Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice

From John M. Broder, New York Times

Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. 26climate_337-395-articleinline1

Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

To Read More…

Spin, Science and Climate Change: Action on Climate is Justified, Not Because the Science is Certain, but Precisely Because it is Not

The Economist

201012ldp0011

Climate change legislation, dormant for six months, is showing signs of life again in Washington, DC. This week senators and industrial groups have been discussing a compromise bill to introduce mandatory controls on carbon (see article). Yet although green activists around the world have been waiting for 20 years for American action, nobody is cheering. Even if discussion ever turns into legislation, it will be a pale shadow of what was once hoped for.

The mess at Copenhagen is one reason. So much effort went into the event, with so little result. The recession is another. However much bosses may care about the planet, they usually mind more about their bottom line, and when times are hard they are unwilling to incur new costs. The bilious argument over American health care has not helped: this is not a good time for any bill that needs bipartisan support. Even the northern hemisphere’s cold winter has hurt. When two feet of snow lies on the ground, the threat from warming seems far off. But climate science is also responsible. A series of controversies over the past year have provided heavy ammunition to those who doubt the seriousness of the problem.

Three questions arise from this. How bad is the science? Should policy be changed? And what can be done to ensure such confusion does not happen again? Behind all three lies a common story. The problem lies not with the science itself, but with the way the science has been used by politicians to imply certainty when, as often with science, no certainty exists.

To Read More…

The Attack on Climate-Change Science: Why It’s the O.J. Moment of the Twenty-First Century

From Bill McKibben, The Nation.

Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal. It was a mixed and judicious appraisal. “The subject,” the reviewer said, “is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly.” And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first President Bush announced that he planned to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.”

I doubt that’s what the Journal will say about my next book when it comes out in a few weeks, and I know that no GOP presidential contender would now dream of acknowledging that human beings are warming the planet. Sarah Palin is currently calling climate science “snake oil,” and last week the Utah legislature, in a move straight out of the King Canute playbook, passed a resolution condemning “a well-organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome” on a nearly party-line vote.

And here’s what’s odd. In 1989, I could fit just about every scientific study on climate change on top of my desk. The science was still thin. If my reporting made me think it was nonetheless convincing, many scientists were not yet prepared to agree.

To Read More…

Independent Board to Review Work of Top Climate Panel

ipcc_home_camels
From Reuters via the New York Times:

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) — An independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report, a United Nations environmental spokesman said Friday.The board’s work will be part of a broader review of the body, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who spoke on the sidelines of an international meeting of environment ministers here.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been under fire since it was pointed out that the 2007 report included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.

That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. The climate panel’s assessments are a crucial source of guidance for policy makers addressing global warming.

But mainstream scientists and the United Nations have said repeatedly that the evidence that human activity is a major factor in global warming remains unshaken.

Mr. Nuttall said the review body would be made up of “senior scientific figures” who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea.

For the article…

Controversies Create Opening for Critics

ar4-synthesistraveltex_thumbFrom Gautam Naik and Keith Johnson in The Wall Street Journal:

The spate of recent controversies about climate research has given fresh voice to a group of scientists who question the mainstream view that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels.

Very few scientists disagree that the earth’s climate has warmed since 1850. But some have long argued that there are too many uncertainties about man’s role in the warming, and that other factors, such as solar activity and the greenhouse effect of clouds, could account for a large part of the observed warming trend. Among this group are researchers who have criticized the limitations of past temperature records and mathematical models used to forecast future effects.

Such views are getting a fresh airing on the heels of two recent controversies dogging climate researchers. A United Nations group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has been heavily criticized for publishing an unsubstantiated claim that Himalayan glaciers would entirely melt away by 2035. A recent report also included several other claims later found to lack a scientific basis, including predictions of the impact of climate change on agriculture in Africa and the retreat of Amazonian rain forests, among others.

The political fallout from the IPCC’s mistakes was evident Tuesday when Texas authorities announced the state was taking legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In its filing, the state argued that the information the EPA used to make its decision is based on data from the IPCC. Alfredo “Al” Armendariz, EPA regional administrator for Texas and other nearby states, said he expected the agency’s efforts to withstand a court challenge.

For the article…

No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says

From Andrew C. Revkin and James Kanter, The New York Times.

The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday.

The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.articlelarge1

The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on,” Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.

To Read More…

Lies and the Lying Lies about Science, and Also, the Lies

From firedoglake

It should be bizarre, but is in fact grimly typical, how the whole phony “climate-gate-scandal” has played out so far. Hundreds of emails between climate scientists were hacked — stolen — from servers at East Anglia University. The stolen materials were then misrepresented, distorted, and lied about, and the scientists involved abused, insulted, and accused of everything from deliberate fraud to acting as the willing dupes of the shadowy liberal-fascist “global warming industry.”

The bizarre part is that the only people being asked to Seriously Question Their Motives and Practices, or who are facing scrutiny for what they did, are the climate scientists who just got robbed, even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they have actually done anything clearly unethical. (The worst bit is the suggestion as to deleting emails, something that everyone concedes is pretty bad and nobody is defending, though there’s no proof anything was ever deleted.) More important, nothing in all this nonsense even approaches a challenge to the science that shows the reality of global climate change, at least to a reasonable person.

To Read More…

Copenhagen Dispute Over IP

From Leah Germain, University World News.

Proposals from China and India for the Copenhagen climate change conference that patent protection should be weakened for green inventions have generated significant concerns in universities, colleges and research centres.

Pro-intellectual property activists argue that a patent for their invention could mean the difference between a marketable, successful product and an interesting idea. Intellectual property rights or IPR and patent protection laws are coveted since they protect an innovator’s right to their hard work.

But developing country governments have noted that licences to reproduce a product can be expensive. China and India, along with 77 other developing countries, have set out a proposal for discussion at Copenhagen to liberalise global intellectual property rights for new innovations designed to reduce carbon emissions.

To Read More…

The Hacked Climate Change Emails: What They Do And Don’t Show

climategate-cropped-proto-custom_21

From Zachary Roth, TPM.

So, what to make of those emails, stolen from a top climate research center in Britain, that conservatives are excitedly touting to argue that the science of climate change is fatally flawed?

The Wall Street Journal‘s Daniel Henninger calls the episode “an epochal event” that shows “science is dying.” But underneath the bombast, the key question is whether the emails — hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), and indexed here — actually undermine the case, now settled, that man-made warming is happening. And despite the claims of the New York Post, among others, they don’t come close to doing so.

Exhibit A for conservatives has been the revelation in the emails that, back in the 1980s, CRU discarded a set of data on raw surface temperature. The Post argues that that means “it’s now impossible to check the CRU research,” and adds “So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science.”

To Read More…

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: ‘Fourteen Days to Seal History’s Judgment on This Generation’

From The Guardian

This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages.

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

To Read More…