By Jerome Page
THIS IS A CALL FOR HELP! After five intense weeks buried in the literature of climate change and its deniers — in all their variegated forms — I am unable to extricate myself, much less shape the crisp message I’d intended.
It is akin to having been thrown bodily into a massive garbage dump, told to look around for a few days, pulled out and asked to verbally reconstruct the civilization that produced the dump — and to do so in several thousand words. I had intended a couple columns on this problem, but the reconstruction required has ballooned my task.
By this point, clearly, the public has reached a kind of saturation point on the issue of climate change — so many voices, so many contradictions, such bewildering complexity and an overriding sense that with no scientific coherence, we might better discuss something realistic and exciting. Like Armageddon!
Later I will touch on the very critical problem of that bewilderment — and some of its causes — but for now I will continue by presenting the denialist position, as expressed by its leaders, together with questions concerning the validity of that position.
First, however, on a lighter note, I came upon a story that might be helpful as an opening to this piece. From the Mother Nature Network, it is titled “Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza,” by Peter Dykstra (March 2009):
“One of my favorite movies about climate change is ‘Dumb and Dumber.’ Perhaps I owe you all an explanation as to why.
“If you haven’t seen it, the movie was made about 15 years ago by the Farrelly Brothers, the highly successful purveyors of artfully done toilet humor. The leading men are Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, playing gullible, good-natured imbeciles on a cross-country adventure.
“Carrey is smitten with a woman played by Lauren Holly. His character, Lloyd, asks her what his prospects are for romance.
“She coldly replies, ‘About one in a million.’
“Here’s where the climate change part comes in: Hardly discouraged by this slapdown, Lloyd’s eyes light up. And in the true spirit of a climate change denier, he says, ‘So you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance.’
“Yeah, folks, there’s a chance climate change isn’t for real. There’s always a chance. That’s the way science works. There’s always a chance that the mounting evidence, the computer models and long-term forecasts are wrong. That slim and slimmer chance is enough to create and sustain an indestructible denial lobby.” (I would add “movement and industry.”)
While Dykstra’s odds might be a bit overstated, the story does illustrate the dilemma.
Notwithstanding the many, many millions expended by the Koches, by Exxon, by Chevron, by the rest of the oil, gas and coal companies to deny its reality or by the Scaife foundations, true bulwarks against the onslaught of reality — climate change is happening.
No matter how many millions of words of snarky blogs, no matter the indignation, ridicule and ascription of foul motive from the ranks of the bloggers of the right, the science of climate change will continue to develop, to amend, to tune up its emphases, to sharpen its analyses and to grow. The great question — fast becoming one of the seminal questions of our time — is whether public understanding and public policy will be shaped by that science or by those millions.
One of the great ironies of this dilemma is that in recent times the battle cry of the New Right — now allied with oil, gas and coal — has been shaped around the deep, deep concern about the world we will be handing down to our children and grandchildren!
There is now a vast amount of literature, scientific reportage and analysis, critiques, books, programs and blogs from horizon to horizon on climate change. I will focus on a few of the major (and much-quoted) leaders in the denialist camp, particularly those associated with the Heartland Institute and other organizations in the “Cooler Heads Coalition.”
Dr. Frederick Seitz
I begin with Frederick Seitz, an oft-quoted leader in the denialist ranks. In a March 6, 2008, New York Times obituary, author Dennis Hevesi detailed some of the highlights of the work of Dr. Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1962-69 and president of Rockefeller University, one of the nation’s leading research institutions, from 1968-78.
In the 1990s, as consensus about global warming was building, Seitz’s contrarian views became a spark for debate. As Hevesi wrote, “When, in 1998, Seitz issued a statement and circulated a petition attacking the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control emissions of industrial-waste gases, the National Academy of Sciences took the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one of its former presidents. …
“Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to ‘a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution’ by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth. …
“From 1978-88, Seitz was a member of the medical research committee of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. His work for the company was the subject of a 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine that criticized what it called an ‘overlap’ between scientists who deny climate change and ‘tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking.’” The Vanity Fair article further stated that Seitz had earned a total of about $585,000 from his contract with RJR.
Seitz also did considerable work with the George C. Marshall Institute, an organization heavily funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Soon is a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Since 1992, he has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory; he is also a receiving editor with the journal New Astronomy and a major player on the Heartlands team.
Soon co-published a controversial review article titled, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years” (Climate Research, 2003) with Dr. Sallie Baliunas. The article claimed that the 20th century was not the warmest in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. After it was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, who declared the article was seriously flawed because “the conclusions (were) not supported by the evidence presented in the paper.” In addition to the resignations, 13 of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Soon and Baliunas had misinterpreted their work.
According to a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air,” the National Research Council recently published research concluding that the “global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period in the preceding four centuries.” Nonetheless, Soon’s paper was latched upon by the Bush administration, which noted that his work contradicted views held by many in the climate science community. This shaped and became a part of the rationale for the administration’s — and many subsequent deniers’ —approach to this issue.
The major methodological flaws identified in Soon’s research did not prevent its use by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who concluded, “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”
Doctors Soon and Baliunas have turned up as founding members of denier groups as far away as Argentina, where they are listed as members of the Argentinian Foundation for a Scientific Ecology. Soon’s 2005 CV shows he had papers published in both Russian and Spanish and he appeared at climate denier conferences across Europe.
Connections between the paper’s authors and oil industry groups have been well documented. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute. Soon also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil between 2005 and 2010 totalling $335,000. Other contributors to Soon’s career have included the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave him grants totaling $175,000 in 2005-06 and again in 2010; and coal and oil industry sources such as the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.
A Greenpeace report, “Dr. Willie Soon: a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal,” revealed that $1.033 million of Soon’s funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. Since 2002, every grant he received originated with fossil fuel interests, according to documents received from the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace’s Freedom of Information Act requests.
It is Soon’s unshakable and obviously irrefutable position that he has “never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research.” Which clearly closes the case.
To be continued ….
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Real American says
Again, an excellent oped by Mr. Page, the class of the Herald’s opinionmeisters!
Ric Small says
Good article. Not that it’s earth shattering, but it’s good to know the sources of any project or research.
The truth of the matter is, history tells us the earth started out in a warm state, then came the “ice age”, and now we (earth) is in a warming cycle once again. I believe that “fact” is fairly hard to deny. My point is, to call this cycle “Global Warming” may be a bit severe. But to deny there is “climate change” going on is a bit foolish. Has humankind had a hand in the intensity or speed of these changes? I believe it would be a bit difficult to say no. “We”, humankind, aren’t afraid to say we care about the earth, but if anyone drives a gas vehicle or warms/cools their home by means of fossil fuels must concede to the fact that we may not care that much. I tend to believe the opposite of what the government/politicians say on this subject, as we know they have their own agendas.
And I, too, am concerned about what kind if mess i am leaving my children and grandchildren. But until we’re all, or at least a health majority, are on the same page, I’m afraid there really is cause for concern for the future generations.
<
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Ric; I do care about my family. The big difference is I do not want to leave nit in the hands of the Climate Change folks. Over and out.
klem says
You got that right.
DDL says
By this point, clearly, the public has reached a kind of saturation point on the issue of climate change
A very astute observation, words which should be headed.
to be continued…
see above.
DDL says
“headed” = heeded
Mike says
Translation: We’re not going to listen anyway, Mr. Page, because we prefer to remain ignorant.
klem says
“A Greenpeace report, “Dr. Willie Soon: a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal,” revealed that $1.033 million of Soon’s funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. ”
I agree, Willie Soon is underpaid!
A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”.
He mentions that Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.
Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.
Compared to big green guys, Soon is getting only a lousy 100k a year, he’s a lightweight compared to the green propagandists. He should be paid more!
Mike says
Key difference: They’re paid to fight the kind of disinformation and non-peer-reviewed science Soon is paid to spread.
Alan says
So klem, you seem to be saying that the climate isn’t changing. Is that what you are saying klem? My superior logic trumps your ‘fact’ based argument.
klem says
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. Now that fact trumps your superior logic.
cheers
klem says
Oh wait, sorry I misunderstood your comment above. You’re not saying Willie Soon is underpaid, you’re suggesting that Willie Soon has somehow been corrupted by his payments from big Right concerns. That his views cannot be trusted because of the money he accepts from certain right organizations. I get it.
Fortunatly this never happens on the alarmist side. Whew.
Thomas Petersen says
Willie could have made more money batting for the other side. However, the other side reviewed his CV and determined that he was a hack.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
It the other side the final word?
Thomas Petersen says
No. Only the side that stands up to scientific review.
klem says
That’s right he could have made more money for the other side, like the Sierra club for example accepting $26 million from fossil fuel companies in 2010. There’s far more money on the dark side.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brune/the-sierra-club-and-natur_b_1251173.html
Thomas Petersen says
It is well documented that in 2003 Willie Soon and a college authored a paper that concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”. Numerous rebuttals were published highlighting three main objections: Soon and his colleague had used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, a team has attempted to duplicate Soon’s results, however, restricting themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies. The results differed and this study itself was criticized for methodological flaws.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Very good Klem. You just got the Climate group enraged. Good job.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Alan just what is your superior logic. Is it that you do not agree with Klem? Just curious.
Mike says
Ha ha, this is great …
Alan says
So Bob, you seem to be saying that the climate isn’t changing. Is that what you’re saying Bob? Do use oil Bob? I rest my case.
Mike says
Love it when they eat their own!
Alan says
Please insert the word ‘you’ between the words ‘Do’ and ‘use’ in my last post and NOW I rest my case, Bob.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Never said that Alan. Every person in America uses oil. Jusxt what is your case you are resting?
klem says
Case of beer.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
AT least Thomas Petersen uses his last name. Mike and Alan why don’t you use your last name also? Unless to protect your job position. I see no other reason even if you were a city employee. I sure would like to know why you will not use your last name. I think it gives you a little prestege.
klem says
Revealing ones name on the web is not a good idea.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
sorry prestige
MR says
You notice Livesay never calls out the right-wingers or people who agree with him to identify themselves?
If you think real hard Bob I’m sure you could come up with several reasons why people might want to stay anonymous. You can do it.
klem says
Why would you ned someone to identify themselves?
Alan says
Sorry guys, I wanted to give a sense of how I feel about Mr. Page’s arguments by replying in kind with nonsense. I’ll refrain from casting my seeds of irony on the stony ground of a warmist blog – sorry.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Thank you
Mike says
Clearly the stony ground is your fellow denialists’ minds. But if you traffic in nonsense and deny reality you will have to become accustomed to a lower level of discourse. Good luck!
Alan says
Mike,
Deny reality? This oped is surely just an ‘appeal to motive’, a logical fallacy, a form of ‘ad hominem’ attack. Either side can play this game but it gets you nowhere.
Mr. Page says “climate change is happening”. What he means is “dangerous man-made climate change is happening”. He doesn’t say what he means because no serious commentator would argue with the first statement, so it leaves the field open to attack the motives of these gentlemen (who I’ve never heard of). This is so much easier that arguing the scientific case, and it appeals to left wing sensibilities too.
Robert M. Shelby says
Alan, I doubt you know anything about centrist OR left-wing sensibilities. You “Righties” have a defective template or moth-holed map of just about everything. This becomes ever clearer as time passes. Time will demonstrate that your heads have been screwed so far up into where sun never shines, that you can’t mentally breath fresh thought, smell the coffee or hear the train roaring toward you.
klem says
Yea, they regularly use the terms climate change and anthropogenic climate change interchangeably. I think Wikipedia says that the terms are supposed to be used interchangeably.
So I guess it’s ok.
Alan says
klem,
Wikipedia says “Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years”. It also points our that it is used as a synonym for AGW, as you said. So it looks like we need a new name for the bit that happens without us.
Robert M. Shelby says
Obviously, Alan, that name would be geogenic climate change or NON-anthropogenic climate change.
Thomas Petersen says
“Wikipedia says…” Really, Wikipedia?
klem says
Yes Wikipedia.
Thomas Petersen says
My how things have changed after almost ten years.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
MR just what do you think the reason folks will not identify themselves are? If they write a LTTE they give their name. I might understand a public official, school teacher, police officer, job security and I am sure more reasons. But at the same time you have strong feelings you should identify yourself at all times. We have local Forum writers who have their name attached to their articles. Do they get heat from the public. Yes. I have met most of them on both sides of all issues. They are all very nice in person and do not seem to have any fear. Some are still working and others are retired. Identity gives more credit to your comments. Believe me I have been confronted by many on my LTTE and also by other LTTE and comments. If you can not take it and have a problem being called out stay out. I am all for telling us who you are. Remember we all have family in town or near by. I have my share and more. Be pround of what you stand for.
Mike says
MR pointed out your selective umbrage, Bob. Never seen you take a connie to task for not using a last name.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
To the no last name group. It is all who do not use a last name. DDL has been identified already. Does that make you feel better Mike. Now tell us who you no last name folks are. If not give a good reason why not. Protecting the family will not get it.
klem says
What is your issue with last names?
Robert M. Shelby says
On this point, Mr. Livesay, I do not disagree with you, but do not feel strongly insistent on others identifying themselves more than they wish.
MR says
” Protecting the family will not get it.”
Remember when Livesay went ballistic when someone used the names of his grandchildren?
klem says
And rightly so. Only a pervert would think that is ok.
Robert M. Shelby says
Here, I agree with Klem, but don’t insist it’s perverted to name the kids, just very unwise and possibly dangerous.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Yes Mike that is right protecting the family will not get it. The editor would delete those remarks that were considered an attack on innocent family members. So as you see I am correct. By the way I did except the explanation and it is over until you stepped in. Remeber Mike I do believe most folks that comment would not attack a family member unless they were also commenting. Just out of context attacks on family members I do not see in this paper.
Mike says
Your confusion continues. You mean MR. See above.
But you still have not answered the question, how come conservatives with one name don’t draw your ire? Not talking about Dennis Lazarro here. Looking forward to a cogent, timely reply, not sure why but I am.
DDL says
Mike,
You keep bringing up Lazarro, but you have never asked me about it, nor have you ever seen a post under that name.
klem says
“how come conservatives with one name don’t draw your ire? ”
Are you suggesting conseratives with two names actually would draw his ire?
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
It is there just read it.
Mike says
Bob you dodge with the best of them. How about you call out Concerned Citizen over in another thread? The second you do that I’ll post what a great guy Bob Livesay is.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
I have in the past suggested that folks tell us their last name. Just tell me why you will not tell us your last name. I am willing to accept any reasonable answer. Now post what a great guy Bob Livesay is and join my ever growing following. There is still room.
Mike says
Nope. Go after Concerned Citizen or you get no candy.
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Mike you are the only one I controll. So come clean
Mike says
Your move Bobarino! I’ll check back in a few days. Miss me? I know you will!
klem says
Simple, the rule is never use you last name on the web. Ever. It’s only common sense. Where have you people been?
klem says
“I have in the past suggested that folks tell us their last name.”
And surely no one was fool enough to actually do it. Never use you real name on the web.
You can never know how or when it will be used by someone else.
DDL says
i will see your two and raise you 16:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
I guess these guys are all on the take from BIGOILEVILKOCHBROTHERSMELLONSCIAFE
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Mike says
Shouldn’t you be busy writing your next BS column about voter fraud? Be sure to include this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57372176-503544/indiana-sec-of-state-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
Or are you just jealous that Jerome Page gets ten times the discussion you do?
DDL says
Mike,
I saw that previously, but appreciate the tip. Glad you are paying attention to my columns, but I seriously doubt it if you get past the first paragraph.
Why would I include a piece about a Republican being convicted of voter fraud?
You and your friends are convinced it is all BS and does not exist, or when it does occur, it does not impact elections. Make up your mind.
13 minutes and three cheap shots — not bad.
Mike says
Thanks, I’ve been training. You’re right that it’s hard to get past that first paragraph, but not for the reasons you probably mean.
I eagerly await your next offering. I’m leaving town for a few days though, so if it takes me a while to weigh in with some much-needed rational thought, don’t despair! I’ll be back …
Alan says
Ten times the chit-chat, more like.
Thomas Petersen says
Well, at least ten times the troll bait.
Will Gregory- says
Information or dis-information. You decide.
2 February 12
Australian Meteorology Bureau Corrects Record On Former Research Head William Kininmonth’s Actual Climate Change Experience.
Farron Cousins
Source: DESMOGBLOG: Clearing the Public Relations pollution that clouds climate science.
WHEN it comes to climate change science, as with most things in life, it pays to listen to actual experts with a solid background in their field.
On Monday the Wall Street Journal and, later, The Australian newspaper, ran an editorial from a group of climate science contrarians which claimed global warming had stopped and that CO2 was food for plants, rather than a potential pollutant.
In a scathing response in the WSJ, also published by The Australian, 38 genuine climate change scientists, explained the original WSJ 16 were “the climate-science equivalent of dentists practising cardiology.”
“While accomplished,” the response explained, “most of its authors have no expertise in climate science. The few who have are known to hold extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
The group also debunked the misleading notion that global warming had stopped. “Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade,” the group wrote. “In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.”
Several journalists and bloggers, including Media Matters, have also investigated the expertise of the signatories to the original op-ed, which included members of free market think-tanks, climate science denial organisations and even a former researcher for Exxon.
One of the WSJ 16 in question, did appear on paper though to have some solid experience on his CV. William Kininmonth, a long-time sceptic of human caused climate change, was described in the WSJ editorial as the “former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”.
Now that sounds pretty impressive and lends Mr Kininmonth an air of credibility.
Mr Kininmonth is also an adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, whose chief adviser is Lord Christopher Monckton. Mr Kininmonth also sits on the science advisory board of the International Climate Science Coalition. Both organisations have consistently promoted climate science denial and both note Mr Kininmonth’s former position at the bureau.
He is also an advisor to Australia’s Galileo Movement, whose patron, popular radio shock-jock Alan Jones, says global warming is a hoax.
When The Australian newspaper decided that the misleading WSJ op-ed was worthy of a news report, the reporter was so impressed with Mr Kininmonth’s former job that she outlined it in the first paragraph.
Except, the bureau has now confirmed to me in an official statement that during his time as head of the climate centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, Mr Kininmonth’s department didn’t actually do any research on climate change – change being the operative word.
Rather, the department was engaged in gathering and improving weather observations which, as it turned out, established Australia had “significantly warmed” since 1910. Mr Kininmonth’s former position, it now appears, is of very little to no relevance on the issue of human-caused climate change.
In the statement, the bureau confirmed that “William Kininmonth was Superintendent (’Head’) of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre from 14 November 1985 to 8 January 1998.”
So had Mr Kininmonth or his department been involved in any climate change research during his tenure? The full statement from the bureau reads:
Work undertaken in the National Climate Centre during the period 1985 to 1998 mainly centred on climate database management and climate monitoring activities, with the National Climate Centre responsible for the management of the national climate database known as ADAM (Australian Data Archive for Meteorology). Climate monitoring activities included improving the datasets for monitoring climate variability and change.
The processes and methodologies developed within the National Climate Centre have established that Australia has significantly warmed since 1910. A warming trend was established and published by the National Climate Centre during the period of 1985 to 1998. Mr Kininmonth was a contributing author for the observational chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment, Climate Change 1995.
Aside from some limited research activity on historical observations, The National Climate Centre had no formal role in undertaking or directing climate change research during the period of 1985 to 1998. Specifically, the National Climate Centre did not have responsibility for climate change attribution work (i.e., linking observed climate change to CO2 emissions/concentrations). Such work in Australia was undertaken in the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, CSIRO and the University sector during the 1980s and 1990s.
The role of the National Climate Centre was, and still is, somewhat distinct from the Bureau’s research operations, which were formerly managed through the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre (BMRC). The research centre has primary responsibility for climate change research. The BMRC is now part of the joint Bureau-CSIRO Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR). Scientists in CAWCR contribute significantly to international climate change research, including work on the link between increasing greenhouse gases and climate change.
Now that statement is as clear as the warming trend which Mr Kininmonth and his co-signatories attempted to deny.
Alan says
“Information or dis-information. You decide”
I want to say bullsh*t but it’s not one of the choices.
Thomas Petersen says
“I want to say bullsh*t but it’s not one of the choices.”
Are you using the big words you learned on the playground now?
Alan says
“Are you using the big words you learned on the playground now?”
No, from watching Penn & Teller, they’re so funny..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!
DDL says
Mike: rational thought
Thanks Mike, I will add that to my list of oxymoron’s
klem says
What did you call me?
DDL says
My comment was addressed to “Mike”, not to you.
Alan says
Since we’re playing the ‘my expert is better than your expert’ game, you’ll all enjoy this story about the collapse of the ‘consensus’ in Germany.
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt – “Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. ‘I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy…..I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book (The Cold Sun)”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/30/german-fear-of-warming-plummets-yet-to-be-published-skeptic-book-climbs-to-amazon-de-no-4/
klem says
Ouch, that one hurt.
Alan says
Here is a link to a Spiegel interview with Vahrenholt that clearly explains his position.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html
Thomas Petersen says
Vahrenholt is a socialist.
Alan says
“Vahrenholt is a socialist”
Well, so is Obama and you voted for him.
Robert M. Shelby says
Obviously, Alan, you don’t know what socialism is. You have that moth-holed map in your head.
Thomas Petersen says
I did?
Alan says
“I did?”
Yes, according to my records.
Thomas Petersen says
Neat.
klem says
“The processes and methodologies developed within the National Climate Centre have established that Australia has significantly warmed since 1910. ”
I’ll wager it has significantly warmed since long before that, I’ll bet warming began several thousand years ago I would guess. About 70% of Australia is arid or semi-arid, so a warming trend since 1910 would not be considered unusual.
And of course, a warming trend since 1910 is merely evidence that the climate changes, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause.
Alan says
Yup, crowing about the warmest year since records began doesn’t mean much when the climate been warming for hundreds of years.
Thomas Petersen says
Has it?
Alan says
“Has it?”
Yes.
Thomas Petersen says
Why?
Alan says
“Why”
Not CO2, for sure. You can see the trend here in the longest continuous thermometer record going back to 1659 and recording a general warming trend over 3.5 centuries. Note that the warming between 1690 and 1730 is similar to the trend over the last 30 years.
Alan says
“Why?”
Sorry, forgot the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
Thomas Petersen says
“Not CO2, for sure.” How are you defining CO2?
Alan says
“How are you defining CO2?”
O=C=O
Thomas Petersen says
Everybody sing: “Let’s ignore the laws of physics. It’s easy if you try.”
RoniBell says
Regarding Dr. Willie Soon: Mr. Page – are you accusing the Harvard Smithsonian of mischief?
Who did you state funded the Greenpeace report?
Define how reports from those who receive “millions expended by the Koches, by Exxon, by Chevron” – indirectly through taxes Koches et al pay (a.k.a. government funding) defer from reports from those who may receive such funding directly.
I know of a young lady who (at the age of 12) did a PPP debunking Al Gore’s AGW believer theory, based on her own research. Would you claim she was exercising a “battle cry of the New Right — now allied with oil, gas and coal?”
At the rate today’s culture grows lies, you’ll never have to concern yourself with “whether public understanding and public policy will be shaped by that science or by those millions,” for science has been drown out by lies, the life blood (income) of conflict cottage industries like Greenpeace.
Have you read this? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-813814,00.html
02/08/2012 10:35 AM
Breaking Global Warming Taboos
‘I Feel Duped on Climate Change’
Robert M. Shelby says
Please stop misspelling the Koch bros. name by pluralizing with “es.” Don’t you know they’re the sacred benefactors of the tea party? Right next to God for the evangelical Christian fundamentalists.
Will Gregory- says
Information or disinformation. You decide.
Cowards In Our Democracies
By James Hansen
29 January, 2012
Thinkprogress.org
Leading climate scientists have given their support to a Freedom of Information request seeking to disclose who is funding the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London-based climate sKeptic think tank chaired by the former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson. As the UK Guardian reported earlier this week, James Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, has joined other scientists in submitting statements to be considered by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal on Friday. Hansen has posted “Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1″— his submitted statement and an explanatory intro.
Global warming due to human-made gases, mainly CO2, is already 0.8°C and deleterious climate impacts are growing worldwide. More warming is “in the pipeline” because Earth is out of energy balance, with absorbed solar energy exceeding planetary heat radiation. Maintaining a climate that resembles the Holocene, the world of stable shorelines in which civilization developed, requires rapidly reducing fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Such a scenario is economically sensible and has multiple benefits for humanity and other species. Yet fossil fuel extraction is expanding, including highly carbon-intensive sources that can push the climate system beyond tipping points such that amplifying feedbacks drive further climate change that is practically out of humanity’s control. This situation raises profound moral issues as young people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and inactions of today’s adults….
The public has the right to know who is supporting the foot soldiers for business-as-usual and to learn about the web of support for the propaganda machine that serves to keep the public addicted to fossil fuels and destroys the future of their children.
Figure 1. CO2 emissions by fossil fuels (1 ppm CO2 ~ 2.12 GtC, where ppm is parts per million of CO2 in air and GtC is gigatons of carbon). Alternative estimates of reserves and potentially recoverable resources are from EIA (2011) and GAC (2011). [JR: Significantly exceeding 450 ppm risks severe, irreversible warming impacts. We are headed toward 800 to 1,000+ ppm, which represents the near-certain destruction of modern civilization as we know it — as the recent scientific literature makes chillingly clear.]
Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1
The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community during the past few years. Yet, at the same time, the public seems to have become less certain about the situation. Indeed, many people have begun to wonder whether the climate threat has been concocted or exaggerated.
Public doubt about the science is not an accident. People profiting from business-as-usual fossil fuel use are waging a campaign to discredit the science. Their campaign is effective because the profiteers have learned how to manipulate democracies for their advantage.
The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.
Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect? A few decades ago that did not happen. In 1981, when I wrote a then-controversial paper (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html) about the impact of CO2 on climate, the science writer Walter Sullivan contacted several of the top relevant scientific experts in the world for comments. He did not mislead the public by dredging up and highlighting contrarian opinion for the sake of a forced and unnatural “balance”.
Today most media, even publicly-supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility. Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces — all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.
Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?
I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media.
It is a tragic and frustrating situation, because when all the dots in the climate-energy story are connected it becomes clear that a common-sense pathway exists that would solve energy needs, stimulate the economy, and protect the future of young people. As I discussed in “Storms of My Grandchildren,” a gradually rising carbon fee should be collected from fossil fuel companies, with the money distributed uniformly to legal residents. This would stimulate the economy, making it more efficient by putting an honest price on fuels, incorporating their costs to society.
“Captains of industry” told me they would prefer such a course with knowledge of a steadily rising carbon price, which would stimulate innovations in efficiency and clean energies.
Despite the obstacles presented by the role of money in politics and by the huge advertising campaigns of the fossil fuel industry, the urgency of addressing the climate-energy issue demands that we do the best that we can to inform the public. One of the things we can do is try to expose how the public and our democracies are being manipulated for the benefit of those profiting from the public’s fossil fuel addiction.
For that purpose I provided the witness statement below in support of an effort to reveal the name of the seed funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in the UK. GWPF is “successful” in casting doubt on the reality and significance of human-made climate change.
The newsletters of Benny Peiser, Director of GWPF, can be quite entertaining and sometimes include useful references. He pings the impracticality and costliness of an energy approach that relies excessively on renewable energies. But ultimately his purpose seems to be to persuade the public that climate science is flawed. I don’t know if GWPF is supported by the fossil fuel industry, but it seems to me that the public has the right to know. Ultimately, I hope and believe, the public will be able to appreciate how our democracies are being twisted by people with money for their own purposes. But that requires freedom of information.
Jim Hansen
Some clarification of what this is about, the secret efforts of Lords, the wealthy, the privileged, to dupe the public in our democracies into supporting their continued and growing privileges, is provided by this news article and press release:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/bid-to-out-the-money-behind-the-voice-against- climate-change-20120126-1qjfp.html
http://requestinitiative.org/2012/01/lord-lawson-should-name-funder-of-climate-sceptic-think- tank-judge-told/
STATEMENT
I, James Hansen of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, USA, say as follows
1. I am Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. I write here in my personal capacity, not representing these institutions. I was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa, receiving my Ph.D. in 1967. Since the mid-1970s my research has focused on Earth’s climate and understanding the human impact on global climate. I am a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, have testified about climate change to our Congress many times, and have met with officials of numerous nations concerning actions needed to stabilize climate and assure a bright future for young people.
2. I make this witness statement in support of Brendan Montague’s appeal. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. References in this statement are to documents in the bundles of documents prepared for the Tribunal hearing.
The current situation regarding global climate change is described in a paper, The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy Prosperous Future, which I am preparing with the help of 17 international colleagues for submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. The paper includes more than 100 scientific references supporting the discussion in my statement below. The abstract summarizing our paper is [posted at the top].
Science, as described in numerous authoritative reports, has revealed that humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition and thus future climate. The principal climate forcing is carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia. The climate system’s inertia, which is mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, causes climate to respond slowly, at least initially, but in a very long-lasting way to this human-made forcing.
Governments have recognized the need to limit emissions to avoid dangerous human-made climate change, as formalized in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Despite this, the Kyoto Protocol, established in 1997 to reduce developed country emissions and slow emissions growth in developing countries, has been so ineffective that the rate of global emissions has since accelerated to almost 3%/year, compared to 1.5%/year in the preceding two decades.
There is a huge gap between rhetoric about reducing emissions and reality. Governments and businesses offer assurances that they are working to reduce emissions, but only a few nations have made substantial progress. Reality exposes massive efforts to expand fossil fuel extraction, including oil drilling to increasing ocean depths, into the Arctic, and onto environmentally fragile public lands; squeezing of oil from tar sands and tar shale; hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas; and increased mining of coal via mechanized longwall mining and mountain-top removal.
Governments not only allow this activity, but use public funds to subsidize fossil fuels at a rate of about 500 billion US$ per year. Nor are fossil fuels required to pay their costs to society. Air and water pollution due to extraction and burning of fossil fuels kills more than 1,000,000 people per year and affects the health of billions of people. But the greatest costs to society are likely to be the impacts of climate change, which are already apparent and are expected to grow considerably.
Climate change is a moral issue of unprecedented scope, a matter of intergenerational injustice, as today’s adults obtain benefits of fossil fuel use, while consequences are felt mainly by young people and future generations. In addition, developed countries are most responsible for emissions, but people in less developed countries and indigenous people across the world are likely to be burdened the most while being least able to adapt to a changing climate.
The tragedy of human-made climate change, should the rush to exploit all fossil fuels continue, is that transition to clean energies and energy efficiency is not only feasible but economically sensible. Assertions that phase-out of fossil fuels would be unacceptably costly can be traced to biased assumptions that do not account for the costs of fossil fuels to society or include the benefits of technology innovations that would emerge in response to an appropriate price on carbon emissions.
Fossil fuel emissions so far are a small fraction of known reserves and potentially recoverable resources, as shown in Figure 1. There are uncertainties in estimated reserves and resources, some of which may not be economically recoverable with current technologies and energy prices. But there is already more than enough fossil fuel reserve to transform the planet, and fossil fuel subsidies and technological advances will make more and more of the resources available.
Burning all fossil fuels would create a different planet than the one that humanity knows. The paleoclimate record and ongoing climate change make it clear that the climate system would be pushed beyond tipping points, setting in motion irreversible changes, including ice sheet disintegration with a continually adjusting shoreline, extermination of a substantial fraction of species on the planet, and increasingly devastating regional climate extremes.
Phase out of fossil fuel emissions is urgent. CO2 from fossil fuel use stays in the surface climate system for millennia. Failure to phase out emissions rapidly will leave young people and future generations with an enormous clean-up job. The task of extracting CO2 from the air is so great that success is uncertain at best, raising the likelihood of a spiral into climate catastrophes and efforts to “geo-engineer” restoration of planetary energy balance.
Most proposed schemes to artificially restore Earth’s energy balance aim to reduce solar heating, e.g., by maintaining a haze of stratospheric particles that reflect sunlight to space. Such attempts to mask one pollutant with another pollutant almost inevitably would have unintended consequences. Moreover, schemes that do not remove CO2 would not avert ocean acidification. The pragmatic path is for the world to move expeditiously to carbon-free energies and increased energy efficiency, leaving most remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
Transition to a post-fossil fuel world of clean energies will not occur as long as fossil fuels remain the cheapest energy in a system that does not incorporate the full cost of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are cheap only because they are subsidized directly and indirectly, and because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs of air and water pollution caused by fossil fuel extraction and use, via impacts on human health, food production, and natural ecosystems, are borne by the public. Similarly, costs of climate change and ocean acidification will be borne by the public, especially by young people and future generations.
Thus the essential underlying policy, albeit not sufficient, is a price on carbon emissions that allows these costs to be internalized within the economics of energy use. The price should rise over decades such that people and businesses can efficiently adjust their lifestyles and investments to minimize costs. The right price for carbon and the best mechanism for carbon pricing are more matters of practicality than of economic theory.
Economic analyses indicate that a carbon price fully incorporating environmental and climate damage, although uncertain, would be high. However, it is not necessary or desirable to suddenly increase fossil fuel prices. Instead the price should be ramped up gradually, with the money that is collected from the fossil fuel companies (at the first sale, at the domestic mine or port of entry) distributed on a uniform per capita basis to legal residents. More than 60 percent of the public would receive more in their monthly dividend, distributed electronically to their bank account or debit card, than they would pay in increased costs due to higher fossil fuel energy prices.
An economic analysis indicates that a tax beginning at a level of $15/tCO2 and rising $10/tCO2 each succeeding year would reduce emissions in the United States by 30% within 10 years. Such a reduction of carbon emissions is more than 10 times greater than the carbon content of tar sands oil that would be carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (830,000 barrels/day).
Relative merits of a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade continue to be discussed. Cap-and-trade has had some, albeit limited, success in Europe, but failed in the arena of U.S. policy, as opponents won the rhetorical battle by describing it as a devious new tax. The merits of an alternative, a gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected from fossil fuel companies with proceeds distributed to the public, have been summarized by DiPeso, Policy Director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, as: “Transparent. Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices…. Sounds like a conservative climate plan.”
A rising carbon price is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but it is not sufficient. Other needs include investment in energy R&D, testing of new technologies such as low-loss smart electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting effectively with the power grid, energy storage for intermittent renewable energy, new nuclear power plant designs, and carbon capture and storage. Governments must support energy planning for housing and transportation, energy and carbon efficiency requirements for buildings, vehicles and other manufactured products, global monitoring systems, and climate mitigation and adaptation in undeveloped countries.
Rhetoric of political leaders, including phrases such as “a planet in peril”, leaves the impression that they fully grasp the planetary crisis caused by rising atmospheric CO2. However, closer examination reveals that much of the rhetoric is aptly termed “greenwash” (J. Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren, Bloomsbury, 2009, 304 pp.) as even nations considered to be among the “greenest” support expanded fossil fuel extraction including the most carbon-intensive fuels such as tar sands. The reality is that most governments, rather than taking actions to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, are allowing and using public funds to partially subsidize continued fossil fuel extraction, including expansion of oil drilling to increasing ocean depths, into the Arctic, and onto environmentally fragile public lands; squeezing of oil from tar sands and tar shale; hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas; and increased mining of coal via mechanized longwall mining and mountain-top removal.
How is it possible that a specter of large human-driven climate change has unfolded virtually unimpeded, despite scientific understanding of likely consequences? Would not governments – presumably instituted for the protection of all citizens – have stepped in to safeguard the future of young people? A strong case can be made that the absence of effective leadership in most nations is related to the undue sway of special financial interests on government policies and effective public relations efforts by people who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction and wish to perpetuate that dependence.
Such a situation, with the science clear enough to demand action but with public understanding of the situation, and thus political response, hampered by the enormous financial power of special interests, suggests the possibility of an important role for the judiciary system. Indeed, in some nations the judicial branch of government may be able to require the executive branch to present realistic plans to protect the rights of the young. Such a legal case for young people should demand plans for emission reductions that are consistent with what the science shows is required to stabilize climate.
Judicial recognition of the exigency and the rights of young people will help draw attention to the need for a rapid change of direction. However, fundamental change is unlikely without public support. Obtaining public support requires widespread recognition that a prompt orderly transition to the post fossil fuel world, via a gradually rising price on carbon emissions, makes overall sense and is economically beneficial.
The most basic matter, however, is not one of economics. It is a matter of morality – a matter of intergenerational justice. As with the earlier great moral issue of slavery, an injustice of one race of humans to another, so the injustice of one generation to another must stir the public’s conscience to the point of action. Until there is a sustained and growing public involvement, it is unlikely that the needed fundamental change of direction can be achieved.
A broad public outcry may seem implausible given the enormous resources of the fossil fuel industry, which allows indoctrination of the public with the industry’s perspective. The merits of coal, of oil from tar sands and the deep ocean, of gas from hydrofracking are repeatedly extolled, all of these supposedly to be acquired with utmost care of the environment. Potential climate concerns are addressed by discrediting climate science and scientists, including use of character assassination and every negative campaign trick that they have learned.
The fossil fuel kingpins who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction, some of them multi-billionaires, are loosely knit, but with a well-understood common objective of maintaining the public’s addiction. These kingpins have the resources to be well aware of the scientific knowledge concerning the consequences of continued exploitation of fossil fuels. However, they choose not only to ignore those facts, but to support activities intended to keep the public ill- informed. These kingpins are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature. It is little consolation that the world will eventually convict them in the court of public opinion or even, unlikely as it is, that they may be forced to stand trial in the future before an international court of justice.
The fossil fuel kingpins are separated from the foot soldiers who serve as their public mouthpieces, separated by multiple layers of people, and even by corporations, which some courts have granted rights and protections of people.
The public has the right to know who is supporting the foot soldiers for business-as-usual and to learn about the web of support for the propaganda machine that serves to keep the public addicted to fossil fuels and destroys the future of their children.
This court cannot single-handedly cure the cancer that is afflicting democracies worldwide, the inappropriate power granted to money, to special financial interests. But by standing for the rights of the people, by exposing one link in the web of the oppressing fossil fuel propaganda machine, it just may start a process that allows the public to begin to realize what is at stake and where the public interest lies. Perhaps, if this process begins soon, there is still time to preserve a good future for young people and future generations.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
– James Hansen
James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology. In 1988, Hansen’s testimony before the US Senate was featured on the front page of the New York Times and helped raise broad awareness of global warming. Hansen’s work has inspired scientists and activists around the world to fight for climate change solutions. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on several occasions has led to his arrest. In 2009 his book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity was published.
© 2005-2011 Center for American Progress Action Fund
Share22
Alan says
Will,
Try linking to the article next time. It’s rude to post a comment that’s longer than the original article.
Thank you.
DDL says
Alan: “It’s rude to post a comment that’s longer than the original article.”
In addition to being rude, it seems to be habitual with WG, as he does it on virtually every thread he posts on.
He also seems to hide behind these tiresomely long posts as he never responds to questions asked of him, as if the only way he can express himslef is through the words of others.
Robert M. Shelby says
Shame on you, Alan & DDL. I really relished reading this fine, informative posting. I say, it’s rude to criticize Will Gregory for entering such a strong support for corrective action. You expert deniers and illiberal anti-progress folks ought to hide your heads in your habitual dark places. Your wrongful “rightism” is nothing to be proud of.
Roni Bell says
Bingo!
klem says
Wow, someone has too much time on their hands.
Roni Bell says
Not one government mandate, rule, reg, legislation connected in any way shape or form to the climate should be even considered, until there’s a multitude of public debates between all parties involved, followed by thorough senate hearings to determine that which government should or should not engage in.
Personally, I hate the idea of Obama being a venture capitalist with my money. If he’s going to continue being a venture capitalist instead of a U.S. Constitutionally oathed president, then he should recuse himself as president and place his investment schemes until the scrutiny of the SEC.
Alan says
IPCC reviewer resigns from Americal Geophysical Union over alarmist position statement:
Martin Hovland
“As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/ipcc-reviewer-resigns-from-agu-saying-i-will-not-renew-my-agu-membership/#more-56266
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Good comments DDL and Alan. Will Gregory will continue as usual. That is all he knows.
klem says
Nope, nope, sorry but climate change is real and a huge threat…la la la la ..I can’t hear you…la la la ….I still can’t hear you…
Alan says
BOB! BOB! We lost klem, it’s just us left!!
Real American says
Nope, nope, climate change is not real, la la la, can’t hear you, la la la
Alan says
BOB! BOB! it’s ok, we’ve turned Real American!!
DDL says
Klem stated: Nope, nope, sorry but climate change is real and a huge threat…
I personally know of no one who does not believe that there are climatic variations and trends of warming and cooling, what is at issue is the ability of man to impact the overall climate of the earth.
Those who argued first that global cooling, then global warming and now ‘climate change’ are man caused continue to exaggerate this impact for less than altruistic reasons, despite being proved wrong on other predictions in the past.
As a last resort, these same people stoop to insulting or demonizing anyone who dares to disagree with them, while simultaneously declaring themselves to be fair and open minded.
Page up and look who is directing insulting comments at who on this thread to see what I refer to.
Alan says
Good point DDL
Jerome Page uses the term ‘climate change’ when he means ‘dangerous man-made climate change’ and he labels as ‘deniers’ those who don’t agree with his ambiguous terminology. Here is a good article that explain why this is sloppy and unfair.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
Roni Bell says
Agree.
And it’s likely Page will never answer my earlier posted questions: “Regarding Dr. Willie Soon: Mr. Page – are you accusing the Harvard Smithsonian of mischief? Who did you state funded the Greenpeace report?”
Why? He’s just another “Hit `n Run Robot” guys like Al Gore wind up and send out to do their dirty work; and – a robot only does what it’s been programed to do.
Vic says
Not sure you realize, but klem was kidding. Pretty sure you’reboth on the same side.
Here’s the thing, I can cite study after study showing AGW is happening, and you can cite study after study saying it isn’t. I like my studies, you like yours. We’ll never convince each other, because to admit a change of heart is to appear to be weak-minded or spineless.
Here the other thing, nobody else gives a good goddamn what we think. We ain’t changing anyone’s mind.
A lot of trolls like to roam around in here and call names or push an agenda. A lot of others like to jerk off verbally. Nobody cares.
Vic says
Roni: I’ve never seen Mr. Page comment on here. It’s likely he doesn’t know it was posted — he writes for the print edition of the paper, and not every column is posted. So you can take back your ad hominem attack now.
Which, by the way, nicely contradicts DDL’s point about civility.
Roni Bell says
Sorry – thought the author of the article – “Science with the odor of oil” was By Jerome Page. If not, then please consider this my apology to him.
Also, shift my robot comments to all the whomevers Al Gore has programed.
Back to my questions though: Who’s able to answer them? They’re still in want of answers.
Alan says
Vic,
I got the klem thing, but thanks anyway. See you on the next Jerome Page blog.
Vic says
Did you get that I was talking to DDL? You may see me and you may not. I’m not in the habit of commenting on these blogs. I jump in at Patch every now and then too, when the conversation veers for a cliff. Doesn’t matter the topic. Doesn’t matter the politics.
Alan says
Vic,
“Did you get that I was talking to DDL?”
No, I thought you were referring to my joke about losing klem. The format of this comment system makes the flow of the thread less than obvious sometimes.
DDL says
Alan: The format of this comment system makes the flow of the thread less than obvious sometimes.
I second that!
alhambra15 Bob Livesay says
Remember we are up against the entire Enviro Greenies {When others use this term I get a small chit. Love capitalism} of the city of Benicia. They seem to forget as cars get better mileage less gas is used or fossil fuel. Remeber natural gas is a good answer and will help sove the Greenies problem. I do not have aproblem with any of it. We in Californis have been the leaders in this and will always be. The Enviro Greenies will never be satisfied until all cars are off the road. Fat chance on that one. I am going out for a long ride right now. I love freedom.
DDL says
Vic stated: Not sure you realize, but klem was kidding. Pretty sure you’reboth on the same side.
Yes, agreed, thank you. I was not intending to take issue with Klem, but rather to point out some of what I see as hypocrisy on the MCGW crowd, which does not include Klem
DDL says
Roni said: another “Hit `n Run Robot” guys like Al Gore wind up and send out to do their dirty work;
Funny how it was OK for Al Gore to become a mega millionaire one ‘percenter’, as well as winner of the first academy award for Best Power Point Presentation, yet $40,000 a year is sufficient to totally discredit anyone who disagrees.
35 inconvenient truths
Roni Bell says
Thank you DDL. 🙂
DDL says
Vic said: Which, by the way, nicely contradicts DDL’s point about civility.
Vic, actually when taken in total, the comments from Roni are fairly innocuous when compared to comments which emanate from the same source:
“Translation: We’re not going to listen anyway, Mr. Page, because we prefer to remain ignorant”
“Shouldn’t you be busy writing your next BS column about voter fraud? “
“Or are you just jealous that Jerome Page gets ten times the discussion you do?”
I note also that one particular post of his was removed where he termed deniers as “morons” (though that may have been another thread). He has also had his account suspended for inappropriate and rude comments, as well as continuous attacks made on multiple other threads. Those factors were considered in making my comment.
Thanks though and I do appreciate your comments.
Regards
DDL
Vic says
I get it, but you’re talking about one jerk. Don’t lump everyone together.
DDL says
Good point!
KARL VOIGT says
As I read all of the brilliant comments above, I realize this is probably a representative micro sample of all humanity. The petty personal invectives are probably the most representative human feature demonstrated.
That realization makes it crystal clear to me that the smart monkeys have less than a snowball’s chance in hell of making any kind of effective global change when it comes to burning up the rest of the earth’s fossil fuels and releasing all that stored CO2. After all we can barely live in nation states together. Global cooperation is a farcical pipe dream.
Robert M. Shelby says
First: It appalls me to see the intransigence of these ultra-rightist deniers and the vacuousness of their devious evasions of real morality. Yet they take umbrage at any departure from bourgeois decorum toward themselves, when they don’t give a hang about middle-class values due to identifying themselves with the super-rich. How blind and foolish.
Second: In all this concern pro or con about CO2, no mention has been made of the much worse potential of massively released methane triggered by warming atmosphere and ocean.
Robert M. Shelby says
Addendum: great plumes of methane even now erupt sporadically from the arctic shore of Siberia and elsewhere. Mark it down, if lightning or anything else ignites one or more plumes, look out for the beginning of hell on earth. Atmospheric warming and gas-pollution will accelerate geometrically. You will think Godzilla rises from the deep.