCE!
As the good professor said ....
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
...
> "AGWscamGlobal" <AGWscamGlobal Warming@globalscamagw> wrote:
> So far, NO EVIDENCE!
...
What's going down? Not temperatures, or AC bills
Tony Gutierrez
AP/USA Today
Aug 10 2011
This summer's record-shattering heat wave brings to mind the lyrics of an old
Buffalo Springfield song: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't
exactly clear."
What's happening is extraordinarily hot weather, centered in the Southern
Plains. Oklahoma's average temperature in July (88.9 degrees) was the hottest
for any state for any m on record. Dallas is closing in on its record of 42
consecutive days of 100-plus degree weather. Newark set an all-time high of
108 on July 22. Washington, DC, has had 24 days at 95 degrees or above,
approaching the record of 28. Nationally, last m was the 4th hottest July on
record, with communities in all 50 states setting high temperature records.
What's not exactly clear is why this is happening. Is it just a freakishly hot
summer resulting from an unusual, Dust Bowl-type weather pattern? Or, more
ominously, does it reflect the impact of heat-trapping gases being pumped into
the world's atmosphere at a rate of tens of millions of tons a day?
While scientists caution that no individual extreme weather event can be
conclusively linked to global warming, this summer is consistent with
computer-model predictions of hotter days, warmer nights and more severe
droughts.
Here's one way to think of it: The atmosphere is juiced like athletes on
performance-enhancing drugs. During baseball's steroid era, steroids didn't
turn singles into home runs. But what used to be fly balls to the warning
track ended up over the fence.
Similarly, climate change and urbanization don't cause heat waves and droughts
so much as intensify them. So what used to be a 95-degree day can become a
100-degree day. Or what once was a 75-degree nighttime low can turn into an
80-degree night.
Opponents of efforts to combat global warming talk about the price of putting
a tax on carbon or creating a market-based system to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The leading "cap and trade" bill in the Senate, for example, would
cost an estimated $350 in 2025 per four-person household.
But the climate change skeptics and deniers -- many of whom hail from Texas
and Oklahoma, the epicenter of this summer's misery -- rarely discuss the
price of inaction. If you accept that climate change is occurring, such costs
are reflected in higher air conditioning bills and wilted crops.
According to a study by Tufts University researchers for the National
Resources Defense Council, climate change will cost the average four-person
household an additional $340 in energy costs in 2025, plus $2,950 for
hurricane damages, real estate losses and water-supply costs.
Given the threats from global warming, a prudent society would begin moving
aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and to develop cleaner energy
sources. It would lead a global effort to reduce greenhouse gases because
unilateral US action won't accomplish much unless it's accompanied by
reductions in developing nations such as China and India.
Some 98% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and is very
likely caused primarily by human activity. The evidence continues to mount: 9
of history's 10 hottest y have occurred in the past 13 years. In the USA, new
high temperature records outnumbered low temperature records by more than
2-to-1 over the past decade. And the volume of Arctic sea ice reached record
lows for July.
Too often, climate change is discussed as something to be worried about far
off into the future, so far that it dims in importance compared with more
pressing concerns. Both the latest global data and the USA's sweltering summer
suggest, however, that the future might be now.
MYREF: 20110811135246 msg2011081127671
[226 more news items]
---
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
Earth's atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water
vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers
of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases.
Peter Webb
proposition that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause?
The temperatures were increasing *before* we started putting CO2 into the
atmosphere in any quantity, and indeed have increased many, many times
before man even evolved.
On the evidence to hand, anthropogenic CO2 is clearly *not* the cause of
global warming.
Warming@globalscamagw AGWscamGlobal
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3PN0q.26613$oL3....@newsfe13.iad...
> On 11/08/2011 05:03, Peter Webb wrote:
>> How is evidence that the earth is getting warmer supposed to support the
>> proposition that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause?
>
> corresponding natural variation of the solar flux can be found to explain
> away the most recent temperature rises. It is constrained by satellite
> observations so you cannot just magic the sun to be brighter and keep on
> trashing the environment for fun and profit.
>>
>> The temperatures were increasing *before* we started putting CO2 into
>> the atmosphere in any quantity, and indeed have increased many, many
>> times before man even evolved.
>
> to explain the observed warming without including the effects of GHG
> forcing. Changes in the past four decades mostly due to AGW are roughly at
> the same magnitude as 140 years of natural climate change and we are still
> pumping ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Huh?
Half of the present warming (About 0.35ºC) occurred naturally between 1910
and 1940!
No warming since 1995!
So what you said is total and utter GARBAGE!
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Research and Politics
Derek Quizon
Inside Higher Ed
August 12, 2011
In the late 1990s, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, collaborated with 2 researchers on a pair of studies
that altered the dialogue on climate change. The studies, a collaboration
between Bradley, a geophysicist named Michael Mann (then finishing up his
Ph.D. at Yale University) and University of Arizona climatologist Malcolm
Hughes, presented evidence of global climate change over the past millennium
and set off a political firestorm. The work was widely cited by those who
(like the vast majority of scientists) take climate change seriously, but was
doubted by skeptics of climate.
The study that caused the greatest uproar was a comparison of climate change
going back to the y 1000. The results were represented by a line graph shaped
like a hockey stick, which has become iconic in the debate over global warming
-- even as the scholars noted many limitations in their work.
In a new book, Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians
Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up (University of Massachusetts
Press), he describes how his work made him a target for conservative
politicians. "The hockey stick scientific debate is over," he writes, "but
government interference in science at the state, local, and national levels
remains a contentious issue in the United States and must not be ignored."
Bradley responded via e-mail to questions about the book.
Q: What are some of the lessons other scientists could draw from your
experience? Do you think they could do more to engage the public, educate
politicians, or be politically active?
A: First, scientists should be aware that they are no longer working in an
academic bubble. Regrettably, politics intrudes on almost all aspects of our
research nowadays. This has been driven by ideologues on the right and the
left, and fueled by the easy access to data and records on the Internet. Of
course, this is especially true of issues that may have some economic
significance ... but few issues are very far from such considerations
anymore. Having said that, scientists should not hesitate to respond to
attacks on their credentials if the attacks come from politicians or political
organizations.
Scientists can certainly do more to explain their research, by writing
articles for popular science magazines and giving lectures to local
organizations. And we should all make contact with politicians and their
staff, to let them know what we are working on. Most federal politicians have
a staff member who is responsible for science and technology matters.
As for combating the pervasive influence of lobbyists and well-funded
political action committees, all we can really do is publish our research
without exaggerating the implications, but make sure as many people as
possible find out about it. Often, university press officers can be helpful in
putting out summaries of important research, and making it accessible to the
general public. In the end, the public must make decisions about what are the
important issues, and make their influence known through the ballot box.
Q: Can graduate programs better prepare scientists for the kinds of political
encounters they are likely to have?
A: It would be a good idea for departments to offer a graduate seminar, where
issues about how to engage the public, and policy makers could be
discussed. It might be enlightening for students to listen to some
Congressional hearings and get a sense of how the political system works (or
doesn't work...).
Q: The debate around your study looking at past climate patterns seemed to
explode after you extended it to include projections going all the way back to
1000. In hindsight, do you think this was overreaching? From a purely
political standpoint, did this hurt the case for climate change?
A: Our reconstruction of temperatures over the last 1000 y was titled,
"Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences,
uncertainties, and limitations" (Geophysical Research Letters 26, 759-762;
1999). In the abstract, we stated: "We focus not just on the reconstructions,
but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats" and noted that
"expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to
AD 1400." We concluded by stating: "more widespread high-resolution data are
needed before more confident conclusions can be reached."
It is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the
uncertainties in the reconstruction; indeed, that was the point of the
article! So, the topic of the paper had very little to do with the subsequent
furor that surrounded it. One figure from our paper was selected for use in
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "Summary for Policy-Makers."
Because it was a rather compelling image (easy to understand) it was
reproduced in many magazines and newspapers, and quickly became an icon for
the IPCC's message that human activity was affecting climate. Those opposed to
legislation that would set controls on greenhouse gas emissions thus decided
to try and destroy the credibility of our research, in order to cast doubt on
the entire IPCC report.
The idea that the conclusions of the IPCC rested entirely on our study was
absolutely ridiculous, but from a political point of view, they had a good
strategy. By creating the impression that there was something bad about our
research, they cast a shadow over the entire IPCC Report. In that sense, I
don't think the politicians had any real interest in what our research showed
-- the attacks on our reputations were just a way to get the media to report
on a controversy. This was reinforced by a few trivial errors in the IPCC
Report, and the hacked e-mails from the University of E Anglia. This all
contributed to the overall plan, to cast doubt on the quality of the IPCC
Report, and the supposed ulterior motivations of climate scientists, in order
to stall policies on controlling greenhouse gas emissions. And it worked very
well. In the United States, no legislation has been passed, and currently
nothing is even being considered.
Q: How could you have done things differently?
A: I don't think we could have written the papers any differently; they were
peppered with caveats and presented what was essentially a working hypothesis
for others to test. And that has been done many times since 1999, with very
little that changes our basic conclusions.
Q: How did the hockey stick debate change your attitude about politicians and
their role in scientific research?
A: Until this experience, I had not had much interaction with politicians. But
this experience opened my eyes to how industry money and extreme political
ideology now drive our political system. In fact, I believe there is a
fundamental problem with our Congressional system as it now stands. Far too
much power is in the hands of a few committee chairs; they have significant
budgets, so can hire a large staff, some of whom can be assigned to harass
people if that seems to be politically expedient. They can demand records, and
even subpoena individuals, or hold that prospect over their heads as a looming
threat. Hearings are no longer held to objectively examine and understand an
issue; they are political theater, where witnesses are selected to spin the
story that those controlling the committees want heard. And committee chairs
can simply refuse to consider an issue, if that is politically
useful. Needless to say, these individuals attract huge financial support from
vested interests. It is not an exaggeration to say that our system has been
hijacked by those with specific financial interests, who sponsor key
politicians to ensure their interests are promoted.
Q: How much has changed since the beginning of the Obama presidency? How
prevalent are some of the problems you mentioned in the book today, with
Democrats in control of the executive branch and the Senate?
A: It is astonishing to see how discussion of human-induced climate change has
disappeared from the political debate. In fact, for the right wing, the topic
has become completely off-limits for aspiring politicians. Those seeking the
Republican nomination for president are afraid to address the
matter. Meanwhile, Democrats have also dropped the topic, seemingly accepting
the notion that we can't afford to deal with it while the economy is in a
mess. Ironically, many studies have shown that taking steps to control
greenhouse gases can be very good for economic growth, leading to new
industries and job creation. President Obama occasionally alludes to this, in
talking about "green jobs," but he almost never ties this to climate
change. No doubt this will all change (again) when the next Katrina-size
hurricane hits the U.S., or some other climate-related disaster grabs the
media's and the public's attention.
Q: Do you see the same kind of government interference in other scientific
fields? What will the next "hockey stick debate" be about?
A: Those who feel that a particular line of research may affect the
profitability of a company, and those who have a strong ideological belief
that all legislation is unnecessary (free market fundamentalists) have a
well-developed strategy: if they don't like the message of science, they
target the messengers. This is happening in many areas of science, and so we
have to be aware that intimidation and harassment of scientists is often used
for political purposes. It appears that the latest example is the suspension
and investigation of a scientist who reported his observations about drowned
polar bears N of Alaska. He has had to defend his study in a sworn
deposition to investigating attorneys. Now he is being investigated for his
handling of government contracts. Could this have anything to do with the oil
industry's push to drill off the N coast of Alaska, versus the proposal to
declare polar bears an endangered species? It seems to me that this is a
perfect example of another scientist being intimidated and harassed, for
(im)purely political reasons.
MYREF: 20110815120002 msg2011081519210
[235 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Rick Perry thinks Texas climate scientists are in a `secular carbon cult'
Brad Johnson
Grist.org
15 Aug 2011 5:05 PM
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has watched firsthand the ravages of a warming
climate, 1st as his state's agriculture commissioner (killer droughts and
record heat in 1996 and 1998) then as governor (droughts in 2002, 2003, 2005,
2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, with Texas' hottest July in history). Perry
declared the 1996 drought "the worst natural disaster in Texas in the 20th
century." He issued an official proclamation to pray for rain this y (it
didn't work). However, he argues that climate science is "all one contrived
phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight" in his book, Fed Up!:
For example, they have seen the headlines in the past y about doctored data
related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling
trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the
most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic
effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite
frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be
concerned ...
And it's all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own
weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon
cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren't buying it.
In an email interview with ThinkProgress, Andrew Dessler, a professor of
atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University responds that Perry is wrong:
There are dozens of credible atmospheric scientists in Texas at institutions
like Rice, UT, and Texas A&M, and I can confidently say that none agree with
Gov. Perry's views on the science of climate change. This is a particularly
unfortunate situation given the hellish drought that Texas is now
experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse.
"Contrary to what one might read in newspapers, the science of climate change
is strong," Dessler and 5 other climate scientists from Texas schools wrote in
the Houston Chronicle in 2010. "It is virtually certain that the climate is
warming," the entire faculty of the Texas A&M department of atmospheric
sciences affirm. "It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of
the recent warming," and future climate change from human-made greenhouse
emissions brings a "risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and
society." The members of the Jackson School of Geosciences program in Climate
Systems Science at the University of Texas at Austin also agree with "the
scientific assessment presented in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change."
Below is a partial list of the Texas climate scientists who disagree with
Perry's denial of climate science, including the Texas State climatologist and
the directors of the Environmental Science Institute, the Texas Center for
Climate Studies, the Center for the Study of Environment and Society, the
Climate Science Center, the Cooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological
Studies, the Institute for Geophysics, and the Center for Atmospheric
Chemistry and the Environment:
Jay Banner, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences and director,
Environmental Science Institute, The University of Texas at Austin Donald
Blankenship, senior research scientist, Jackson School of Geosciences, The
University of Texas at Austin
Kenneth Bowman, atmospheric sciences department head, Texas A&M University
Sarah D Brooks, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M Universit
y
Ginny Catania, assistant professor, Earth Surface and Hydrologic Processes,
The University of Texas at Austin
Ping Chang, professor of atmospheric sciences and oceanography, Texas A&M
University, and director, Texas Center for Climate Studies
Don Collins, professor and director of environmental programs in geosciences,
Texas A&M University
Don Conlee, instructional associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas
A&M University
Kerry Cook, professor, Climate Systems Science, The University of Texas at Austi
n
Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Robert Dickinson, professor of geological sciences, The University of Texas at A
ustin
André Droxler, professor of earth science and director of the Center for the
Study of Environment and Society, Rice University
Robert Duce, distinguished professor emeritus, Departments of Oceanography and
Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University
Craig Epifanio, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M Universit
y
Rong Fu, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Au
stin
Charles Jackson, research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University
of Texas at Austin
Rob Korty, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Katharine Hayhoe, associate professor and director, Climate Science Center,
The University of Texas at Austin
Mark Lemmon, professor of planetary sciences, Texas A&M University
Shaima L Nasiri, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M Universi
ty
John Nielsen-Gammon, professor, Texas A&M University and Texas State Climatologi
st
Gerald North, distinguished professor of Atmospheric Sciences and
Oceanography, Texas A&M University
Richard Orville, professor and director, Cooperative Institute for Applied
Meteorological Studies, Texas A&M University
R. Lee Panetta, professor of atmospheric sciences and mathematics, Texas A&M Uni
versity
Jud Partin, postdoctoral fellow, Institute for Geophysics, The University of
Texas at Austin
Terry Quinn, research professor and director, Institute for Geophysics, The
University of Texas at Austin
R. Saravanan, professor, Texas A&M University
Gunnar W Schade, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Courtney Schumacher, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Russ Schumacher, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Istvan Szunyogh, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Fred Taylor, senior research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The
University of Texas at Austin
Michael Tobis, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The
University of Texas at Austin
Ned Vizy, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The University
of Texas at Austin
Thomas Wilheit, research professor, Texas A&M University
Ping Yang, professor and holder of the David Bullock Harris Chair in
Geosciences, Texas A&M University
Renyi Zhang, professor, director of the Center for Atmospheric
Chemistry and the Environment, and holder of the Harold J Haynes Chair in
Geosciences, Texas A&M University
Brad Johnson is the editor for ThinkProgress Green at the Center for American
Progress Action Fund. Brad holds a bachelor's degree in math and physics from
Amherst College and master's degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos, a history of
the Information Revolution, and the founder of HillHeat.com, which covers
climate policy in our nation's capital.
MYREF: 20110816090001 msg2011081611292
[237 more news items]
---
You would think that we'd know the Earth's `climate sensitivity' by
now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How
atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to
warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or
reducing it.
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal shill]
Big tobacco warns cigarette stocks will run short because of plain packaging switch
[Trying to be helpful, the industry warns govt legislation will not work or
even make the "problem" worse. And if you can't trust the industry for an
objective judgement, who can you trust?].
PHOTO: Tobacco companies have warned of a challenge to the world-first
plain-wrapped cigarette packets plan.
Matt Johnston
Herald Sun
August 28, 2011
Big tobacco would not be able to stock shelves with cigarettes if plain
packaging were enforced from the middle of next year.
British American Tobacco's Australia managing director David Crow told a
parliamentary inquiry the company would not have time to change its business
processes or packaging operations.
As a result, the government risked illegal tobacco flooding stores once big
companies pulled branded products, he said.
Mr Crow also said jacking up cigarette taxes would more effectively stop
people smoking than plain packaging, as it was a proven method.
The Gillard Government wants to introduce drab green packets for cigarettes
from the middle of next year, and has introduced draft laws to parliament.
It says the move will cut smoking rates, and the fact it has been hit with
legal threats from big tobacco shows they are worried.
Mr Crow said the plan to bring in plain packaging was an expensive "punt"
because there was no hard evidence it would help stop people from smoking.
Putting up excise, and providing more education, were proven methods he said.
"I would go after education, I would go after looking at excise and pricing,"
he said.
"Pricing is one of the biggest issue that affects children smoking."
He said the company would defend its intellectual property if it had to, which
would lead to a "big legal bust-up".
Mr Crow said he would not be able to get products on shelves under plain
packaging, and that he would not break the law and put branded cigarettes out.
"I will be out of stock on July 1," he said.
"Illegal cigarettes would come in and smother the market."
In BAT's submission the company said the time frames for plain packaging were un
realistic.
"The time frames do not take into account the realities of having to redesign
all of our products, develop artwork, create machinery to make those products,
manufacture and distribute those products to approximately 35k retailers
throughout Australia," it said.
MYREF: 20110828115120 msg2011082821945
[234 more news items]
---
So you really, really believe that our universe just came about by
sheer chance? I prersonally, find that extremely hard to accept.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 11 Jan 2011 15:02 +1100
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Bill Nye The Science Guy Back on Fox to Further Debunk Climate Deniers
Carmel Lobello Tue
Death and Taxes
August 30, 2011
Bill Nye the Science Guy appeared on Fox Business Mon to discuss climate
change in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene.
Yesterday, Fox, a network which openly opposes the notion of man-caused
climate change, invited Bill Nye the Science Guy on air to discuss hurricane
Irene's relationship to climate change.
I would have liked to have heard a whole conversation on the topic, but
because Fox anchors don't usually conduct interviews or conversations so much
as mini verbal fights, Payne quickly lead Nye to another topic.
After showing a clip of Al Gore using the example of racism to explain how
fighting climate change will require scientifically informed individuals to
"win the conversation" over climate deniers, Payne asks, "Does it help the
argument on climate change to always bring in racism, or to sort of just
denigrate anyone who might just have an inkling that maybe this stuff doesn't ex
ist?"
Rather than evading Payne's left-field question, as public figures often do,
Nye obliges him with a colorful answer which both extrapolates on Gore's
points and brings the conversation back around to climate change and why we
should acknowledge its existence.
Watching Payne interview Nye was a little bit like watching a precocious 8
year-old play the devil's advocate game with his parents. The race question
was meant to confuse and distract the audience from the topic at hand, not
advance their understanding of it. Thankfully, Nye remained a few steps ahead.
MYREF: 20110831120001 msg2011083126565
[232 more news items]
---
[The difference between "real science" and "pseudo science":]
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Politics Overtaking Science in Global Warming Debate
Public less certain that humans cause climate change
Rosanne Skirble
VOA
August 31, 2011
Washington, DC -- Polls in recent y show that fewer Americans believe global
warming is a threat or that it is driven by human activities.
That's despite consensus among scientists that climate change is not only very
real, but also that it is caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels in
cars, trucks and power plants. 'Merchants of Doubt' explores the gap between
what scientists say and what the public believes about global
warming. 'Merchants of Doubt' explores the gap between what scientists say and
what the public believes about global warming.
University of California history professor Naomi Oreskes explores why so
many Americans are mistrustful of science in "Merchants of Doubt," a book
she co-authored with science historian Erik Conway.
The subtitle sums up their thesis: "How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the
Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming."
Changing the narrative
The story begins 50 y ago in the tobacco industry, with the announcement by
medical researchers that the tar in cigarettes causes cancer. According to
Oreskes, tobacco industry leaders were fearful of the financial harm the news
might do to their lucrative products, so they turned to a public relations
firm to cloud the issue and change the narrative.
"The pattern that they put together was to use many statements that any one of
them by themselves might have not been untrue," Oreskes says, "and yet, taken
together, created a picture that was untrue. It's really an extremely clever
strategy because the strategy is not to say that 'Tobacco is safe.' The
strategy is to say that 'We don't really know for sure.'"
The tobacco industry funded studies and recruited distinguished scientists to
lend authority to these doubts. But Oreskes notes that the specialists'
expertise was not public health, but rather in rocket science and weapons.
"This was part of the strategy that the industry settled on very early in that
they would fight science with science, or, as we say in the book, at least
with scientists."
New threat
The same group of scientists later worked together in a Washington think
tank to combat the Soviet threat. When the Cold War was over, Oreskes believes
they turned their attention to what they saw as a new threat: radical
environmentalism.
"It's what they think is the exaggeration of environmental issues for
political reasons. Because they fear that environmental issues like global
warming will be used as an excuse for the expansion of government power, the
expansion of regulation, the expansion of government control over the
marketplace and therefore a kind of slippery slope to socialism."
In her book, Oreskes argues the current climate change debate is not about the
physical warming of the planet - which is well-documented by scientific
evidence - but about politics. This explains, she says, why the US Congress
rejected an emissions trading plan which would have capped
climate-changing carbon emissions.
"Because if the science were truly not settled, then it would be logical to
say that we're not really sure. It would be a mistake to spend a lot of money
on alternative technologies, a mistake to have intrusive government
regulations, a mistake to have a carbon tax, if we don't really need those
things, if this problem isn't really real anyway."
Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said he
believes scientists are manipulating global warming data.
PHOTO: Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has
said he believes scientists are manipulating global warming data.
Politicizing the issue
That's the same line Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate
Rick Perry used on a recent campaign stop in New Bedford, New
Hampshire. He voiced his opposition to spending what he says would be billions
of dollars on emissions reductions programs.
"And I don't think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in
spending that much money on (what is) still a scientific theory that has not
been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question,"
Perry said.
But the debate over global warming science must be fought on a level playing
field, insists Oreskes. Science is not about opinion, she says, it's about
evidence. If a research group claims global-warming is not real or human
caused, she says, then they should prove it.
"The burden should be on them to come up with the evidence to show that. And
if journalists would demand evidence, what they would find is these people
either have no evidence at all in many cases or the supposed evidence that
they have is actually distorted. It's taken out of context. It's
misrepresented or in some cases they are arguments that were published 20 to
30 y ago that have since been refuted."
In "Merchants of Doubt," Oreskes writes, "Acid rain, secondhand smoke, the
destruction of the stratospheric ozone and global warming are all real
problems. The real question is how to address them."
Denying their truth, the author argues, "does not make them go away."
MYREF: 20110901090001 msg2011090125216
Peter Webb
>
> BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
>
> Politics Overtaking Science in Global Warming Debate
>
> Public less certain that humans cause climate change
>
> Rosanne Skirble
> VOA
> August 31, 2011
>
> Washington, DC -- Polls in recent y show that fewer Americans believe
> global
> warming is a threat or that it is driven by human activities.
>
In fact, belief in AGW in America is at about the same rate as American's
believe in Angels, creationism and alien abductions. There will always be
people who believe theories because they sound plausible to them, even if
there is no evidence to support the belief.
By Leftists/warmists@smallditch Duped By Leftists/warmists
"Mr Posting Robot v2.1" <ro...@kymhorsell.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:4e5ebcf6$0$13390$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
>
> Politics Overtaking Science in Global Warming Debate
>
> Public less certain that humans cause climate change
>
> Rosanne Skirble
> VOA
> August 31, 2011
>
> Washington, DC -- Polls in recent y show that fewer Americans believe
> global
> warming is a threat or that it is driven by human activities.
Waking up to the AGW scam!
> That's despite consensus among scientists
The consensus is a TOTAL FAKE!
Why Leftists/Warmists Feel They Can Push The Lie That Most Of The World's
Top Scientists Are Believers In Manmade Global Warming
OR
How To Fabricate A Fake Scientific Consensus
THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS A TOTAL FAKE!
------------------------------------
ALSO: Keep in mind the following quote:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
------------------------------------
So what is the source of the view that "most of the world's top scientists"
believe in catastrophic manmade global warming?
As usual, it's another typical leftist/warmist distortion of the true facts.
It comes about because the directors of the world's scientific
(undemocratically elected) organisations are mostly believers in the
"climate change is manmade and dangerous" claptrap despite the fact that
most of the members disagree.
ANY DISSENT FROM GENUINE SCIENTISTS IS RUTHLESSLY SUPPRESSED!
This phenomenon appears to be widespread.
Here is a case in point where the members of the APS revolted against their
directors' climate alarmism and one climate scientist even resigned in
protest ...
------------------------------------
Scientist Revolt Against APS Alarmism
Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS
Council:
2 Nov 2009
An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society
"As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and
past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the
Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as
to more accurately represent the current state of the science:"
"Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While
substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant
climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that
20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the
historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In
addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines
beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and
animals."
"Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar
variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's
climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models
appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and
anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future
climate."
"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects
of all processes - natural and human --on the Earth's climate and the
biosphere's response to climate change, and promotes technological options
for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause."
APS News; January 2008 Volume 17, Number 1
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html
------------------------------------
True Scientists Respond To APS Lies
The APS Responds!
Deconstructing The APS Response To Dr. Hal Lewis Resignation
October 13 2010
Below is the press release from the American Physical Society, responding to
the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday,
October 8th.
APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis
have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I've
gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in
the document below.
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
APS Comments on Harold Lewis' Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, DC
In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A.
Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis,
emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following
statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis' assertion that APS policy statements are
driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of
more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in
developing its statements.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed
literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee
had signed off on a more moderate Statement.
======================================
The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS
Council - the Society's democratically elected governing body - to do so.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html
.delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members,
including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels.
Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the
Society conduct an independent study and assessment.
As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider
the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007
APS Statement
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm . "[APS
Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum
on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide
vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically
unsound statements." Evidently physicists should be excluded from
inputting on a question of physics; only "physics monks" are entitled to do
so ex cathedra .
======================================
Dr. Lewis' specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting
financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the
operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary
stake in such funding.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007
APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a
large international bank
http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html
The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure
investors is safe.not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other
members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh,
of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities
depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions .
Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS
2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under
consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had
been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at
DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee
member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory
at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
======================================
Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and
therefore the vast majority of the Society's members derive no personal
benefit from such research support.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies
such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor's office that the APS
will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of
taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has
been silent on the documented practice by some climate "scientists" aimed at
preventing opposing research from being published.
======================================
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all
reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
?Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
?Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its
increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly
saturated.
======================================
?The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
Well, it depends on what you mean by "dwell time." If it is the
conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the
statement is wrong - by a lot.. The IPCC's Bern carbon cycle model
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html
gets a 16 year half life. If it is the time for the last molecule to get
picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless. At the very least, the
statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.
======================================
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS
continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the
extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained
increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself. However, the phrase
"climate disruptions" is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently
introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/
, evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human
causes. It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this
new phrase.
======================================
In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally
rejects Dr. Lewis' claim that global warming is a "scam" and a
"pseudoscientific fraud."
=====================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
What we have here is a bait and switch. No one is saying that the
greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the 'scam'
charge from its real target to the trivial. The fraud/scam is to be found
in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will
be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid;
and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.
======================================
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit
opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant
commentary from APS members, the Society's Panel on Public Affairs finalized
an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance
of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual
whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming
alarm. And you have to keep your eye on the pea. The dispute was not over
the "significance" of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the
statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try
to explain what the original statement meant. Not a good sign that they
got it right the first time.
======================================
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS
is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront
research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
======================================
RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a
group of five members that included Dr. Lewis. Also, the Council has not
yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being "organized."
It is being considered. No formal charter or bylaws have been set down.
What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes.
This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.
======================================
Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.
====================================== RESPONSE TO APS LIE:
APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement,
with its infamous phrase, "The evidence is incontrovertible," despite the
fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.
======================================
About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading
physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in
academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and
internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge,
NY, and Washington, DC.
Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065
Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
======================================
This page is available as a PDF here: APS Press Release Deconstruction
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/aps-press-release-deconstruction.pdf
======================================
Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:
I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors.
It relates to: "This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption
lines are nearly saturated."
The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional
amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming.
Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the
effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average
temperature by only about 1ºC. - if there were no other climate effects
involved.
However, these other effects, generally called "feedbacks," can amplify or
attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2.
The most prominent feedback is the "cloud-water vapor feedback," which is
very difficult to calculate or determine empirically.
The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive,
giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2ºC to 4.5ºC for doubling, with
a most likely value of 3ºC.
However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value,
much closer to the zero feedback value of 1ºC, or even lower.
The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the
debate.
------------------------------------
Top Climate Scientist Warns: The Warming Is Exaggerated And We Can't Stop It
Anyway
March 10 2011
On Monday this week, one of the world's top climate scientists exposed both
Brown and Gillard for the dangerous shysters they are
Here's some of that that damning testimony of John R. Christy, Distinguished
Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama's State Climatologist, Director of
the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and former Lead Author of IPCC assessments.
THE FLOODS WERE NOTHING UNUSUAL, AND PART OF NATURAL VARIABILITY
The tragic flooding in the second half of 2010 in NE Australia was examined
in two ways,
(1) in terms of financial costs and
(2) in terms of climate history.
First, when one normalizes the flood costs year by year, meaning if one
could imagine that the infrastructure now in place was unchanging during the
entire study period, the analysis shows there are no long-term trends in
damages. In an update of Crompton and McAneney (2008) of normalized disaster
losses in Australia which includes an estimate for 2010, they show
absolutely no trend since 1966.
Secondly, regarding the recent Australian flooding as a physical event in
the context climate history (with the estimated 2010 maximum river height
added to the chart below) one sees a relative lull in flooding events after
1900. Only four events reached the moderate category in the past 110 years,
while 14 such events were recorded in the 60 years before 1900. Indeed, the
recent flood magnitude had been exceeded six times in the last 170 years,
twice by almost double the level of flooding as observed in 2010. Such
history charts indicate that severe flooding is an extreme event that has
occurred from natural, unforced variability.
THE WORLD ISN'T WARMING ANYTHING LIKE AS FAST AS THE GLOBAL WARMISTS'
MODELS WARNED IT WOULD
As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate
datasets from scratch to document what the climate has done and to test
assertions and hypotheses about climate change....
I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32
years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new
underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric
temperature, which is still only one
third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era
(+0.26°C/decade.)
There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly
suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive
to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate
system ...
TRYING TO "STOP" GLOBAL WARMING WITH THINGS LIKE A CARBON DIOXIDE TAX OR
EMISSIONS TRADING IS A WASTE OF MONEY
The evidence above suggests that climate models overestimate the response of
temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Even so, using these climate model
simulations we calculate that the impact of legislative actions being
considered on the global temperature is essentially imperceptible. These
actions will not result in a measurable climate effect that can be
attributable or predictable with any level of confidence, especially at the
regional level. Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize
civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons
beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered.
Why on earth are we persisting in this folly?
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf
WARNING:
GREENIE WARMIST CLAPTRAP FOLLOWS .
Greens leader Bob Brown claimed the Brisbane floods were caused by
coal-miners:
"It's the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must
take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing
unfolding now."
That one statement alone - nonsensically false, alarmist and opportunist -
should have reduced him permanently to a figure of fun in a healthy
democracy.
And now Julia Gillard claims we need nothing less than a great tax on carbon
emissions, to totally transform our economy, if we are to help save the
planet from "apocalyptic man-made warming."
Why do journalists credit these two shameless alarmists and their
fraudulent, ruinous schemes to "fix" a problem that exists nowhere but in
discredited computer models?
======================================
"Heir To Einstein" Scientist Tries To Knock Some Sense Into A Thick Warmist
Skull
"The climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is
close to understanding it."
"Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are
sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the
"experts" are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate
models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real."
February 27 2011
World renowned physicist Freeman Dyson starts an email debate with a warmist
journalist from the Independent - one that ends with a bollocking:
From: Steve Connor
To: Freeman Dyson
You are one of the most famous living scientists, credited as a visionary
who has reshaped scientific thinking. Some have called you the "heir to
Einstein", yet you are also a "climate sceptic" who questions the consensus
on global warming and its link with carbon dioxide emissions. Could we start
by finding where we agree?
I take it you accept for instance that carbon dioxide is a powerful
greenhouse gas that warms the planet
(1); that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since direct
measurements began several decades ago
(2); and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past
800,000 years
(3), if you take longer records into account, such as ice-core data.
Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of
burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the
past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer (4)?
Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only
be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5).
Climate scientists say there is no other reasonable explanation for the
warming they insist is happening (6), which is why we need to consider doing
something about it (7).
What part of this do you accept and what do you reject?
From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor
First of all, please cut out the mention of Einstein. To compare me to
Einstein is silly and annoying.
Answers to your questions are:
yes (1),
yes (2),
yes (3),
maybe (4),
no (5),
no (6),
no (7).
There are six good reasons for saying no to the last three assertions.
First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid
dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full
of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models
describe very poorly.
Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance
doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like
Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer.
Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human
activities, as we know from studying the past.
Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other
carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as
large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean,
as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs.
Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both
to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better
known and probably more important than the climatic effects.
Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an
immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.
[..] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.
Dyson answers .
From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor
When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that
continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener.
It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt
that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there
had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among
a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that
the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do
not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to
be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have
been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to
believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think
outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think
alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and
sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun
to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.
Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments
have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become
politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the
degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.
I am glad we are now talking about more general issues and not about
technical details. I do not pretend to be an expert about the details.
[..] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.
Dyson answers .
From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor
I have this unfortunate habit of answering email immediately, which is in
the long run not sustainable. So I will answer this one and then remain
silent for three days.
Of course I am not expecting you to agree with me. The most I expect is that
you might listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions
concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies
proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to
China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great
harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a
food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political
alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians.
Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by
politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate
experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the
disease that they claim to cure.
I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less
one-sided view of the issues.
[.] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.
In desperation at the continued, thick-headed warmist claptrap emanating
from Connor, Freeman Dyson just gives up.
From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor
My three days of silence are over, and I decided I have no wish to continue
this discussion. Your last message just repeats the same old party line that
we have many good reasons to distrust. You complain that people who are
sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should
we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep
an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading
your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from
disagreeing.
With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one
day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as
it is for a good scientist.
Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"Today's debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom.
The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and
impossible) aspect of our lives."
Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Market, Politicians Going Separate Ways on Climate Change: View
Bloomberg View
September 01, 2011 17:00 EDT
Hurricane Irene's residue is likely to include a confusing debate over whether
insurers or property owners are responsible for storm-caused water
damage. There's no lack of clarity, however, over whether the insurance
industry believes in climate change and its ties to lethal weather: It does.
As Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its Sept. 5 issue, the industry has
absorbed many lessons from Sept. 11 about anticipating risk. One is that the
recent spate of weather extremes is likely to continue -- and the insurance
market must reflect that.
Interestingly, this puts the industry at odds with a number of Republican
candidates who have made questioning climate change a not-insignificant part
of their campaign strategy. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann dispute whether
global warming is man-made. Perry suggests that climate is affected by many
variables, which scientists can manipulate "so that they will have dollars
rolling into their projects." Mitt Romney is on the fence. Only Jon Huntsman
Jr. has declared definitively that he trusts scientists on global warming.
Politicians have been known to dissemble about risk because voters generally
don't like to hear bad news. The insurance industry makes its money telling it
to you straight -- how long you'll probably live, what price your home will
fetch, whether to repair or trade in your car.
Risk Models
For this reason, it's worth noting that insurers already factor climate change
into their models for measuring, pricing and distributing risk. Insurers have
no incentive to lie. If they are more scared than they should be in pricing
risk, shareholders will punish them. If they aren't scared enough, nature will
do the job.
No one can say for certain that any single weather event flows from the warmer
air caused by carbon emissions, which in turn lead to more rainfall, floods
and snowfall over some parts of the planet, and more drought in other
parts. But last y was the hottest on record. Arctic ice is at record low
levels. Regardless of what politicians say, insurers must factor all this into p
remiums.
Vulnerable Areas
Swiss Re, the second-largest reinsurer, is developing scenarios using
probabilistic modeling to help government officials cope. The reinsurer
studied the effects of climate change in vulnerable areas such as Samoa, Mali,
Caribbean islands and Miami.
No matter which model it chose -- no change, moderate changes or extreme
changes -- Swiss Re concludes it's cheaper to adapt now than to sit and wait.
It recommends building codes that require more water- and wind-proofing,
zoning laws that prevent planting trees close to buildings and power lines,
redesigned beaches that absorb storm surge, and restoration of wetlands.
Hurricane Irene, and the estimated $5 bn to $7 bn in damage claims insurers
now face, has been swept up in this debate. Irene maintained hurricane
strength farther N than storms usually do -- and dropped extraordinary amounts
of rain. At the same time, parts of the US are experiencing record-high
temperatures and dust-bowl conditions. Houston hit an all-time high of 109
degrees Fahrenheit (43 degrees Celsius) the same day Irene was roaring up the
Eastern Seaboard.
Rising Seas
A storm with Irene's fury will only cause more damage in the future. Rising
sea levels will allow storm surge to penetrate farther inland. Americans
pushing relentlessly toward the E and W Coasts are putting themselves and
their property in harm's way.
If elected officials want to help constituents prepare for disaster, they
could fight for legislation to curb carbon emissions, and they could keep
people from building along coastlines. Politicians have enjoyed enormous
success calling scientists into question. The market may not prove to be such
an easy target.
MYREF: 20110902130002 msg2011090230708
[230 more news items]
warmistclaptrap
> Irene maintained hurricane
> strength farther N than storms usually do --
More blinkered leftist/warmist claptrap!!!!
Check your INCONVENIENT HISTORY before you whackos spout!
Except for the many hurricanes that went "farther N than storms usually
do"!!!!!
The Great Hurricanes of New England 1635, 1815, 1938
15 Nov 2010
New England Hurricane History:
When we think of hurricanes striking the eastern seaboard these days our
thoughts turn to the Carolinas or Florida as alternatives to the Gulf
states, as was with Katrina.
In the course of the last 372 years there have been three hurricanes that
have struck New England with brute force, leveling forests of trees, sending
huge waves battering the shores, flooding towns and rivers in quick fashion,
filtering debris through the air in compressed rotary motion, and sinking
ships at sea. Hurricanes come and go in New England as elsewhere, but three
have made a lasting impression on historians of weather.
The Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635:
One such storm was known as the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, striking
the Jamestown settlement and Massachusetts bay colony in that year. The
storm had a storm track similar to the Great Atlantic hurricane of 1944
which was parallel to the coast.
The eye of the storm evidently passed between Plymouth and Boston, and winds
were estimated at 140mph, a deadly Category 4 hurricane. In Narragansett bay
the tide was 14 feet above the ordinary tide and drowned many native people.
There was severe damage to houses along Plymouth with complete blowdowns in
rural areas of Eastern Massachusetts.
The Great September Gale of 1815:
It would be 180 years later that a storm of equal strength occurred, with
the so-called Great September Gale of 1815. It also thought to be one of the
first hurricane to strike New England with such force since 1635. With
estimated winds of 135 mph on the Saffir-Simpson scale of today, the
hurricane eye came ashore on the south side of Long Island delivering a
mighty 11 foot storm surge that funneled into Narragansett Bay destroying
500 houses and 35 ships, flooding Providence, RI with high waters.
The Great New England Hurricane of 1938:
In 1938, a storm dubbed the Long Island Express formed in September and
slowly evolved into a Category 5 storm in the Atlantic Ocean. The storm
began to recurve near the Bahamas and gained a forward speed of 70 mph,
launching in rocket-like motion past Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and
shoving its eye into Long Island, crashing through the bay towns with a
force residents never knew possible. This was a mighty hurricane with an eye
50 miles across and a storm 500 miles wide causing $308 million in damages.
The path of the storm can be seen in this historical interactive map of the
1938 New England hurricane.
More on the Long Island Express of 1938:
The National Weather Service predicted the hurricane would recurve out to
sea, but instead it smashed into Long Island and then curved inland swamping
Providence, Massachusetts with a tidal surge 14 feet high. The impact of the
1938 storm killed at least 708 people, damaged 25,000 homes, 26,000
automobiles, and downed 20,000 electrical poles. The Long Island Express
came and went, and within days newspaper headlines focused on the start of
World War II in Europe. The Great Hurricanes of New England were widely
spaced apart in time, but none were forgotten.
The Reason These Storms Are Not Named:
Hurricane naming practices began in 1953 with an official list from the
National Hurricane Center. Originally, the storms were given only female
names. In 1979, the practice of adding male names began. Go to the list of
possible hurricane names from 2007 through 2012 to see if a hurricane could
bear your name.
http://weather.about.com/od/weatherhistory/p/NewEngland1938.htm
Peter Webb
"Mr Posting Robot v2.1" <ro...@kymhorsell.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:4e6046bf$0$2444$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
>
> Market, Politicians Going Separate Ways on Climate Change: View
>
> Bloomberg View
> September 01, 2011 17:00 EDT
>
> Hurricane Irene's residue is likely to include a confusing debate over
> whether
> insurers or property owners are responsible for storm-caused water
> damage. There's no lack of clarity, however, over whether the insurance
> industry believes in climate change and its ties to lethal weather: It
> does.
>
> As Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its Sept. 5 issue, the industry has
> absorbed many lessons from Sept. 11 about anticipating risk. One is that
> the
> recent spate of weather extremes is likely to continue -- and the
> insurance
> market must reflect that.
>
How do the events of 9/11 indicate that a spate of weather extremes is
likely to continue?
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie mining lobby spin]
Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media
John Timmer
Ars Technica
September 2, 2011 12:18 PM
Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to
satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was
soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism."
However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far
more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems
with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of
the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms--and
chosen to resign.
The paper in question, by noted contrarian Roy Spencer, uses an extremely
simple model in an attempt to separate the factors that force the climate from
those that act as feedback to changes in the climate. A number of climate
scientists, however, wrote about how the model had been simplified to the
point of being useless (one of the more detailed examples comes from BYU
geochemist Barry Bickmore). These criticisms, however, haven't generally made
it into the peer reviewed literature, the lone exception cited in the
resignation being a paper that's not a direct critique of Spencer's
work. Those same criticisms were reiterated once Spencer published his most
recent paper.
Wolfgang Wagner, the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, where Spencer's latest
work was published, acknowledged these criticisms. "Comparable studies
published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and
to some extent also in the literature," he writes, "a fact which was ignored
by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by
the reviewers." In other words, if the work has flaws that have been widely
recognized by other scientists, those arguments should be considered even if
they did not take place entirely within the scientific literature. Science
blogs, and the scientists behind them, are now part of science's "open
discussions" and deserve serious consideration.
Controversial, or wrong?
So how did these criticisms slip by the paper's initial reviewers? According
to Wagner, the paper was reviewed by 3 investigators who are sympathetic to
Spencer's views. This isn't unheard of, but it seems unlikely to be a matter
of chance, given that those sympathetic to Spencer's views constitute a small
minority of the climate sciences community. More probably, Spencer was
informally given the chance to suggest people who would be qualified to review
the material.
Wagner makes it clear that he's not saying that the paper should have been
rejected simply because it supported a controversial position. "In science,
diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is
important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed," he
wrote. "Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not
suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all
controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents
interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be
published and responded to in the open literature."
The issue here wasn't the controversy; it was that the paper was most probably
wrong. "The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that
it declared a minority view..." Wagner argues, "but that it essentially
ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents." And, in Wagner's opinion,
papers that contain methodological errors or erroneous conclusions are
supposed to be caught by peer review and shouldn't be published. Since one was
published on his watch, he's resigning.
But not before taking a parting shot at the media. Writing that he would "like
to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics
have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements," he
specifically cites the University of Alabama, Huntsville press release and
Spencer's writings on his website as part of the exaggeration; the
Forbes article that triggered our own coverage, along with a follow-up
from Fox News, also get singled out. No one result created our current
understanding of the climate system or provided evidence that it's being
forced by greenhouse gasses; as a result, Wagner argues, no single result is
likely to tear it down.
Publishing still matters
Wagner's resignation doesn't alter the status of Spencer's paper; it remains
part of the scientific literature. This should induce his critics to get more
thorough criticisms formally published; most editors and reviewers are still
unlikely to take blog-based critiques seriously, no matter how detailed.
As for the larger debate about the implications for climate science, the
take-home from our original coverage still stands: there are now 2 competing
realities when it comes to climate change. The sorts of people who would read
the coverage from Forbes or Fox News and nod along are, in many cases,
convinced that scientists are part of a larger conspiracy. To them, the
resignation will just be a sign that the conspiracy got to Wagner.
Remote Sensing, 2011. DOI: 10.3390/rs3092002.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs3092002
MYREF: 20110903050359 msg201109032540
[236 more news items]
Mr Posting Robot v2.1
BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:
>[Aussie coal lobby spin]
Climate Change 'Sceptics' Exploit Weaknesses in Journal Review Processes
HuffPost
6/9/11 05:00 GMT
Self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' place great weight on those very
occasional journal papers that they claim justify the rejection of mainstream
research about the causes and consequences of global warming.
However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these papers, which usually
contain fundamental flaws and errors, only find their way into the scientific
literature by exploiting weaknesses in the review processes operated by some
journals. But after publication, other authors point out the acute
shortcomings in these papers, usually leading to a retraction or other
remedial action.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn last wk that Wolfgang Wagner had
resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing after his journal published a
controversial paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, which purported to show
that climate models make wrong assumptions about the amount of energy that
escapes from the Earth's atmosphere.
In an extraordinary resignation statement, Wagner admitted that the journal
had "unintentionally selected 3 reviewers who probably share some climate
sceptic notions of the authors". He accepted that the reviewers of the paper
had failed to acknowledge that Spencer and Braswell had simply ignored
published research which refuted their findings. Wagner declared that the
paper "should therefore not have been published" and announced that he was
stepping down as a result.
Wagner also expressed concern about the way in which the paper had been
misrepresented by climate change 'sceptics' and some parts of the media. In
the days following its publication, the quality and significance of the paper
were exaggerated on blogs and in news reports, creating an 'echo chamber' effect
.
Wagner's is not the 1st editorial resignation that has been prompted by the
publication of a paper celebrated by climate change 'sceptics'. In 2003, Hans
von Storch stepped down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Climate Research
after it published a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which concluded
that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme
climatic period of the last millennium."
In his resignation statement, von Storch stated that the review process for
the paper had "utterly failed" and that its publication was "an error".
However, not every editor has accepted responsibility for the publication of a
flawed paper, even when it has been retracted. Earlier this year, Stanley
Azen, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Computational Statistics and Data
Analysis, requested the retraction of a paper by Yasmin Said, Edward Wegman
and co-authors which had been published in Jan 2008.
The paper by Said and co-authors presented a 'social network analysis' of work
by Michael Mann and other palaeoclimatologists who had published studies of
the 'hockey stick' graph, showing that the recent rise in global average
temperature is unprecedented over the last 2k years.
The retracted paper concluded that the work of the 'hockey stick' authors had
been "refereed with a positive, less-than-critical bias" by authors within a
social network of palaeoclimatologists. It claimed that the "entrepreneurial
style" of co-authorship between the palaeoclimatologists "could potentially
lead to peer review abuse".
The retraction stated that parts of the paper had been plagiarised from the
work of others. However, questions have been raised about the quality of the
paper itself, and about whether it could have received a proper review in just
6 days between its submission and acceptance for publication by Azen.
Of course, some journals refuse to accept any wrongdoing for the publication
of a bad paper promoting climate change 'scepticism'. In 2008, Economic
Analysis and Policy, the official journal of the Queensland branch of the
Economic Society of Australia, published a paper by Bob Carter apparently
refuting the main scientific conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
But the article contained numerous serious errors, as I pointed out in a
rebuttal last y in the same journal. Even though Carter's paper about the
science of climate change had not been subject to review, and contained
demonstrable inaccuracies, the editors attempted to justify its publication in
their economics journal on the grounds that "our objective is to publish
controversies on current topics that are interesting to economists and a more
general readership".
Climate change 'sceptics' often complain that researchers and editors conspire
to use the journal review system to keep their work out of the scientific
literature. But it is increasingly apparent that 'sceptics' have actually been
able to exploit weaknesses in the review processes of journals in order to
publish their work, even when it contains blatant mistakes.
Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics
and Political Science.
MYREF: 20110907130002 msg201109077329
[234 more news items]