Marvin Meadors: Why Do Meteorologists Dismiss Climate Change Science?
by Marvin Meadors/Huffington Post/Feb. 22, 2012
-------------------
John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel and the original weatherman on Good Morning America: "There isn't any climate crisis," he said. "It's totally manufactured."
Meteorologists are notoriously reluctant to accept climate change. Why so? Theirs is a profession that studies the weather, which is akin to what climate scientists do by studying the weather over relatively long periods. Of course, they are not as educated as climate scientists who have PhD's in their field, while many meteorologists have college degrees unrelated to meteorology. Meteorologists know the pitfalls of being wrong when making a forecast, however, they do not seem to realize that the conclusions of climate scientists are not the same as saying there is a 50% chance of precipitation tomorrow. The International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC put a probability that it is more than 90% likely that man is causing climate change. Do meteorologists, weathermen to use a more prosaic term, just feel inferior to climate scientists or just why are they so dismissive about climate change?
According to a 2010 survey...
Read more here
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Oil Companies using Enron style price fixing. Closing refineries to jack up gas prices. - Democratic Underground
Oil Companies using Enron style price fixing. Closing refineries to jack up gas prices. - Democratic Underground
Oil Companies using Enron style price fixing.
Closing refineries to jack up gas prices.
Gasoline prices hit a new record high Tuesday with the National Average now standing at $3.08 a gallon. The primary reason cited for the rise in gas prices is the high number of oil refineries “Closed for maintenance” (which turn oil into gasoline) just prior to the “Summer driving season”.
If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because this is EXACTLY what Enron did, taking advantage of the new California electricity-deregulation laws (pushed through by Republicans in the late 90’s, arguing that it would SAVE consumers money as competition would drive costs down), to manipulate the cost of electricity. Enron closed power-plants and switching stations to create “artificial shortages” then charged exorbitant rates for what power was left.
(...)
You almost certainly noticed, along with the rest of the country, that oil prices plummeted just in time for the November election, dipping to a national low of just $2.39 on election day (falling as low as $1.99/gal for regular here in Houston) before creeping back up to Tuesday’s record high of $3.08 a mere 6 months later? The Bush Administration… namely Vice President Cheney… laughed at the notion that the government had some “magic wand” that they could just wave to bring down gasoline prices in time for the election. But that’s not exactly true. Truth is, the government has quite a few tools in their arsenal to help manage oil prices:
First… keep the “saber-ratting” to a minimum. Nothing can cause the price of oil to spike like uncertainty over the supply due to unrest in the Middle East. For as many as six months prior to the election, the Bush Administration stopped threatening the use of military action against Iran over their nuclear aspirations and began to cite progress via “talks” and “negotiation”.
Read more here
Oil Companies using Enron style price fixing.
Closing refineries to jack up gas prices.
Gasoline prices hit a new record high Tuesday with the National Average now standing at $3.08 a gallon. The primary reason cited for the rise in gas prices is the high number of oil refineries “Closed for maintenance” (which turn oil into gasoline) just prior to the “Summer driving season”.
If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because this is EXACTLY what Enron did, taking advantage of the new California electricity-deregulation laws (pushed through by Republicans in the late 90’s, arguing that it would SAVE consumers money as competition would drive costs down), to manipulate the cost of electricity. Enron closed power-plants and switching stations to create “artificial shortages” then charged exorbitant rates for what power was left.
(...)
You almost certainly noticed, along with the rest of the country, that oil prices plummeted just in time for the November election, dipping to a national low of just $2.39 on election day (falling as low as $1.99/gal for regular here in Houston) before creeping back up to Tuesday’s record high of $3.08 a mere 6 months later? The Bush Administration… namely Vice President Cheney… laughed at the notion that the government had some “magic wand” that they could just wave to bring down gasoline prices in time for the election. But that’s not exactly true. Truth is, the government has quite a few tools in their arsenal to help manage oil prices:
First… keep the “saber-ratting” to a minimum. Nothing can cause the price of oil to spike like uncertainty over the supply due to unrest in the Middle East. For as many as six months prior to the election, the Bush Administration stopped threatening the use of military action against Iran over their nuclear aspirations and began to cite progress via “talks” and “negotiation”.
Read more here
NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year | ThinkProgress
NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year ThinkProgress
by Climate Progress via NASA/Feb. 22, 2012
---------------------------------------
Global Ice Loss from 2003-2010 Could “Cover the Entire United States in One and Half Feet of Water”
In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth’s melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.
Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.
“Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”
About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.
Traditional estimates of Earth’s ice caps and glaciers have been made using ground measurements from relatively few glaciers to infer what all the world’s unmonitored glaciers were doing. Only a few hundred of the roughly 200,000 glaciers worldwide have been monitored for longer than a decade.
One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asian mountain ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in these high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually.
Read more here
by Climate Progress via NASA/Feb. 22, 2012
---------------------------------------
Global Ice Loss from 2003-2010 Could “Cover the Entire United States in One and Half Feet of Water”
In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth’s melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.
Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.
“Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”
About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.
Traditional estimates of Earth’s ice caps and glaciers have been made using ground measurements from relatively few glaciers to infer what all the world’s unmonitored glaciers were doing. Only a few hundred of the roughly 200,000 glaciers worldwide have been monitored for longer than a decade.
One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asian mountain ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in these high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually.
Read more here
Pollution goes against God's will, say church leaders in Ash Wednesday message - Telegraph
Pollution goes against God's will, say church leaders in Ash Wednesday message - Telegraph
by Matthew Holehouse/The Telegraph/Feb. 22, 2012
--------------------
Leaders of churches in Britain including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of Scotland's Roman Catholics have made a Lenten call for repentance and a "change of direction" to combat the dangers of climate change.
Rowan Williams has joined Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, among other church leaders, in signing a declaration which says reducing dependence on fossil fuels is "essential" to Christian discipleship.
by Matthew Holehouse/The Telegraph/Feb. 22, 2012
--------------------
Leaders of churches in Britain including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of Scotland's Roman Catholics have made a Lenten call for repentance and a "change of direction" to combat the dangers of climate change.
Rowan Williams has joined Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, among other church leaders, in signing a declaration which says reducing dependence on fossil fuels is "essential" to Christian discipleship.
The launch declaration comes on Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent, traditionally a period of penitence, prayer and reflection for Christians in the run-up to Easter. The declaration will be marked by a service in central London this evening.
Many Christians receive a mark of ashes on the forehead as a token of penitence and mortality.
"Continuing to pollute the atmosphere when we know the dangers goes against what we know of God's ways and God's will," the declaration said.
"We are failing to love not only the earth, but our neighbours and ourselves, who are made in God's image. God grieves over the destruction of creation and so should we."
Read more here
Read more here
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Joseph L. Bast
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Joseph L. Bast
Pandango: Joseph L. Bast is the man behind the plan to spread confusion through American schools about anthropogenic global warming. He is the architect of confusion, smoke and mirrors and propaganda using the Heartland institute as his tool to propagate a destructive environmental agenda. Documents recently leaked to environmental websites shows how he plans on doing this.
--------------------------------
Pandango: Joseph L. Bast is the man behind the plan to spread confusion through American schools about anthropogenic global warming. He is the architect of confusion, smoke and mirrors and propaganda using the Heartland institute as his tool to propagate a destructive environmental agenda. Documents recently leaked to environmental websites shows how he plans on doing this.
--------------------------------
Heartland Institute threatens 71-year-old veteran | Recorder Online
Heartland Institute threatens 71-year-old veteran Recorder Online
by Gary Wamsley/The Recorder/Feb. 22, 2012
----------------------------
When I read the original articles on the release of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute board meeting, (see They’re Coming for Your Kids) I was infuriated.
I reacted by sending a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute.
Surprisingly, one board member and institute president Joseph Bast responded to my email.
Bast’s response is one that I would consider threatening. He said he was turning the email over to their legal department, the forensic staff and the FBI. He also warned me not to delete any emails.
Apparently, I was supposed to be frightened by the specter of this multimillion dollar non-profit (?) spending resources on an old veteran. The whole idea seems ludicrous and they know it. Still, I am not afraid of the battle if it comes. This is a tactic that big money often used to suppress free speech. See Gleen Greenwald’s article in Salon “Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics.”
During my career I have been in position for many sensitive positions and have had top secret clearances, I have been investigated by the Civil Service Commission, the FBI and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I feel secure that the government knows who I am.
I decided to publish these emails so that you can judge the exchange for yourself.
These emails have also be reposted at Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Heartland Panics Over Leak: 71 Year Old Vet, Young Mom Fire Back at Threats.
In addition to comments below, additional emails to me on the subject are found at Freedom of Expression and Heartland I
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:46 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
From: Joseph Bast <JBast@heartland.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:26:18 -0600|
To: Gary Wamsley <editor@berthoudrecorder.com>
Cc: Jim Lakely <JLakely@heartland.org>, Maureen Martin <martinlaw@charter.net>, “Michael P. Padden” <mpadden@lplegal.com>, William Cook <wcook@mcguirewoods.com>
Subject: RE: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Note: The following email was sent twice, but does not show up in my “sent” folder. I am unable to assertion that Mr. Bast and his associates received it.
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19 , 2012
To: Joseph Bast
Subject: Re: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Cc: JLakely@heartland.org, martinlaw@charter.net, mpadden@lplegal.com, wcook@mcguirewoods.com
by Gary Wamsley/The Recorder/Feb. 22, 2012
----------------------------
When I read the original articles on the release of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute board meeting, (see They’re Coming for Your Kids) I was infuriated.
I reacted by sending a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute.
Surprisingly, one board member and institute president Joseph Bast responded to my email.
Bast’s response is one that I would consider threatening. He said he was turning the email over to their legal department, the forensic staff and the FBI. He also warned me not to delete any emails.
Apparently, I was supposed to be frightened by the specter of this multimillion dollar non-profit (?) spending resources on an old veteran. The whole idea seems ludicrous and they know it. Still, I am not afraid of the battle if it comes. This is a tactic that big money often used to suppress free speech. See Gleen Greenwald’s article in Salon “Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics.”
During my career I have been in position for many sensitive positions and have had top secret clearances, I have been investigated by the Civil Service Commission, the FBI and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I feel secure that the government knows who I am.
I decided to publish these emails so that you can judge the exchange for yourself.
These emails have also be reposted at Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Heartland Panics Over Leak: 71 Year Old Vet, Young Mom Fire Back at Threats.
In addition to comments below, additional emails to me on the subject are found at Freedom of Expression and Heartland I
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
You should be ashamed of yourself. The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet.
You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you.
Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF, Retired
From: Joseph Bast <JBast@heartland.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:46:00 -0600
To: Gary Wamsley <editor@berthoudrecorder.com>
Cc: Jim Lakely <JLakely@heartland.org>
Subject: RE: Heartland Institute disinformation campaignColonel, USAF, Retired
Mr. Wamsley,
I assume your intemperate comments are based on a forged memo that misrepresents our efforts in the area of global warming research education, so let me explain before demanding an apology.
The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit research and education organization. We produce top-quality research and commentary on a wide range of topics, including school reform, health care, budget and tax issues, and environmental regulation. More than 100 academics and 200 elected officials serve on advisory boards, helping to write our publications and review our work. More than 1,800 individuals, foundations, and corporations contribute voluntarily to support our work.
Last week, someone stole some documents from us and forged a memo claiming to state our ‘strategy” on global warming. See our statement in response to this attack here: http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents .
The Heartland Institute has never tried to “dissuade teachers from teaching science, “undermine” any other sources of research, or “keep opposing voices out” of the debate over global warming. In fact, our goals and activities are just the opposite: We have helped thousands of teachers upgrade the ratio of science to rhetoric in their classes on climate change. We have complied two hefty reports – one 800 pages long and another 400 pages long – summarizing peer-reviewed literature on climate change. We have sought to promote debate and a free exchange of ideas, despite efforts by the most alarmist voices in the debate to try to shut down discussion and ruin the reputations of any who doesn’t toe the ideological line of a small but politically powerful faction of the global science community.
The forged memo has been quoted in scores of articles and hundreds of blog posts. We are working to get those statements removed and retracted. Meanwhile, and regrettably, many people like you are being misled about our work and intentions.
Now that you know the truth, I ask that you apologize for your intemperate and very offensive letter. Since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI. It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases.
Please write back to let me know if you will comply with my requests.
Best regards,
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.orgWeb site http://www.heartland.org
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.orgWeb site http://www.heartland.org
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:46 AM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Re: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Dear Mr. Bast,
Your threatening letter only serves to reinforce my opinion that the documents are in fact all true. Your ludicrous claim that my letter is threatening is a bullying tactic to which I will not succumb. No apology is offered. I do keep my emails for six months before deleting them.
Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF Retired
Colonel, USAF Retired
From: Joseph Bast <JBast@heartland.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:26:18 -0600|
To: Gary Wamsley <editor@berthoudrecorder.com>
Cc: Jim Lakely <JLakely@heartland.org>, Maureen Martin <martinlaw@charter.net>, “Michael P. Padden” <mpadden@lplegal.com>, William Cook <wcook@mcguirewoods.com>
Subject: RE: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Mr. Wamsley,
Thank you. This is very useful.
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.orgWeb site http://www.heartland.org
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 01:01 PM
To: Joseph Bast
Subject: Re: Heartland Institute disinformation campaignChicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.orgWeb site http://www.heartland.org
You’re welcome.
In my opinion you have handled this whole situation quite poorly. Your original letter of Feb. 15 was almost surreal in its content and did not inspire confidence in its truthfulness, especially when compared to your actions in publishing out of context emails in what became known as ClimateGate. Did you wait to try to get verification from the scientists in East Anglica?
Your response to me would been better served by referencing articles like Megan Mcardle’s well written piece in the Atlantic or Anthony Watts in WUWT, both of which conclude that the board memo is a probably a fake.
Perhaps you responded as you did because my email angered you. I will admit that had I not been so angry when I wrote, that I might have been a bit more restrained. Please do not take this as an apology.
Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF Retired
Colonel, USAF Retired
Note: The following email was sent twice, but does not show up in my “sent” folder. I am unable to assertion that Mr. Bast and his associates received it.
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19 , 2012
To: Joseph Bast
Subject: Re: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Cc: JLakely@heartland.org, martinlaw@charter.net, mpadden@lplegal.com, wcook@mcguirewoods.com
Dear Mr. Bast, et. al.
It occurred to me that you will need my address in case you wished to pursue legal action against me.
My home address is:
Col Gary Wamsley
(address withheld here)
(address withheld here)
Just to make sure my emails are readily available to you, I am posting them on my web site. You will find them at this link
Heartland Institute threatens 71-year-old veteran
Sincerely,
Gary Wamsley
Recorder Online
editor@berthoudrecorder.com
publisher@berthoudrecorder.com
Www.berthoudrecorder.com
Phone: 970-532-3715
Recorder Online
editor@berthoudrecorder.com
publisher@berthoudrecorder.com
Www.berthoudrecorder.com
Phone: 970-532-3715
To read more about this post and to also read the comments from readers on Mr. Wamsley's website, click here
Call to reveal ALL funding behind climate sceptics - Nell Crowden - Members - Climate Health Council
Call to reveal ALL funding behind climate sceptics - Nell Crowden - Members - Climate Health Council
by Nell Crowden/Climate and Health Council/Feb. 18, 2012
---------------------------------
by Nell Crowden/Climate and Health Council/Feb. 18, 2012
---------------------------------
Statement from climate scientists and health professionals:
Call to reveal ALL funding behind climate sceptics
Call to reveal ALL funding behind climate sceptics
What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate and other scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about mainstream international climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst. The Hippocratic Oath, the values of which generations of health professionals have adhered to, declares ‘first, do no harm’. In 2009, The Lancet declared, "climate change is the biggest global health threat of the twenty-first century".
Healthcare professionals have a duty to protect patients from disease and environmental harm. Biomedical treatment is just one form of healthcare. Public health professionals study relationships between climate change, sustainability, human health, carbon, physiology, and weather events. Scientific evidence demonstrates that sustainable development can bring with it health benefits, making it a win-win scenario (Lancet, November 2009). We only have a few years to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.
Read more at Climate and Health Council
BBC News - Confessions of a climate gate-opener
BBC News - Confessions of a climate gate-opener
by Richard Black/BBC News/Feb. 22, 2012
--------------------------
Many thanks for all your messages - nice to know one's thoughts are in such demand!
So what's happened since last week's post, flagging up and analysing the contents of documents obtained through subterfuge from the leading US climate sceptic lobby group?
First, we saw a request from the institute that all media organisations who'd covered the story should take their articles down and issue retractions, with a vague threat of legal action.
As far as I can see, few complied - and why would they?
As the old saying goes, "news is something that someone somewhere doesn't want you to know" - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn't want you to have.
In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.
Then on Tuesday, the perpetrator came forward and 'fessed up. Scientist Peter Gleick, head of the Pacific Institute and a moderately well-known commentator on such matters, spilled the beans in the Huffington Post and proffered an apology.
Read more at BBC News
by Richard Black/BBC News/Feb. 22, 2012
--------------------------
I don't normally do requests, as they say - but I've a lot of messages via emails, blog comments and Twitter asking for a follow-up post on the Heartland Institute, and am happy to oblige.
Many thanks for all your messages - nice to know one's thoughts are in such demand!
So what's happened since last week's post, flagging up and analysing the contents of documents obtained through subterfuge from the leading US climate sceptic lobby group?
First, we saw a request from the institute that all media organisations who'd covered the story should take their articles down and issue retractions, with a vague threat of legal action.
As far as I can see, few complied - and why would they?
As the old saying goes, "news is something that someone somewhere doesn't want you to know" - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn't want you to have.
In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.
Then on Tuesday, the perpetrator came forward and 'fessed up. Scientist Peter Gleick, head of the Pacific Institute and a moderately well-known commentator on such matters, spilled the beans in the Huffington Post and proffered an apology.
Read more at BBC News
Drought may be new norm for UK, says environment secretary | Environment | The Guardian
Drought may be new norm for UK, says environment secretary Environment The Guardian
by Fiona Harvey/Feb. 21, 2012
----------------
Drought may be the new norm for the UK, with drastic measures including growing genetically modified crops likely to be considered as part of the solution, the environment secretary has said.
With large parts of the south and south-east of England officially in drought, and areas of the Midlands at risk, Caroline Spelman warned that households across the south-east were likely to face water usage restrictions this spring, starting with hosepipe bans. Reservoirs have reached record lows in some places and rainfall would need to be more than a fifth higher than normal in the next three months to relieve the drought, but forecasters have said this is unlikely.
"Two very dry winters – this may be the new norm," the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs told the National Union of Farmers annual conference on Tuesday. "We asked the question at the drought summit [on Monday] – what if this is what climate change means and this is the new normal?"
She said the UK had to look at how to make plants resistant to drought, pointing to an Australian project to develop drought-resistant genetically modified rice. "This technology, if used responsibly, may be one of the tools in terms of food security that we need going forward."
She predicted GM rice would be an important crop in areas where rice was a staple food, but made it clear that similarly modified crops should be considered for the UK. "It could be one of the tools in the tool kit to help us with food security. The key thing is to keep investing in the science base."
The union president, Peter Kendall, said it was "desperately worrying" that genetically modified crops were not being developed in Europe at the same rate as in China, the US and other countries.
Spelman warned that households would bear the brunt of water restrictions this year, as the drought has worsened. Last year, the government and water companies focused on reducing the water use of businesses and farmers, some of whom had their licences to draw water from rivers and underground sources changed or revoked.
Despite drought being declared across large areas last year, there were no hosepipe bans. But Spelman said this was unlikely to last this year. She insisted households should take more responsibility for saving water: "What came out of the drought summit was how much it's about individuals making decisions."
by Fiona Harvey/Feb. 21, 2012
----------------
Drought may be the new norm for the UK, with drastic measures including growing genetically modified crops likely to be considered as part of the solution, the environment secretary has said.
With large parts of the south and south-east of England officially in drought, and areas of the Midlands at risk, Caroline Spelman warned that households across the south-east were likely to face water usage restrictions this spring, starting with hosepipe bans. Reservoirs have reached record lows in some places and rainfall would need to be more than a fifth higher than normal in the next three months to relieve the drought, but forecasters have said this is unlikely.
"Two very dry winters – this may be the new norm," the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs told the National Union of Farmers annual conference on Tuesday. "We asked the question at the drought summit [on Monday] – what if this is what climate change means and this is the new normal?"
She said the UK had to look at how to make plants resistant to drought, pointing to an Australian project to develop drought-resistant genetically modified rice. "This technology, if used responsibly, may be one of the tools in terms of food security that we need going forward."
She predicted GM rice would be an important crop in areas where rice was a staple food, but made it clear that similarly modified crops should be considered for the UK. "It could be one of the tools in the tool kit to help us with food security. The key thing is to keep investing in the science base."
The union president, Peter Kendall, said it was "desperately worrying" that genetically modified crops were not being developed in Europe at the same rate as in China, the US and other countries.
Spelman warned that households would bear the brunt of water restrictions this year, as the drought has worsened. Last year, the government and water companies focused on reducing the water use of businesses and farmers, some of whom had their licences to draw water from rivers and underground sources changed or revoked.
Despite drought being declared across large areas last year, there were no hosepipe bans. But Spelman said this was unlikely to last this year. She insisted households should take more responsibility for saving water: "What came out of the drought summit was how much it's about individuals making decisions."
GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change | InsideClimate News
GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change InsideClimate News
by Katherine Bagley/Inside Climate News/Feb. 22, 2012
------------------------------
A number of prominent U.S. climate scientists who identify themselves as Republican say their attempts in recent years to educate the GOP leadership on the scientific evidence of man-made climate change have been futile. Now, many have given up trying and the few who continue notice very little change after speaking with politicians and their aides.
"No GOP candidates or policymakers want to touch the issue, and those of us trying to educate them are left frustrated," Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a registered Republican, told InsideClimate News. "Climate change has become a third rail in politics."
Heading into the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, warned about the dangers of global warming. He was one of a group of moderate Republicans who used to be leading climate action advocates, acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for federal policies to address it.
But with the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, skepticism or even flat-out denial of global warming has become part of the party's core message. And no candidate now vying for the GOP nomination can admit to the scientific consensus, much less advocate for measures to curb climate-altering emissions, no matter what positions they might have taken in the past.
In fact, past support of policies to regulate carbon dioxide, a global warming gas, is being used to question the fitness of candidates to become the party's nominee. During a speech this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rick Santorum tore into his GOP presidential rival, former Gov. of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, for buying into man-made warming and supporting the nation's first cap-and-trade program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Romney later opposed the scheme but Massachusetts did participate, and it has benefited from the nearly $500 million in economic activity the program has brought to the state.
A Tea Party favorite, Santorum has called global warming "a facade," "a hoax" and an example of the "politicization of science." Both Romney and Newt Gingrich, another candidate for the party's nomination, have stepped away from their previous stances that humans are contributing to global warming in order to convince restive voters and donors that they are conservative enough to be the party's luminary.
The GOP's hardening stance in favor of climate skepticism, however, is not reflected among the country's leading scientists, no matter the party. Roughly 98 percent of U.S. climate researchers are convinced that rising emissions from human activities is hastening climate change, according to a 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
While it's rare for scientists to disclose their political affiliations, InsideClimate News tracked down a handful of leading climate and environmental scientists who have done so and are registered Republican or have a majority of their values in line with the party. All accept the consensus that Earth is warming mainly from the buildup of greenhouse gases produced from the burning of fossil fuels. And all say their attempts to talk with GOP politicians and their aides about climate dangers have largely fallen on deaf ears. Calls and emails to the campaigns of Santorum, Romney and Gingrich for comment were not returned.
Five Scientists Share Their Stories
Behind the scenes, conservative scientists nationwide have attempted to approach presidential hopefuls and their aides, members of Congress and in some instances state politicians in order to educate them on the growing body of climate research.
Read more at Inside Climate News
by Katherine Bagley/Inside Climate News/Feb. 22, 2012
------------------------------
A number of prominent U.S. climate scientists who identify themselves as Republican say their attempts in recent years to educate the GOP leadership on the scientific evidence of man-made climate change have been futile. Now, many have given up trying and the few who continue notice very little change after speaking with politicians and their aides.
"No GOP candidates or policymakers want to touch the issue, and those of us trying to educate them are left frustrated," Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a registered Republican, told InsideClimate News. "Climate change has become a third rail in politics."
Heading into the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, warned about the dangers of global warming. He was one of a group of moderate Republicans who used to be leading climate action advocates, acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for federal policies to address it.
But with the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, skepticism or even flat-out denial of global warming has become part of the party's core message. And no candidate now vying for the GOP nomination can admit to the scientific consensus, much less advocate for measures to curb climate-altering emissions, no matter what positions they might have taken in the past.
In fact, past support of policies to regulate carbon dioxide, a global warming gas, is being used to question the fitness of candidates to become the party's nominee. During a speech this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rick Santorum tore into his GOP presidential rival, former Gov. of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, for buying into man-made warming and supporting the nation's first cap-and-trade program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Romney later opposed the scheme but Massachusetts did participate, and it has benefited from the nearly $500 million in economic activity the program has brought to the state.
A Tea Party favorite, Santorum has called global warming "a facade," "a hoax" and an example of the "politicization of science." Both Romney and Newt Gingrich, another candidate for the party's nomination, have stepped away from their previous stances that humans are contributing to global warming in order to convince restive voters and donors that they are conservative enough to be the party's luminary.
The GOP's hardening stance in favor of climate skepticism, however, is not reflected among the country's leading scientists, no matter the party. Roughly 98 percent of U.S. climate researchers are convinced that rising emissions from human activities is hastening climate change, according to a 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
While it's rare for scientists to disclose their political affiliations, InsideClimate News tracked down a handful of leading climate and environmental scientists who have done so and are registered Republican or have a majority of their values in line with the party. All accept the consensus that Earth is warming mainly from the buildup of greenhouse gases produced from the burning of fossil fuels. And all say their attempts to talk with GOP politicians and their aides about climate dangers have largely fallen on deaf ears. Calls and emails to the campaigns of Santorum, Romney and Gingrich for comment were not returned.
Five Scientists Share Their Stories
Behind the scenes, conservative scientists nationwide have attempted to approach presidential hopefuls and their aides, members of Congress and in some instances state politicians in order to educate them on the growing body of climate research.
Read more at Inside Climate News
Santorum Takes Climate Change Denial To A Biblical Level | TPM2012
Santorum Takes Climate Change Denial To A Biblical Level TPM2012
by Sahil Kapur/TPM/Feb. 21, 2012
-------------------------
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
“When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government,” Santorum said.
Read more at TPM
by Sahil Kapur/TPM/Feb. 21, 2012
-------------------------
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
“When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government,” Santorum said.
Read more at TPM
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Religious Right: It's Not 'Pro-Life' To Protect The Unborn From Mercury Poisoning | ThinkProgress
Religious Right: It's Not 'Pro-Life' To Protect The Unborn From Mercury Poisoning ThinkProgress
by Travis Waldron/Think Progress Green/Feb. 21, 2012
------------------------------------
The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) recently began a major advertising and outreach campaign to advocate for various environmental regulations and has targeted Republican attempts to delay regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. EEN specifically appealed to one of the GOP’s most fervent ideological positions, saying, “We believe protecting the unborn from mercury poisoning is a consistent pro-life position.”
Despite those attempts, “pro-life” lawmakers like Reps. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Ed Whitfield have blasted the proposed regulation as “far-left liberal ideology.” And this week, more than 30 advocates from the religious right, led by notables like the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, slammed EEN for its attempts to protect the environment, the unborn, and any human who could be affected by poisonous mercury emissions:
The 30-plus religious-right advocates, in a joint statement Wednesday, said that “most environmental causes promoted as pro-life involve little threat to human life itself, and no intent to kill anyone.
”Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) criticized the Rev. Mitch Hescox, EEN’s president, at Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the EPA rule, which Republicans and some business groups call burdensome.
“The ‘life’ in ‘pro-life’ denotes not the quality of life, but life itself. The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies,” said Shimkus, echoing the statement from the conservative leaders.
Read more here
by Travis Waldron/Think Progress Green/Feb. 21, 2012
------------------------------------
The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) recently began a major advertising and outreach campaign to advocate for various environmental regulations and has targeted Republican attempts to delay regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. EEN specifically appealed to one of the GOP’s most fervent ideological positions, saying, “We believe protecting the unborn from mercury poisoning is a consistent pro-life position.”
Despite those attempts, “pro-life” lawmakers like Reps. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Ed Whitfield have blasted the proposed regulation as “far-left liberal ideology.” And this week, more than 30 advocates from the religious right, led by notables like the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, slammed EEN for its attempts to protect the environment, the unborn, and any human who could be affected by poisonous mercury emissions:
The 30-plus religious-right advocates, in a joint statement Wednesday, said that “most environmental causes promoted as pro-life involve little threat to human life itself, and no intent to kill anyone.
”Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) criticized the Rev. Mitch Hescox, EEN’s president, at Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the EPA rule, which Republicans and some business groups call burdensome.
“The ‘life’ in ‘pro-life’ denotes not the quality of life, but life itself. The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies,” said Shimkus, echoing the statement from the conservative leaders.
Read more here
Santorum: Climate Science Is Obama's 'Phony Theology' | ThinkProgress
Santorum: Climate Science Is Obama's 'Phony Theology' ThinkProgress
by Brad Johnson/Think Progress Green/Feb. 21, 2o12
---------------
This Sunday, Republican presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Rick Santorum argued that climate science is President Barack Obama’s “phony theology.” On CBS’s Face The Nation, Santorum was asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” Santorum replied that he was describing the Obama administration’s actions based on the science behind man-made global warming. Obama’s acceptance of science, Santorum said, is a “worldview that elevates the Earth above man“:
To see the video or read more about this story, click here
by Brad Johnson/Think Progress Green/Feb. 21, 2o12
---------------
This Sunday, Republican presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Rick Santorum argued that climate science is President Barack Obama’s “phony theology.” On CBS’s Face The Nation, Santorum was asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” Santorum replied that he was describing the Obama administration’s actions based on the science behind man-made global warming. Obama’s acceptance of science, Santorum said, is a “worldview that elevates the Earth above man“:
To see the video or read more about this story, click here
Crossing the Line as Civilization Implodes: Heartland Institute, Peter Gleick and Andrew Revkin
by Joe Romm/Climate Progress/Feb. 21, 2012
------------------------
Elizabeth Kolbert: It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.
Humanity’s Choice (via M.I.T.): Inaction (“No Policy” — the policy aggressively advanced by most professional disinformers and tacitly accepted by most in the intelligentsia and media — eliminates most of the uncertainty about whether or not future warming will be catastrophic. Aggressive emissions reductions dramatically improves humanity’s chances.
Humanity is putting its foot on the accelerator even though the world’s top scientists and governments have repeatedly explained we are headed over a cliff. The people who will suffer the most are people who have not contributed to this impending catastrophe — future generations and the poorest among us.
This is such a colossally immoral and unethical act — collectively and in many cases individually — that most people, including the overwhelming majority of the so-called intelligentsia, simply choose to ignore it on a daily basis. That won’t save a livable climate, however, nor it will stop future generations from cursing our names.
And so it is not surprising that many immoral and unethical acts that regularly occur on a far less grand scale are condoned or winked at or simply ignored.
Every day, countless organizations spread misinformation aimed at delaying the action needed to avoid destroying a livable climate, which will cause billions to suffer — and needlessly, since every major independent study makes clear that the cost of action is incredibly low. Many of the disinformers routinely attack and smear climate scientists. Some routinely publish their e-mails, encouraging their readers to cyber-bully scientists who are doing nothing more than trying to inform the world of the consequences of its untenable choices. But we have become inured to it — heck, there’s a whole TV network devoted to spreading lies — yawn, let’s change the channel to something we like.
The media continues to reduce coverage of the story of the century — “Silence of the Lambs 2: Media Herd’s Coverage of Climate Change Drops Sharply — Again. The three network news stations broadcast 14 climate change stories with a total air time of 32.5 minutes in 2011, down from 32 stories and 90.5 minutes last year and well below the 2007 peak of 147 segments totaling 386 minutes. This is a stunning collective lapse in judgment by editors and producers. But the media — in a classic act of circular benchmarking — sees everyone else in the media doing it, so the inconceivable becomes an accepted norm.
Read more at Climate Progress
------------------------
Elizabeth Kolbert: It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.
Humanity’s Choice (via M.I.T.): Inaction (“No Policy” — the policy aggressively advanced by most professional disinformers and tacitly accepted by most in the intelligentsia and media — eliminates most of the uncertainty about whether or not future warming will be catastrophic. Aggressive emissions reductions dramatically improves humanity’s chances.
Humanity is putting its foot on the accelerator even though the world’s top scientists and governments have repeatedly explained we are headed over a cliff. The people who will suffer the most are people who have not contributed to this impending catastrophe — future generations and the poorest among us.
This is such a colossally immoral and unethical act — collectively and in many cases individually — that most people, including the overwhelming majority of the so-called intelligentsia, simply choose to ignore it on a daily basis. That won’t save a livable climate, however, nor it will stop future generations from cursing our names.
And so it is not surprising that many immoral and unethical acts that regularly occur on a far less grand scale are condoned or winked at or simply ignored.
Every day, countless organizations spread misinformation aimed at delaying the action needed to avoid destroying a livable climate, which will cause billions to suffer — and needlessly, since every major independent study makes clear that the cost of action is incredibly low. Many of the disinformers routinely attack and smear climate scientists. Some routinely publish their e-mails, encouraging their readers to cyber-bully scientists who are doing nothing more than trying to inform the world of the consequences of its untenable choices. But we have become inured to it — heck, there’s a whole TV network devoted to spreading lies — yawn, let’s change the channel to something we like.
The media continues to reduce coverage of the story of the century — “Silence of the Lambs 2: Media Herd’s Coverage of Climate Change Drops Sharply — Again. The three network news stations broadcast 14 climate change stories with a total air time of 32.5 minutes in 2011, down from 32 stories and 90.5 minutes last year and well below the 2007 peak of 147 segments totaling 386 minutes. This is a stunning collective lapse in judgment by editors and producers. But the media — in a classic act of circular benchmarking — sees everyone else in the media doing it, so the inconceivable becomes an accepted norm.
Read more at Climate Progress
All fossil fuels must be cut to avoid global warming, scientists say
by Mike De Souza/Post Media News/Feb. 21, 2012
-------------------------------
OTTAWA — Two Canadian climate change scientists from the University of Victoria say the public reaction to their recently published commentary has missed their key message: that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming.
"Much of the way this has been reported is (through) a type of view that oilsands are good and coal is bad," said climate scientist Neil Swart, who co-authored the study with fellow climatologist Andrew Weaver. "From my perspective, that was not the point. . . . The point here is, we need a rapid transition to renewable (energy), and avoid committing to long-term fossil fuel use if we are to get within the limits (of reducing global warming to less than 2 C)."
The commentary, published in the British scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, estimated the impact of consuming the fuel from oilsands deposits — without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and production — would be far less harmful to the planet's atmosphere than consuming all of the world's coal resources.
"The conclusions of a credible climate scientist with access to good data are very different than some of the rhetoric we've heard from Hollywood celebrities of late," said Travis Davies, a spokesman from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "However, it clearly doesn't absolve industry from what it needs to do: (To) continue to improve environmental performance broadly, and demonstrate that improvement to Canadians and our customers . . . in terms of GHG emissions, as well as water, land and tailings facilities."
Swart and Weaver also note that growth in Alberta's oilsands sector and recent debates over a major pipeline expansion project in the United States represent a symptom of the planet's unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. The commentary said policymakers in North America and Europe must avoid major infrastructure of this nature since it is pushing the planet dangerously close to more than 2 C of average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be a threshold of dramatic changes in the Earth's ecosystems.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/fossil+fuels+must+avoid+global+warming+scientists/6186765/story.html#ixzz1n4mGz5G0
-------------------------------
OTTAWA — Two Canadian climate change scientists from the University of Victoria say the public reaction to their recently published commentary has missed their key message: that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming.
"Much of the way this has been reported is (through) a type of view that oilsands are good and coal is bad," said climate scientist Neil Swart, who co-authored the study with fellow climatologist Andrew Weaver. "From my perspective, that was not the point. . . . The point here is, we need a rapid transition to renewable (energy), and avoid committing to long-term fossil fuel use if we are to get within the limits (of reducing global warming to less than 2 C)."
The commentary, published in the British scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, estimated the impact of consuming the fuel from oilsands deposits — without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and production — would be far less harmful to the planet's atmosphere than consuming all of the world's coal resources.
"The conclusions of a credible climate scientist with access to good data are very different than some of the rhetoric we've heard from Hollywood celebrities of late," said Travis Davies, a spokesman from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "However, it clearly doesn't absolve industry from what it needs to do: (To) continue to improve environmental performance broadly, and demonstrate that improvement to Canadians and our customers . . . in terms of GHG emissions, as well as water, land and tailings facilities."
Swart and Weaver also note that growth in Alberta's oilsands sector and recent debates over a major pipeline expansion project in the United States represent a symptom of the planet's unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. The commentary said policymakers in North America and Europe must avoid major infrastructure of this nature since it is pushing the planet dangerously close to more than 2 C of average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be a threshold of dramatic changes in the Earth's ecosystems.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/fossil+fuels+must+avoid+global+warming+scientists/6186765/story.html#ixzz1n4mGz5G0
Monday, February 20, 2012
Effects of El Niño on Streamflow, Lake Level, and Landslide Potential
Pandango: Makes La Nina look tame by comparison.
Effects of El Niño on Streamflow, Lake Level, and Landslide Potential
Effects of El Niño on Streamflow, Lake Level, and Landslide Potential
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)