IT IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I DROP BACK — or move forward — to that issue that invites such vituperation whenever I address some of its ramifications. I write, of course, of global warming, which remains, I believe, very likely the most crucial environmental issue we have ever faced.
Research on this problem continues to grow at a rapid pace and continues to support the vital significance of this extremely dangerous reality. First let me note what is unquestionably the most dramatic aspect of this dabate as it has been framed and pressed: that it pits the power of the wealthiest corporate interests in the land against not only overwhelming scientific evidence, but also against the health of humanity — writ large.
I begin with a new entry in the anti-warming sweepstakes: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, headed by Tom Harris, which strikingly questions such a framing of the issues.
As reported by Fox News, that shining star in the firmament of journalistic accuracy on environmental issues, a recent study report from NIPCC claims the “threat of man-made global warming (is) greatly exaggerated.” It finds that threat to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system,” and not dangerous.
“The 1,000-page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.
“This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review of climate science,” the authors write.
Armed with these “new findings,” Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.
The study was done under the auspices of … hold your breath … the Heartland Institute, which claims it “has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency.” (A reality we warmly embrace!)
The Heartland Institute’s president, Joseph Bast, said of the study, “The big issue in the global warming debate is, how large is the human impact on climate? And this report shows that it is very small, that natural variability, the variability that’s caused by natural cycles of the sun and other factors, way outweigh anything the human impact could have.”
Or as one might put it in Heartland terms, as small as the impact of tobacco smoke upon the human lung.
As noted by Tom Harris, the head honcho of NIPCC, “History will record the NIPCC as the most significant contribution any person or group on the climate realist side of the debate made in helping society get back on track towards making climate and energy decisions that actually help the environment and society.” A remarkably succinct and modest evaluation by its humble leader.
With so much at stake, it would appear vital that we learn more about NIPPC and Director Tom Harris. I quote from SourceWatch:
“Tom Harris, described as ‘an Ottawa-based engineer and science and technology communications specialist,’ is the executive director of International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics. Harris started in the position in approximately March 2008. From late 2006 until he started with the ICSC, Harris was the executive director of the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), another group of climate change skeptics. Prior to the launch of the NRSP, Harris was a director of operations of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group (HPG), a Canadian PR and lobbying firm.”
Note please that two of the three founding directors of the NRSP are registered Canadian energy sector lobbyists. Note also that Harris was, until approximately late October 2006, listed as a director of operations of the Ottawa office of the lobbyist HPG.
However, according to SourceWatch, “Note that, as of November 22, 2006, Tom Harris is not listed as a lobbyist in the Lobbyists Registration System, Government of Canada.
“Tom Harris is everywhere in the blogosphere these days posting comments wherever anyone is saying positive things about the recent CBC climate change documentary, ‘The Denial Machine,’” Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog commented on Nov. 21, 2006. “Harris has popped up (in several places), cutting and pasting the same batch of criticisms of CBC’s reporting and attempting to salvage something of the NRSP’s battered reputation.”
Tim Lambert of Deltoid (ScienceBlogs.com) addressed Mr. Harris earlier that month:
“In other Tom Harris news, he’s been editing the Wikipedia page on the Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group, a PR company that lobbies for energy companies.”
The comments that follow Lambert’s Deltoid posting include the following by John Quiggin, dated Nov. 8, 2006: “It gets better. Harris is editing Wikipedia denying that he is associated with High Park Group. Meanwhile the High Park Group website lists: Tom Harris, Director, Ottawa Operations.”
So it appears that Harris, while still employed by HPG — a company that lobbied for Canadian energy companies — simultaneously served as executive director of NSRP.
For a trip that matches a wild carnival ride you can enter the name “Tom Harris” in SourceWatch and continue to follow his adventures as he winds his way from core big energy front man to Fox’s noble savior of realism in protection of the environment.
Among many other gems of insight, his International Climate Science Coalition claims that “global warming has generally been highly beneficial,” and that “Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.”
From a piece on Harris from DeSmogBlog.com, we find more exciting news about his gallant quest to rescue the environment (and big energy) from the environmentalists.
“Tom Harris was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland and found that they had collectively received more than $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.
“Harris’s ICSC promotes the Manhattan Declaration, which states that ‘global warming is not a global crisis’ and that ‘there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
“Harris has attempted to remove this fact from the NRSP entry on Wikipedia and SourceWatch. He also denied his employment with the High Park Group in a comment on Deltoid.
“In 2005, Harris was listed as an ‘associate’ for the public relations firm APCO Worldwide, with his areas of expertise being communications, science, technology, energy and environment. APCO was hired by Philip Morris in 1993 to create a front group titled The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). TASSC manufactured a public relations campaign with the purpose of discrediting any science that suggested tobacco increased cancer and heart problems. It also advocated industry-friendly positions on global warming and pesticides.
“Apart from Philip Morris, APCO also received funding from Chevron, ExxonMobil (at least $30,000), Dow Chemical, the National Pest Control Association, 3M, and numerous tobacco and oil companies.”
Trouble keeping track? “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
In conclusion, and in short, what we have with this fresh and exciting work of Tom Harris and his great new “environmental” organization is an effort by an on-the-make snake oil salesman to patch a new name over the same tired, old but very, very dangerous big energy game. It is a big-time con, well funded by the usual suspects. But, sadly and painfully enough, it has invigorated and given new life to denialists everywhere.
Next week, a short trip through the latest bulletins from brute reality.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Is that sort of like Joe Biden, Obama, Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid arguing that the nuclear option when pondered by the republicans in 2005 (but didn’t do it) was detestable by the mere contemplation, and now they have gone and done the very thing to serve their own self-interests. I think it is clear that they and the rest of the liberal left are the great deceivers who are WELL practiced at it.
As for the global warming concept, again it is a solution in search of a problem along with a bunch of big money leftists looking to cash in big time on their mere investment of chanting a new mantra!
Because circumstances can’t change in eight years.
And then there’s this …
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-among-flip-floppers-senates-nuclea/
Plenty more were that came from.
Shall we stay relevant? Looks like you’re in the minority.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4319485
You’re being lied to.
You can show yourself out.
Pure partisan politics and it will always be that way.
I was under the impression that this was a global issue. No one that is limited to the two party political system of the US. I little broader vision might be in order.
Beyond global warming- and climate deniers
From the above article:
I”T IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I DROP BACK — or move forward — to that issue that invites such vituperation whenever I address some of its ramifications. I write, of course, of global warming, which remains, I believe, very likely the most crucial environmental issue we have ever faced.”
Though I agree with Mr. Page’s articles on climate change, I’ve been following a story for the past two -plus years —Fukushima (earthquake) and nuclear accident that from the articles I’ve read pose an even more immediate and greater environmental concern (radiation contamination) for the community to conisder…
An excerpt from the article below:
Think it’s bad on the outside? Inside it’s instant death.
On November 14, Japanese media reported that, for the first time, a remote-controlled robot had found the locations in Unit 1 where radioactive water was leaking out of the reactor. TEPCO acknowledged that it was unable to do anything about these leaks any time soon, and they suspected there were similar leaks in Units 2 and 3. As long as TEPCO can keep the molten cores cooled, they will remain stable – and the flow of contaminated water into the environment will continue.
According to RT.com:
“The radiation levels in the inspected area were reported at 0.9 to 1.8 sieverts an hour, while a typical release of radiation is generally accepted to be 1 millisievert a year.” In less technical language, a sievert is a unit of measurement for a radiation dose to humans – a dose of more than one sievert in a brief perion will likely cause radiation sickness and possibly death. A millisievert is one one-thousandth of a sievert. In other words, roughly calculated, the radiation level the robot found is about 9 million times greater than the so-called “safe” annual human exposure.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-nuclear-fuel-removal-procedures/5359111
Beyond global warming- and climate change deniers
From the above article:
I”T IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I DROP BACK — or move forward — to that issue that invites such vituperation whenever I address some of its ramifications. I write, of course, of global warming, which remains, I believe, very likely the most crucial environmental issue we have ever faced.”
Though I agree with Mr. Page’s articles on climate change, I’ve been following a story for the past two
-plus years —Fukushima (earthquake) and nuclear accident that from the articles I’ve read pose an even more immediate and greater environmental concern (radiation contamination) for the community to conisder…
A key excerpt from the scholarly footnoted article below:
“The Reactor 4 spent fuel pool contains an estimated 400 tons of uranium and plutonium oxide, compared with just 6.2 kilograms of plutonium inside Fat Man, the hydrogen bomb that obliterated Nagasaki in 1945. (While predictions are bandied about by experts and bloggers, there exists no reliable method for calculating the potential sum or flow rate of radiation releases, measured in becquerel or sievert units, after an accident. The tonnage involved, however, indicates only that a large-scale event is likely and a cataclysm cannot be ruled out.)
“More than 1,700 tons of nuclear materials are reported to be on site inside Fukushima No.1 plant. (My investigative visits into the exclusion zone indicate the existence of undocumented and illegal large-scale storage sites in the Fukushima nuclear complex of undetermined tonnage.) By comparison Chernobyl ’s reactors contained 180 tons of fuel not all of which melted down.”
“Despite the looming threat to residents in Fukushima , surrounding provinces and the capital Tokyo , the office of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe along with TEPCO hews to the tradition of risk denial and blackout of vital information. No contingency plan has been issued to Fukushima residents or to the municipalities of the Tohoku and Kanto region in event of a nuclear disaster during the SFP clearance effort. A concurrent drive to impose a draconian law against whistleblowers on grounds of national security is reinforcing the cover-up of data and testimony related to nuclear power plants, including the Fukushima complex.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-tepco-is-risking-the-removal-of-fukushima-fuel-rods-the-dangers-of-uncontrolled-global-nuclear-radiation/5359188
Will if you’re going to cut and paste your intro at least edit out the typos the second time around. Good grief.
Beyond the climate change deniers–
What about the democrats?
Fair question: What is President Obama”s record on the environment?
This passage from the article below gives the reader/community more to consider…
“The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.” Such are the recent words of President Obama, ever more striking, considering that the world’s most powerful leader has not shown much of this desperately needed courage in his actions on tackling climate change. As Tom Weis pointed out, the President’s long-awaited ‘Climate Action Plan’ promotes natural gas fracking, radioactive nuclear power and mythical “clean coal”. Obama’s Georgetown speech on climate change was more alarming than inspiring. As Dr. Jill Stein noted, “You can’t give your child an ‘all of the above diet’ with toxic lead and arsenic, and think that adding some spinach and blueberries is going to make it OK. Likewise, reducing carbon pollution from coal does not make fracking, tar sands oil, deep water and Arctic drilling OK. The climate is spiraling into runaway warming. Obama’s promotion of cheap dirty fossil fuels makes coal regulations just window dressing on a disastrous policy.” To those who applauded the President’s ‘big’ climate speech, Kim Huynh of Tar Sands Blockade summed up a poignant reminder: “After all, this is the same President that fast-tracked the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline to pump toxic tar sands through our homes.”
“This is also the same President that has added enough new oil and gas pipelines to circle the Earth, directed his administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states, quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high, launched a catastrophic Arctic drilling strategy, secretly negotiated the harmful Trans-Pacific Partnership,and proudly declared “As long as I’m President, we’re going to keep on encouraging oil development and infrastructure.” In light of the above, it is unfortunately not surprising that our ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ president and his administration have also turned a blind-eye to the rapid expansion of tar sands mining and pipe lining in the United States, allowing repeat offenders, such as Enbridge, Exxon, BP, with the worst crude oil and tar sands dilbit spills on their hands, to continue expanding their operations.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/02/obama-is-leading-the-world-to-climate-hell/
Will,
I hate to burst your bubble regarding your bashing of President Obama, but to try and lead others to believe that the “enough pipelines to circle the earth” makes Obama out to be in the pocket of big oil bespeaks a complete lack of understanding of several aspects of that statement and the movement of hydro carbons through pipes.
Here are the numbers on total lines by year with the addition of new lines being the difference:
Crude oil: 2008: 50,963 miles, 2010: 54,728 +3,765
Petroleum products: 2008: 61,599, 2010: 64,752,+ 3,153
Natural gas transmission: 2008: 303,182, 2010: 304,691,+ 1,509
Natural gas distribution: 2008: 2,074,513, 2010: 2,095,690, + 21,177
Over 70% of the “pipelines” he is referring to are lines that bring gas into residences and buildings.
More on global warming–
What is natural localism and why is it important?
An excerpt from the article below for the community to consider…
“The problem with the general public is “natural localism.” This is the tendency for most people to focus their activities and interests within a narrow local range. Statistics tend to provide evidence for a geographical form natural localism. As of January 2013 only 39% of Americans have valid passports. And, for most of the rest, travel is normally associated with vacations by car. The average one-way distance for such travel is 314 miles.”
“However, natural localism is not only geographic. It is also temporal. That is, most people are aware of time through their own experiences and those related to the timespans of close relatives and friends. This usually goes back in time as far as grandparents and forward in time as far as our grandchildren. Beyond that range both the past and the future become nebulous and are often perceived as irrelevant to one’s own present.”
“What has all this to do with global warming? Natural localism makes it very difficult for the average man or woman to feel personally connected to a process whose worst consequences are projected out one hundred plus years into the future. For most, the shorter-term effects may happen beyond their local geographical sphere, or will accrue slowly enough over time to be ignored. It was to break through this barrier and make global warming a part of local consciousness that the organizers of the 2013 Earth Day events adopted the theme “The Face of Climate Change.” The impact was minimal at best.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/22/roadblocks-to-climate-activism/
From the article:what we have with… Tom Harris … is an effort by an on-the-make snake oil salesman to patch a new name over the same tired, old but very, very dangerous big energy game. It is a big-time con, well funded by the usual suspects.
Quite a hit piece on Mr. Harris.
Attacking the messenger is a card played usually when one is either losing the argument or has an empty quiver.
Perhaps that is what 15 years of near zero ‘global warming’ can do to you.
Interesting what 50-plus years of intellectual atrophy has done to you. As for Harris, he is obviously more than a mere “messenger.”
Here we go again … The basic fact that global warming alarmists cannot seem to understand is this: the whole theory of man-made global warming is based on models that CO2 production leads linearly and directly to global warming.
Small problem … All the models and data do not support this theory. CO2 emissions and global warming data have been proven, categorically, to be de-coupled. There is no link in the data. Global warming has been stalled for the past 15 years, again, according to the data.
The global warming agenda is truly political based in the desire for government control of resources and business. I have reached that conclusion after reading many articles, such as the above, that continue to ignore facts and data.
Looks like that “settled science” is not as settled as it used to be. According to this survey only 52 % of the Meteorologists and atmospheric scientists surveyed (1,821 respondents) agreed that the cause of GW is “mostly human”. Here is the link:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming:A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members
Deniers like to think of their denial as some kind of intellectual rigor, but really it’s just resentment at their own ignorance. The age-old inferiority complex, once again.
“Resenters of their own ignorance.”
Boy if that isn’t a mouthful. If you are ignorant, how can you resent it?
How about some FACTS to support your argument as opposed to diatribe.
The FACT is man made global warming is junk science and based upon admittedly falsified information and misrepresentation of ….. wait for it ….. FACTS!
The concept of man made global warming is a man made solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in hopes of being able to sound the horn loud enough and long enough to be able to cash in on it. There are NO verifiable FACTS in the contrary. Tons of theories out there, supported by ….. guess who …. yes the folks who have invested in it, along with their buddy and fellow scum bag (I invented the internet) Al Gore.
Let’s face it, one single volcano going off in our world does more to the atmosphere than the last fifty years of the industrialized world. How foolish of us to think that after these things have been going off for millions of years, that we can some how come along and in a few decades destroy mother earth. Ain’t gonna happen folks. Get used to it. So many of the alarmist predictions have failed to come true and the trends are going in the wrong direction. The fact is that mother earth is changing all the time and she is a big slow moving wheel. Things happen over long durations of time. Anyone remember that thing called the “Ice Age”? In the grand scheme of things, us little humans just aren’t that important.
“JLB on Jerome Page: Warming up out there?” is quite a contrast to “JLB on It Occurs To Me: Religiosity”.
How so?
Disbelief and vitriol on one side vs. Faith and love on the other.
So just because I am a Christian and I believe in God I have to also believe in man made global warming? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I expressed my opinion and didn’t call anyone any names, which I might add is quite different than the OP and many on this board. Vitriol, I don’t think so. Disbelief and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another.
“So just because I am a Christian and I believe in God I have to also believe in man made global warming?”
No, it is actually about believing in things that are tangible vs. believing in things that are not. Very simple.
“I expressed my opinion and didn’t call anyone any names.” No? How about, “fellow scum bag”?
I believe that Al Gore and the other investors in his green technology junk are scum bags. If they cared about other people more than their wealth and power grabs, the world would be a much better place. Sorry if that bothers you. I have a wide range of beliefs, emotions and stances on a variety of issues. If you see that as conflicted then I plead guilty. It doesn’t change anything in what I believe or stated in that other thread. I’m human. Get over it and move on.
Perhaps you should move on, instead of trying to justify bad behavior. You are only fooling yourself.
JLB, we’ve been down this route once before. You may have missed it and sorry about that.
. See Quote below.
“A visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”
One major problem here, how long have they been able to keep records? Millions of years? I don’t think so. In aggregate there is no way you can compare what has gone on here on this planet since the beginning of time to the time when we had record keeping capabilities and the ability to compile data into a reasonable and reportable form.
JLB,
John Ransom has a good piece on the recently released study which is linked above:
63 Percent Chance Weather Predictors Are Skeptics on Global Warming
From above referenced piece:
“73% of scientists who publish papers regarding global warming and climate are inclined to believe that global warming is real and global warming is man-made.
The farther that science gets from this conflict of interest, it seems, the more likely it is that they are disinclined to believe global warming is man-made.
But I say that the data just proves that the more dependent scientists are on believing global warming to be man-made in order to make a living through publishing, the more likely they are to believe global warming is man-made because that’s how they make their living.”
We have heard on numerous occasions how all MCGW deniers are wholly influenced by money received from various sources. This same argument assumes that the MCGWA are wholly uninfluenced by the money they receive.
Neither point is fully valid.
Interesting take JLB. I’m afraid that doesn’t quite deal with the issue, which was the comparative CO2 impact of volcanos vs man during the past couple centuries. If you propose to deal with the planet since the beginning, the scenarios are legion, obviously incorporate vastly more combinations of chemicals, atmospheres, etc., etc, and have zero bearing on our current situation or discussion. I quote you, “Let’s face it, one single volcano going off in our world does more to the atmosphere than the last fifty years of the industrialized world.” If your point is that one single volcano emitting for four plus billion years beats fifty years of man’s CO2 output, I would certainly agree. But isn’t that a bit off the wall not to speak of totally irrelevant to the discussion. The clear logic of your point was that volcanos emit more than man produces in a concurrent framework.
As to your statement, “The FACT is man made global warming is junk science and based upon admittedly falsified information and misrepresentation of ….. wait for it ….. FACTS!” Having a science degree myself and having spent many hundreds of hours studying the literature and research on this issue, I find this quite a remarkable statement and conclusion—not to mention completely divorced from reality. But to each his own!…And I would not deny you the enjoyment of the embrace of whatever world view you choose to nourish.
A Meteorologist Survey Does Not Contradict Climate Consensus: “This study merely shows that the average opinions of meteorologists are at odds with the majority of scientific research on climate change”:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/27/no-daily-caller-a-meteorologist-survey-does-not/197080
The pattern seems to be that there is confusion between opinion vs. results of data produced through applying the scientific method.
Very true. I’d like to see the survey on how many meteorologists watch Fox.
Or, how many pray to a mythical deity.
Why does it bother you so much that people believe in God? It doesn’t hurt you in any way.
How did you infer that?
You mean like data from NASA, who could be reasonably assumed to be unbiased? They are a government entity aren’t they? Their data seems to shoot huge holes in global warming.
You seem to be coming at me as if you know what position I’ve taken on the probability of global warming being caused humans. You have no idea.
As far as NASA is concerned, perhaps you should visit their website and present some concrete evidence of what position they have taken. It might prove to be challenging. This might end up like the volcano thing.
You are correct, I do not know your position on man made global warming. More importantly, I don’t care. As for NASA I have been to their web site and read their reports. That is why I sighted them. Maybe you need to do your own digging.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
This article, from 2011, in no way includes any information that indicates what position NASA takes on global warming. The reference to NASA is only that their satellite imagery was used in a study. What’s more, the article seems to be prefaced by the following, “The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted.” Is “far less” greater than, or equal to zero? Here is an official NASA site regarding global warming:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Mr. Jerry Page,
Since we are thinking globally here I would like to point out that you might find your attention drawn to Italy every so often. I dare say it may be because you know someone who just moved there. Perhaps that someone would like to tell you that she is thinking of you.
Sincerely,
Your biggest fan