For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change.
In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.
Please pass this video along! I am actually writing a book with the same title, but there’s no way I can get it published before the Republican primaries. Hopefully this kind of thing can influence a few people toward the center on this issue.
paul87920
Posts : 875
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 1/9/2012, 8:32 am
Thought you might get a laugh at this one Heretic.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 2/15/2012, 8:36 am
This is why every global warming "skeptic" who said "follow the money" is a dishonest hack. Now we've got a Climategate-esque insiders view on a "skeptic" think tank. We'll see if any of these skeptics have an ounce of integrity and change their minds in light of this money trail.
The Heartland Institute — a self-described "think tank" that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.
These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.
One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:
Quote :
[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.
The 2012 fundraising plan ((1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf) claims that Heartland will raise $7.7 million in 2012, up by 70% from 2011. One of the most interesting revelations of this document is an "anonymous donor" who gave just under one million in 2011 and who plans to give 1.25 million for 2012.
The budget ((1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf) gives an idea of the institute's activities (lots of communications and lobbying). Most interesting are the funds that will be spent on fighting science in schools and other venues. $75,000 is set aside for:
K-12 Climate Education Project Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.
We know this to be an effort to fight the teaching of good climate science in schools, much like efforts we've seen before to force creationism into science classes in order to damage science teaching. It is probably in the interest of those who donate to Heartland to have a poorly informed populace when it comes to science.
Well, let’s see – they both promote the sale of addictive poisons to children, they both are funded by the tobacco industry, and they both are leading proponents of the anti-science movement that threatens to cripple our education system and our economy.
Joe Bast is the President and CEO of the Heartland Institute, a right wing “think” tank in Chicago that has been the prime mover behind major disinformation initiatives on both global climate and tobacco dangers.
Mr. Bast is well known for insisting that the science of climate change is “science is very sketchy, very uncertain..”, as well as famously asserting that “No victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can “prove” his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Not surprisingly, the Heartland has been the recipient of major funding from both tobacco and fossil fuel interests over the years.
I think the fact that no "skeptic" is defending the tobacco industry demonstrates clearly that they recognize their own arguments against global warming as the complete and utter bullshit it is.
Chris Mooney (in email, quoted with permission) spots perhaps the most surprising and most disturbing aspect of the documents in what is NOT there.
Quote :
most of our ideological opponents think they’re actually right about the science, which means they would not want to prevent science from being taught, but rather prevent what they view as biased environmentalist science being taught. That there is no indication of this here is very, very striking.
And of course there's links on top of links on top of links in the pages above. Check out the original articles if you want more.
Bottom line - they're frauds. All of 'em. This "skepticism" has been nothing but industry-funded lies for decades now (which isn't really news to anyone). And Republicans are too stupid to notice or too stupid to care.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 3/5/2012, 1:17 pm
I wrote:
Robin Banks wrote:
It's interesting what one can learn by actually reading the published work rather than depending on the interpretation of someone else.
I've busted up more than a few denier talking points that way. A study gets published (by a non-denier), conservative media picks it up, declares global warming over. Then I go find the part in the study that states the exact opposite of their claim, usually combined with a statement issued by the author of the study in direct response to all the media attention, "Stop misrepresenting my study; you don't know what you're talking about."
The back story: Nordhaus has done working analysis of the economic impacts of implementing climate policies. In that awful Wall Street Journal op-ed we wrote about in January, a group of skeptics cited that work as proof that the country should do exactly nothing in the next 50 years to fight climate change. In his new article, Nordhaus approaches this and other claims with, as he says, “a cool head and a warm heart.” But eventually he just has to tell them “you know nothing of my work.”
Read and learn from all his responses to skeptics’ arguments, but for the juicy bits, skip to item six. Here is what Nordhaus has to say about skeptics’ interpretation of his work.
A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:
Quote :
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.
The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).
This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.
This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10
My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.
The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 3/5/2012, 1:30 pm
CO2 is life to plants, and that would be fantastic if it were the only single variable to change as a result of AGW. It isn't, and the CEI knew it, despite trying to convince the American public otherwise.
While warmer temperatures already have implications for food production in the tropics, the new findings suggest the increase in the volatility of summertime temperatures will have serious effects in grain-growing regions of Europe and North and South America, Battisti said.
“If there’s greater variability, the odds of the temperature being so high that you can’t grow a crop are greater,” he said.
“In terms of regional and global food security, it’s not good news.”
. . .
Earlier research has shown that by the end of this century, the increase in average growing season temperature, if other factors remain the same, will likely reduce yields of rice, corn and soybean 30 to 40 percent. Already rice yields in the tropics are being affected by higher temperatures, affecting nations such as Indonesia, which frequently imports rice to stabilize prices, Battisti said.
In addition, the scientists say global warming will have greater impacts than previously thought on the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that has global impact on climate and food production. Their conclusions are based on geological and other proxy records of climate and El Niño from the last 10,000 years, plus recent analyses of long-term climate changes because of global warming.
But, you know... it's not like we have an exponentially increasing population to feed or anything...
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 3/12/2012, 9:03 pm
Perfect talking point for the Alabama/Mississippi Crowd....
“The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” said Rick Santorum.
Santorum is sneering at a physical phenomenon that has been uncontroversial, established science for more than 100 years: that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere acts as a heat trap, preventing the Sun’s heat from being radiated back out into space. This isn’t rocket surgery, it’s the simplest kind of physics.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 3/14/2012, 12:45 pm
The old "we call it life" card. Glad to see our might-be-future President has honestly thought through the issues. LGF continues:
Quote :
And Rick Santorum is far from the only Republican spouting this kind of determined ignorance; the GOP has become the anti-factual party, existing in a weird echo chamber environment in which falsehoods are never abandoned, ridiculous conspiracy theories are universally believed, reality is not allowed to impinge, and being anti-scientific is considered a noble quality, to be applauded and cheered.
Sad, really. Hell, they hate science so much, few if any backed Scorpion and I in our exhaustive attempt to counter Maxx's 9/11 conspiracies. But I suppose that's just because the arguments were too familiar - "It's a government conspiracy"; "They're in it for the gold"; "There is no consensus"; "Alex Jones is awesome sauce!"; ".001% scientists agree the other 99.999% are wrong".
sparks
Posts : 2214
Subject: Germany commits to 263 Billion dollar investment in renewable power 3/20/2012, 10:02 am
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 4/2/2012, 11:50 am
It's a complete takedown of every Republican talking point by a Republican. Expect Republicans to take no notice at all and continue to shill for the fossil fuel industry.
I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve.” A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.
. . .
Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal
My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.
Bill O’Reilly, whom I respect, talks of a “no-spin zone.” Yet today there’s a very concerted, well-funded effort to spin climate science. Some companies, institutes and think tanks are cherry-picking data, planting dubious seeds of doubt, arming professional deniers, scientists-for-hire and skeptical bloggers with the ammunition necessary to keep climate confusion alive. It’s the “you can’t prove smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer!” argument, times 100, with many of the same players. Amazing.
Schopenhauer said “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” We are now well into Stage 2. It’s getting bloody out there. Climate scientists are receiving death threats and many Americans don’t know what to believe. Some turn to talk radio or denial-blogs for their climate information. No wonder they’re confused.
. . .
“Actions Have Consequences.”
Trust your gut - and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today. What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either “The Mother of All Coincidences” - or the trends are real.
My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and “actions have consequences.” Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences - where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.
. . .
Biblical Scripture: “We Are Here to Manage God’s Property”
I’m a Christian, and I can’t understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn’t that the definition of greed? In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.” Future generations will hold us responsible for today’s decisions.
I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil. My fellow Republicans have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the 60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers?
. . .
The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It’s not your grandfather’s weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don’t want to believe thousands of climate scientists – at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years. For evidence of climate change don’t look at your back yard thermometer. That’s weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren’t there a generation ago.
This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grandkids will ask what did you know…when…and what did you do to help? We’ve been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I’m no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.
It's a great takedown of all the useless talking points, none of which should be new to anyone who's read my posts, but it might be useful to the last-but-still-so-many Republican holdouts.
But notice the disconnect, the one still inherent to our very system: "capitalism requires growth." Fact, and an acknowledged physical impossibility, yet no warnings to be found. We're steering ourselves around the obstacles on the road, some big, some small, but ultimately ignoring the fact that the bridge is out. All we're doing is ensuring we get back on the road and to disaster faster.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 4/2/2012, 12:01 pm
Despite the pontification from Republicans on climate change, at least they've been completely ineffective (so far) in preventing the military from acknowledging and preparing for the threat. As Paul Douglas noted in the above article:
Quote :
My youngest son is graduating from the Naval Academy in May, then heading to Pensacola. He’ll be flying choppers or jets; F-18s that can already run on biofuels. The Navy is serious about renewables and alternative fuels. Because it’s the best way forward - protecting our troops, securing supply lines, creating economies of scale that will make biofuels more competitive, leaving the Navy less vulnerable to price shocks in the oil markets.
Military intelligence has been publishing reports on global warming for years, considering it a bigger threat than terrorism since it will lead to more terrorism. Here's the latest example:
The American intelligence community warned in a report released Thursday that problems with water could destabilize countries in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia over the next decade.
Increasing demand and competition caused by the world’s rising population and scarcities created by climate change and poor management threaten to disrupt economies and increase regional tensions, the report concludes.
Prepared at the request of the State Department, the report is based on a classified National Intelligence Estimate completed last October that reflected an increasing focus on environmental and other factors that threaten security. An estimate reflects the consensus judgment of all intelligence agencies.
While the report concluded that wars over water are unlikely in the coming decade, it said that countries could use water for political and economic leverage over neighbors and that major facilities like dams and desalination plants could become targets of terrorist attacks. Coupled with poverty and other social factors, problems with water could even contribute to the political failure of weaker nations.
But it's not happening and we don't need to prepare, according to all our potential Republican Presidents. That won't put us at risk at all...
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 4/3/2012, 1:15 pm
I was wrong. Republicans are trying to fuck with the military's ability to prepare for a world with global warming:
Climate policy may be a minefield for politicians but the Pentagon sees liabilities from global warming and is both reducing the armed forces greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate impacts
The U.S. military's elite forces have always pushed the envelope. And this summer will be no exception, as the Navy deploys SEALs with $2 million of new gear on missions to save hostages, combat pirates, and counter terrorism around the world. What sort of next-generation weaponry, armor, or transportation will the funds provide?
None.
The cash will pay for solar technology, enabling the SEALs to power up equipment and purify water while on the move, and even refrigerate medical supplies and food.
"It's really the first step in the Navy's effort to make the SEALs net-zero energy and net-zero water (use) down the road," said Thomas Hicks, the Navy's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy.
Making the SEALs into a leaner, greener tactical force is one of many such steps being taken by all branches as the U.S. military reduces its environmental footprint. The Army is targeting net-zero energy use at several bases, and the Navy and Air Force are experimenting with running jets on biofuels that use wood waste and algae and less petroleum. In Afghanistan, patrols now carry eco-friendly solar blankets and LED lamps.
Connecting the military's fossil-fuel and overall energy use with risks to our national security hasn't been easy in this political environment, especially with the presidential election looming. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly questioned and criticized the Armed Forces' new-energy strategies, portraying initiatives as political favors to clean-energy businesses.
But current and retired military leaders insist the policies are essential. The efforts protect soldiers and help them carry out missions. They also help curb climate change and its potential to intensify military conflicts.
"There is not a shred of political correctness in what the military is doing with energy efficiency or renewable energy," said Dennis McGinn, a retired Navy vice admiral who now serves as president of the D.C.-based American Council on Renewable Energy and as vice chair of the military advisory board for CNA, a 70-year-old think tank that began as a Naval antisubmarine research group during World War II. "From lance corporal to general, they are on board. They live with the problems from the over-reliance on fossil fuels."
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 4/3/2012, 1:20 pm
My recent Op-Ed gave me a chance to summarize how I feel about the politicization of climate science in recent years - how it's become a bizarre litmus test for conservatism.
As I describe in the piece, my "belief" in climate science had nothing to do with Al Gore, and everything to do with what I was seeing with my own two eyes: on the weather maps, and out my window.
I'm not running a popularity contest. Q Ratings were important when I was in local broadcasting, but no more. This issue is too important, and I'm hoping I can encourage other moderate voices out there to step out from the shadows and speak up about your concerns. Contact your politicians. Assume nothing. D.C. is hopelessly deadlocked on climate science and (clean, carbon-free) energy policy.
I have no idea what it's going to take to move things along and start a rational national dialogue (without shouting at each other and the name-calling...I swear we're still in 7th grade, with slightly better wardrobes), but the status quo is not good for our country.
If this keeps up we'll be buying all our wind farms, solar panels and hybrids from China and other countries that (amazingly!) aren't still "debating the science."
Are we really going to drill and mine our way to prosperity - indefinitely? I have nothing against drilling and tapping the resources we have, so long as it’s not the only way forward.
The trolls can rant and rave all they want - I don't care. Do me a favor and keep track of who the (professional/persistent) deniers are today. Let's come back in a few years and see what they have to say - what excuses they have for ignoring the science and putting our kids at risk. That should be interesting.
I'm no meteorological martyr or Paul Revere - but I've seen enough evidence to make a call on this one. It's either the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on the people of Earth or the climate scientists are correct. Call me crazy but I think it's possible to lean to the right, and still care about the environment and sound science. If that makes me a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) then I wear the badge proudly. The forecast calls for more rinos.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 4/23/2012, 9:15 am
Well, the results are in, and the "CO2 is plant food! Global warming will be TEH AWESOME for plants!" is a bust:
Global warming may initially make the grass greener, but not for long, according to new research results.
The findings, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, show that plants may thrive in the early stages of a warming environment but then begin to deteriorate quickly.
"We were really surprised by the pattern, where the initial boost in growth just went away," said scientist Zhuoting Wu of Northern Arizona University (NAU), a lead author of the study. "As ecosystems adjusted, the responses changed."
Ecologists subjected four grassland ecosystems to simulated climate change during a decade-long study.
Plants grew more the first year in the global warming treatment, but this effect progressively diminished over the next nine years and finally disappeared.
The research shows the long-term effects of global warming on plant growth, on the plant species that make up a community, and on changes in how plants use or retain essential resources like nitrogen.
Bolin, who farms near Manlius, Illinois, and who served as president of American Corn Growers Association from 2004 - 2012, said he felt there was no doubt that the weather has become more extreme, with high rainfall and severe droughts more prevalent today. He expressed concern for the ability of farmers to deal with and adapt to the changing environment. Bolin urges public policy to further develop alternative renewable energy resources, along with efforts to educate and inform agricultural producers to prepare for and adapt to the changing environment, to ensure adequate food and energy production.
“There’s simply no substitute for good soil and a stable climate for growing crops,” Bolin said. “That puts farmers at the front lines of global warming — it’s a grave threat to rural livelihoods and quality of life. That’s why I support EPA policies to cut global warming pollution from automobiles and power plants.”
For Welch’s grape growers, it was the most devastating frost in Michigan’s history. That’s according to the National Grape Cooperation, better known as Welch’s Foods. Cold temperatures wiped out 95 percent of all the juice grapes in Berrien, Cass and Van Buren County. “You know it’s a complete wipeout,” said John Jasper, a surveyor for Welch’s Foods. Jasper said more than 10,000 acres of juice grapes were destroyed Thursday morning across Southwest Michigan. Jasper had a difficult job Friday. He and two other Welch’s surveyors tried to figure out how many grapes the company could expect this year at harvest. “I went through hundreds of acres before I found a spot that had a live bud,” he said. “I’ve probably been to 100 farms in the last two days,” said Jasper. “The majority (are destroyed) 95 percent.” According to the National Grape Cooperation, Berrien, Cass and Van Buren farmers collected $24 million in 2011. Jasper said in 2012 they would be lucky to net $2 million.
But remember, it's not happening, according to our future Republican President. We can just stick our heads in the sand for another few decades and everything will be fine...
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 5/4/2012, 8:13 am
US thinktank launches poster campaign comparing Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden to those concerned about global warming
It really is hard to know where to begin with this one. But let's start with: "What on earth were they thinking?"
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based rightwing thinktank notorious for promoting climate scepticism, has launched quite possibly one of the most ill-judged poster campaigns in the history of ill-judged poster campaigns.
. . .
It tries to morally justify its posters - the first of which appeared over the Eisenhower Expressway yesterday - by saying that, due to ""Climategate" and the recent incident in which a US scientist called Peter Gleick admitted to obtaining and releasing internal documents (one of which Heartland claims was faked) detailing Heartland's funding and policy strategies, that "the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas".
Yup. But only NASA and NOAA are the alarmists. Gotcha.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 5/4/2012, 9:17 am
Climate and environmental change are emerging as national security threats that weigh heavily in the Pentagon’s new strategy, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told an environmental group last night.
“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta said here at a reception hosted by the Environmental Defense Fund to honor the Defense Department in advancing clean energy initiatives. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief,” Panetta said.
. . .
The secretary also said he has great concern about energy-related threats to homeland security that are not driven by climate change.
“I have a deep interest in working to try to ensure from a security perspective that we take measures that will help facilitate and maintain power in the event of an interruption of the commercial grid that could be caused, for example, by a cyber attack which is a reality that we have to confront,” he said.
Budget considerations compound the issue, the secretary said. The Defense Department spent about $15 billion on fuel for military operations last year. In Afghanistan alone, the Pentagon uses more than 50 million gallons of fuel each month on average. Combined with rising gas prices, this creates new budget issues for the department, Panetta said.
“We now face a budget shortfall exceeding $3 billion because of higher-than-expected fuel costs this year,” he told the audience.
A national security concern now just as it was under the Bush administration. But, you know... they're just in it for the gold like everyone else. How else was the Pentagon supposed to get funding from a Republican administration that denied the existence of global warming?
Fucking morons.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 5/4/2012, 6:37 pm
Heartland Institute President and CEO Joe Bast has issued the following statement:
We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.
Interesting. Not because it’s dishonest. Not because it’s irrational. Not because it’s demagoguery and utterly repulsive. Hey, it was just a risk they took! But the problem is that any sane person could possibly think this is okay, ever, under any circumstances.
Scorpion
Posts : 2141
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 5/4/2012, 8:17 pm
Heartland Institute President and CEO Joe Bast has issued the following statement:
We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.
Interesting. Not because it’s dishonest. Not because it’s irrational. Not because it’s demagoguery and utterly repulsive. Hey, it was just a risk they took! But the problem is that any sane person could possibly think this is okay, ever, under any circumstances.
Unfrickin' believable. If I hadn't seen this statement from Heartland, I'd think that this whole thing was faked.
“Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
So, you see, it was just an "experiment," presumably because the "other side seems to be playing by different rules," and we can expect more "experiments" from these "realists" in the future.
You really can't make stuff like this up!
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 5/10/2012, 8:51 am
Yeah, the cognitive dissonance in the issued statement is downright pathological. "[W]e’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists"? Seriously? Yes, we may compare them to Holocaust deniers constantly, but we've never equated them to the people who caused it.
But the reactions have been rightfully justified for such a despicable campaign, and it's costing them big:
Quote :
It was repulsive and hateful. After an uproar — and in less than a day — Heartland took down the billboards, but didn’t apologize for them. Instead they claimed it was an "experiment", and declared victory in getting attention. This would be why I use the words repulsive and disgusting.
But the damage was done — this tactic has backfired on Heartland. Even before the billboards went up they lost sponsorship from the Diageo liquor company, which makes such brands as Smirnoff and Guiness. In March, General Motors dropped Heartland as well. Even people who support climate change denialism are worried that their own reputations "[have] been harmed".
And now, after a few bloggers wrote to State farm, the insurance company has announced they too will withdraw funding from Heartland Institute. State Farm specifically cites the billboards as the reason in their announcement.
But leave it to the internet FTW:
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 6/11/2012, 12:02 pm
While politicians in Washington and in Richmond, Virginia's state capital, have done little to address the problem, authorities along Virginia's coast have watched the waters rise and have been forced to take action.
The city government of Norfolk spends about $6m (£3.8m) a year to elevate roads, improve drainage, and help homeowners literally raise their houses to keep their ground floors dry, says Assistant City Manager Ron Williams.
About 5%-10% of the city's lowest-lying neighbourhoods are subject to heavy flooding during storms. City planners do not currently recommend any areas be abandoned to the tide, but "you have to have the conversation as you look 50 years out", Mr Williams says.
At Naval Station Norfolk, the world's largest naval base, the US Navy is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to replace aging piers with new ones better able to withstand the rising water.
"Sea level rise was having a measurable impact on the readiness of the ships," says retired Capt Joseph Bouchard, who was commander of the base from 2000-2003. "And that's unacceptable."
That's the physical, measurable reality. So what next?
Quote :
Senator Ralph Northam, a Democrat, and Chris Stolle, a Republican member of the Virginia's lower House of Delegates, this year shepherded a resolution through the legislature spending $50,000 on a comprehensive study of the economic impact of coastal flooding on the Virginia and to investigate ways to adapt.
To pass the bill, at Stolle's suggestion Northam excised the words "relative sea level rise" from an initial draft of the bill, replacing them with "recurrent flooding" in the final version.
Stolle says the change was necessary to ensure the bill focused on the issues Virginia politicians can handle - flooding - and not those they cannot address - global warming. In any case, "the jury's still out" on mankind' s contribution to global warming, he says.
"Other folks can go argue about sea-level rise and global warming," Stolle says. "What matters is people's homes are getting destroyed, and that's what we want to focus on. To think that we are going to stop climate change is absolute hubris. The climate is going to change whether we're here or not."
Northam describes the change in language as pragmatic politics - necessary to win support from conservatives sceptical of climate change science.
"If you mention climate change to them, it's like a big red flag," he says. "A barrier goes up. That's the way it is here in the Virginia."
Thankfully addressing the issue, but disguising it so Republicans don't loose their shit. Like so:
In a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words “Nuh-unh!” into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers’ lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because … because … well, SHUT UP, that’s because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here’s a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: “These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. …” It goes on, but there’s the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
In a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words “Nuh-unh!” into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers’ lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because … because … well, SHUT UP, that’s because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here’s a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: “These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. …” It goes on, but there’s the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.
Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.
"Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 2.5F over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1.5 degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases," Muller wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of just a few years!
Good news, sure, but it's still fucking sad. It's no different than a flat earther finally figuring out that the earth is in fact round...
But remember, it still ain't happenin' according to our man Mitt and the GOP. I mean, it's not like we've been having freak storms and droughts that are impacting our economy and killing people, draining emergency/disaster relief funds. And it's definitely not like this shit was predicted decades ago and there was any reason to prepare...
GOP 2012! 'Cause they're totally not corporate owned!
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 7/31/2012, 10:06 am
The entire study can be found here. Here's a some interesting bits from their press release:
Quote :
According to a new Berkeley Earth study released today, the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions.
. . .
The new analysis from Berkeley Earth goes all the way back to 1753, about 100 years earlier than previous groups’ analyses. The limited land coverage prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the record; despite these, the behavior is significant.
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist for Berkeley Earth and the person who carried out most of the analysis, noted that “Sudden drops in the early temperature record (1753 to 1850) correspond to known volcanic events.” Volcanoes spew particles into the air, which then reflect sunlight and cool the earth for a few years. In the Berkeley Earth temperature plot (see figure below), sudden dips in temperature caused by large volcanic explosions are evident back to the late 1700s.
. . .
Berkeley Earth compared the shape of the gradual rise over 250 years to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials) and to solar activity (known through historical records of sunspot numbers), and even to rising functions such as world population.
Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, by far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.” He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory doesn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.”
In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “most” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956. Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 250 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.
. . .
A previous Berkeley Earth study, released in October 2011, found that the land-surface temperature had risen by about 0.9 °C over the past 50 years (which was consistent with previous analyses) and directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.
The Berkeley Earth team values the simplicity of its analysis, which does not depend on the large complex global climate models that have been criticized by climate skeptics for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. The conclusion that the warming is due to humans is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
It's a bad day to be a global warming skeptic, as this specifically refutes several of their talking points.
Namely: A) It isn't happening. B) It is happening, but not because of CO2. C) It's just the volcanoes D) It's the sun. E) Unproven theory based on faulty computer models. F) Poor station quality
Quote :
Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. (2011), we conclude that station quality in the contiguous United States does not unduly bias the Berkeley Earth estimates of contiguous land surface average monthly temperature trends. . . Our results are similar to those of Fall et al., but they are based on a different form of analysis; they indicate that the absence of a station quality bias is a robust conclusion that is true not only for the kind of analysis done by Fall et al. but also for the methods that we used.
We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 +- 0.24 °C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A).
The stations we identified as “very rural” provide good spatial coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating. Our results are inline with previous results on global averages despite differences in methodology. Parker (2010) concluded that the effect of urban heating on the global trends is minor, HadCRU use a bias error of 0.05 °C per century, NOAA estimate residual urban heating of 0.06 °C per century for the USA and GISS applies a correction to their data of 0.01oC per century. All are small on the scale of global warming.
Not like it will matter much, unfortunately. Skepticism hasn't been justified by the evidence in decades. They'll simply find more as unconvincing as it was before, and our children will suffer for it.
Robin Banks
Posts : 1545
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 8/12/2012, 10:06 am
You seem to really care about this stuff. What are you doing about it besides posting articles and opinions in a forum where maybe 5 people will see them?
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 8/12/2012, 10:37 am
Lowering my carbon footprint as much as any American is able while still living anywhere on the grid, educating others, and casting my vote where I think it will help most. As the conservatives who rejected Kyoto will tell you, there's little an individual can do when industry and entire countries still to ignore the problem.
I'm not an environmentalist or politician, I don't do PR. Fuck, I only started researching the topic at all because Mirage's claim that global warming was a big government conspiracy in a post on the old, old nwitimes forum (was that really 6 or 7 years ago? Even longer?) seemed hilariously unlikely to me.
Do you have any useful suggestions? Considering that so much of the country still has quite a propensity for electing fear-mongering, science-starvedconspiracy theorists into office who will continue to fight to make sure as little is done on the topic as possible, considering how few Republicans/conservatives even now admit AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon, I am truly at a loss.
Or maybe it's just like my profile says: I'm just here chronicling the next collapse.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101 8/21/2012, 12:21 am
Home 
Publications 
Fucking morons. 
