Tag Archives: global-warming

NPR Mourns Global Cooler-Turned-Global Warmer Scientist

Few seem to remember now, but throughout the 1970s, the advertised threat to society from global cooling was as prevalent as the current global warming alarmism. Publications including The New York Times, Time and Newsweek – the same ones hyping the dangers of a warming planet in 2010 – were warning about global cooling then . A prominent global cooler from that era has recently passed away. Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist and United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member died in London on July 19 , as noticed on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.” (h/t Tim Graham ) In an interview with NPR’s Michele Norris, White House Science Adviser John Holdren remembered Schneider, not for getting the science wrong at first but for inventing this field of science, with its acknowledgement that mankind could change the climate. “Steve would come up with crucial insights that really opened up whole new dimensions of research in climate science,” Holdren said on the July 19 broadcast . “One of his big contributions was that the influences that humans were having on climate was not just the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane and others, but our influence also included the effects of particles. And he was sometimes criticized for being too extreme. But, in fact, he was very middle of the road. Steve was as fierce in his criticism of people who he thought were overstating what we know about climate as he was in his criticisms of those he thought were understating.” Holdren is a curious but perhaps appropriate individual for NPR to turn to in remembering the work on Schneider and his theory of human’s impacting nature extensively. In the 1970s, Holdren made his own controversial statements. In a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich, Holdren called for a “massive” campaign to “de-develop” the United States .  However, according to Holdren, Schneider saw the light and got on the global warming bandwagon – not because the theory of global cooling was proven false, but just because the theories were competing and global warming seemed to have won out. “In the early 1970s, everybody was in doubt as to the outcome of the competition between the cooling effects of particles and, on the other hand, the warming effect of greenhouse gases,” Holdren said. “And it was only with the emergence of additional data and additional analyses that it became clear that the greenhouse gases were going to win this competition. And at that point, he was one of the first to point out that, in fact, overall, we were heading for a much hotter world.” In 2007, the Business & Media Institute looked at news media coverage of climate change and found alarmism stretching back 100 years. BMI’s Special Report: Fire & Ice exposed the media’s warnings about impending climate doom during four different times in the last century switching from worries over global cooling to warming to cooling to warming again.

Link:
NPR Mourns Global Cooler-Turned-Global Warmer Scientist

WaPo Obit Tones Down Climate Scientist’s Recent Attack on ‘Hitlerian Lies’ and ‘Gun-Toting Rightwingers’

The Washington Post obituary for liberal climate scientist Stephen Schneider, a media favorite over the years to promote the allegedly ironclad certainty of global warming, replayed a very recent jeremiad against “Hitlerian lies” by conservatives in the wake of Climategate. But the Post’s version of his remarks toned him down and excised his attacks on “gun-toting rightwingers” who are Limbaugh and Beck fans. T. Rees Shapiro reported: His passionate views on the climate debate occasionally attracted vitriol from extremist groups. An FBI investigation recently found he was named on a neo-Nazi “death list,” and Dr. Schneider said he received hundreds of hate e-mails a day. “What do I do? Learn to shoot a magnum? Wear a bulletproof jacket?” Dr. Schneider said. “I have now had extra alarms fitted at my home, and my address is unlisted. I get scared that we’re now in a new Weimar Republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists.” Nonetheless, Dr. Schneider said he believed it was important for scientists to communicate with the public and spread their understanding of climate data and findings. “If we do not do the due diligence of letting people understand the relative credibility of claimants of truth, then all we do is have a confused public who hears claim and counterclaim,” Dr. Schneider said in a recent interview with Climate Science Watch. “When somebody says ‘I don’t believe in global warming,’ I ask, ‘Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?’ ” For a fuller version of Schneider’s remarks, we turn to the leftist British newspaper The Guardian  on July 5, in which correspondent Leo Hickman warned “Climate scientists in the US say police inaction has left them defenceless in the face of a torrent of death threats and hate mail.” Schneider sounds less like a scientist and more like an activist:   Schneider described his attackers as “cowards” and said he had observed an “immediate, noticeable rise” in emails whenever climate scientists were attacked by prominent right-wing US commentators, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh . “[The senders] are not courageous people,” said Schneider. “Where are they getting their information from? They just listen to assertions made on blogs and rightwing talkshows. It’s pathetic .” Schneider said the FBI had taken an interest earlier this year when his name appeared on a “death list” on a neo-Nazi website alongside other climate scientists with apparent Jewish ancestry. But, to date, no action has been taken. “The effect on me has been tremendous,” said Schneider. ” Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket? I have now had extra alarms fitted at my home and my address is unlisted. I get scared that we’re now in a new Weimar republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists.” The Post obituary made no reference whatsoever to Schneider’s arguments in the 1970s that the real peril was global cooling . That apparently would have been too much of a concession to the gun-toting rightwingers.

Here is the original post:
WaPo Obit Tones Down Climate Scientist’s Recent Attack on ‘Hitlerian Lies’ and ‘Gun-Toting Rightwingers’

‘Dallas’ Star Larry Hagman Refuses to Let Facts Get In the Way Of Enviro-Propaganda

When news recently broke that the 78 year-old actor Larry Hagman had surfaced in California promoting solar energy as means of staving off the end of civilization, I must admit I was somewhat taken aback. Prior to this, the last time anyone had heard from Hagman was when he was part of a “who done it” spoof which TV viewers watched in an attempt to ascertain “Who Shot J.R.?” Now he looks like just so many other Hollywood figures that miss the limelight and therefore come out and say something crazy in order to get a little attention: Either that or he actually believes the things he said in the interview for the Oregonian . (After reading the interview a couple of times, I personally hope he’s just talking crazy to get attention because if he really believes the things he said, Hollywood has hit a new low.) In the interview, Hagman takes Sarah Palin’s famous “Drill, baby, Drill” and augments it to fit solar energy by changing it to “Shine, baby, Shine.” He describes solar power as “an inexhaustible source of energy” which he uses to provide electricity for his home. To this point, Hagman’s words are reasonable: If someone wants to provide power for their home via solar panels rather than conventional electricity that’s their choice (although I would be interested to know what the backup plan is for densely overcast or stormy days, as well as whether the panels themselves are hail resistant). But Hagman soon threw reasonableness out the window and tried to advance a need for solar panels based on his belief that oil is scarce and civilization is ending. His exact words were: “When affordable oil gives out, we’re in real trouble – I mean the collapse of civilization, within 15 to 20 years.” I can only say that I was embarrassed for Hagman’s family when I read those words. The United States has enough untapped oil to meet current demand for more than one hundred years (up to 300 years in some estimates). Thus, when gasoline was $4 a gallon in 2008, even Newsweek magazine asked aloud why we weren’t drilling for more oil near the Rocky Mountains, where it is estimated that we have enough oil in shale to ” out-produce Saudi Arabia.” And I haven’t even mentioned the billions of barrels of oil that await us in ANWR or, dare I say, offshore. In all honesty, the only way “affordable oil” will cease to exist for our nation is if we lack the courage or the ingenuity to go after it, or if the market is presented with such a clear and dependable alternative to oil that the need for oil disappears altogether. So far, however, Americans are both courageous and ingenious, and the handful of Hollywood actors who put solar panels on their homes don’t represent enough market demand to change things. In the end, it seems that the actor who played an oilman in “Dallas” didn’t learn much about oil at all. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Read more:
‘Dallas’ Star Larry Hagman Refuses to Let Facts Get In the Way Of Enviro-Propaganda

WaPo Story Laments Lack of ‘Awakening’ After Oil Spill to Need for Green Agenda

The Washington Post put the bad news for liberals right at the top of Monday’s front page, left side: “Climate debate unmoved by spill.” Reporters David Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin lamented that “great change” is not following the “great tragedy” of the BP oil spill. We haven’t had an “awakening” to our wasteful ways:   Environmentalists say they’re trying to turn public outrage over oil-smeared pelicans into action against more abstract things, such as oil dependence and climate change. But historians say they’re facing a political moment deadened by a bad economy, suspicious politics and lingering doubts after a scandal over climate scientists’ e-mails. The difference between now and the awakenings that followed past disasters is as stark as “on versus off,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, a researcher at Yale University who tracks public opinion on climate change. Only liberals are “awake,” while the public is “asleep.” They wonder why newspaper readership is declining. Here’s how the story started: For environmentalists, the BP oil spill may be disproving the maxim that great tragedies produce great change . Traditionally, American environmentalism wins its biggest victories after some important piece of American environment is poisoned, exterminated or set on fire. An oil spill and a burning river in 1969 led to new anti-pollution laws in the 1970s. The Exxon Valdez disaster helped create an Earth Day revival in 1990 and sparked a landmark clean-air law. But this year, the worst oil spill in U.S. history — and, before that, the worst coal-mining disaster in 40 years — haven’t put the same kind of drive into the debate over climate change and fossil-fuel energy. Fahrenthold and Eilperin palpably sympathize: “for the environmental groups trying to break this logjam, it’s hard to imagine a more useful disaster .” After all, “The BP oil spill has made something that is usually intangible — the cost of fossil-fuel dependence — into something tangibly awful.” When ClimateGate was raised, the Post reporters dismissed that as a tempest in a tea party While Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council stressed this is the “last best chance to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,” the Post added: It’s hard to tell how many people are listening. In public-opinion polls taken after the spill by Leiserowitz and other academics, 53 percent of people said they were worried about climate change. That was only slightly different from January, and still down from 63 percent in 2008. Leiserowitz said there may be distrust of climate science among a small group after the “Climate-gate” scandal last year, in which stolen e-mails seemed to show climate scientists talking about problems in their data. Those scientists have been repeatedly cleared of academic misconduct , including in a report released Wednesday. The Post did quote Kenneth P. Green of the “conservative American Enterprise Institute,” on the “great change” question: “There’s a caveat,” Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the rule that great change follows great disasters. “Which is: Great tragedy, with the right timing, can bring great change….When people are in a bunker mentality, sort of hunkered down over the economy, then that’s not going to produce significant change.” None of the advocates for onerous “climate change” bills featured in the story were labeled as liberal.

Read more:
WaPo Story Laments Lack of ‘Awakening’ After Oil Spill to Need for Green Agenda

UN’s IPCC Tells Scientists To ‘Keep A Distance From The Media’

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has instructed all 831 researchers contributing to the organization’s next round of assessments to “keep a distance from the media.” Such was disseminated in a July 5 letter from IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri which has already garnered some criticism from folks on both sides of the anthropogenic global warming debate. Even the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin expressed disgust with this revelation Saturday:   I know a number of supervising authors of the forthcoming reports are eager to revise policies and stress openness. There’s plenty of advice on the way from committees reviewing the panel’s practices. I also understand the reflexes involved here, particularly given how some media overplayed claims that the climate panel had erred in parts of its 2007 assessment. But any instinct to pull back after being burned by the news process is mistaken, to my mind. As I explained to a roomful of researchers at the National Academy of Sciences last year, in a world of expanding communication options and shrinking specialized media, scientists and their institutions need to help foster clear and open communication more than ever. Clampdowns on press access almost always backfire. Indeed. Supporting this view was IPCC contributor Edward R. Carr, an associate professor of geography at the University of South Carolina who wrote Friday: Part of the problem for the IPCC is a perceived lack of openness – that something is going on behind closed doors that cannot be trusted. This, in the end, was at the heart of the “climategate” circus – a recent report has exonerated all of the scientists implicated, but some people still believe that there is something sinister going on. There is an easy solution to this – complete openness. I’ve worked on global assessments before, and the science is sound. I’ve been quite critical of the way in which one of the reports was framed (download “Applying DPSIR to Sustainable Development” here), but the science is solid and the conclusions are more refined than ever. Showing people how this process works, and what we do exactly, would go a long way toward getting everyone on the same page with regard to global environmental change, and how we might best address it. So I was dismayed this morning to receive a letter, quite formally titled “Letter No.7004-10/IPCC/AR5 from Dr Pachauri, Chaiman of the IPCC”, that might set such transparency back. While the majority of the letter is a very nice congratulations on being selected as part of the IPCC, the third paragraph is completely misguided: “I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.” This “bunker mentality” will do nothing for the public image of the IPCC. The members of my working group are among the finest minds in the world. We are capable of speaking to the press about what we do without the help of minders or gatekeepers. I hope my colleagues feel the same way, and the IPCC sees the light . . . For an organization that has suffered a tremendous loss of credibility in the past twelve months, any attempt to shelter this process from complete sunshine would be totally misguided. The international community’s belief in AGW has been plummeting thanks to numerous missteps by those promoting the theory. With Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore now in the middle of a divorce and a sex scandal, his contributions to helping publicize AR-5 could end up being limited. Regardless of recent findings largely in support of ClimateGate scientists — the realist community never expected anything other than this as these folks weren’t about to rule against their own! — America’s media have seemed largely detached from this debate in current months. Witness the relative lack of global warming hysteria this past week as temperatures in the northeast broke records. With this in mind, if the IPCC wants the normally compliant press to assist it in making its case when AR-5 is published in 2013, it had better do everything possible to make journalists a part of the process. Failing this, you could end up with far less media support for whatever is published. In the end, this could be the best thing for this debate AND the planet, for without the press banging the AGW drum, climate alarmists are going to have a very difficult time selling their gloom and doom. That is not to say realists should hope for a media blackout. As science has always been on the side of those not buying into Gore’s favorite money-making scheme, full disclosure and openness are in everyone’s best interest. 

More here:
UN’s IPCC Tells Scientists To ‘Keep A Distance From The Media’

Prominent Green Activists Ask Obama To Step Up Climate Efforts Now

photo via flickr On Friday, notable environmentalists Al Gore, Fredd Krupp, and others sent a letter to President Obama warning him that time is running short this year to pass a bill that caps carbon pollution and asking him to personally intervene in the sausage making process to help get something done. The Senate’s leadership has not yet settled on a bill to get behind, with competing bills looking only at the utility industry, responsible for about 40 percent of US emissions, while others want an economy-wide solution. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original:
Prominent Green Activists Ask Obama To Step Up Climate Efforts Now

Glenn Beck’s Hilarious Sex Scandal Mock Interview With Al and Tipper Gore

The guys at the Glenn Beck Radio show had some fun at Al and Tipper Gore’s expense Thursday creating a mock interview where the host questioned the separated couple about the former Vice President’s antics with a masseuse in a Portland hotel room back in 2006. The role of the Global Warmingist in Chief was marvelously played by Pat Gray with Stu Burguiere doing an adequate Tipper. The interview began with Beck asking the Nobel Laureate what happened in the hotel Lucia that fateful evening. Al/Pat deliciously responded, “The global warming just became overwhelming as I was receiving massage” (video follows with more highlights and commentary): When Tipper/Stu was introduced, Al/Pat asked, “Do you remember the time when I read you poetry? When I said, ‘I was a child and she was a child in this kingdom by the sea. But we loved with a love that was more than love, I and my Annabel Lee.'” Tipper/Stu responded, “That really brings back memories.” Yes, Al reading Edgar Allan Poe poems to Tipper. Somehow you imagine them being more “The Raven” than “Annabel Lee,” but I digress. Later the couple renewed their claim that “Love Story” was indeed about them despite the convenient truth that Tipper didn’t die of cancer. But the highlight had to be Tipper/Stu’s marvelous haiku, “Get your hands off me. Why do you touch my buttocks? Mother Earth cries rape.” Now THAT’S poetry. Nice job, guys! 

Continued here:
Glenn Beck’s Hilarious Sex Scandal Mock Interview With Al and Tipper Gore

Newsweek’s Adler: Obama ‘Chickens Out,’ Fails to Push for Taxes to Make ‘SUVs… Prohibitively Expensive’

“Obama Chickens Out on Energy,” a disgusted Ben Adler argued to Newsweek’s The Gaggle blog readers this morning. Adler’s chief complaint with last night’s Oval Office address: Obama didn’t call for massive tax hikes to push Americans to make more politically correct spending choices. The Newsweek writer avoided the T-word until his last paragraph, but he made abundantly clear that he felt that a) American stupidity and short-sightedness was threatening to literally drown Manhattan in rising sea levels and b) Obama was not doing enough to make government force people to make better choices with their own money (emphases mine): In his address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, President Obama eloquently laid out the case that we have failed to confront our dependence on fossil fuels, and that now is the time for us to do so. Obama acknowledged that our failure to do this so far has been caused not just by obeisance to entrenched interests, but also by “a lack of political courage and candor.” But he failed to use this opportunity to marshal public support for a logical, tangible goal that would reduce our destructive consumption of oil and coal. The idea that we can solve this problem of our massive, inefficient energy use through investing more in R&D is ridiculous. We need to start bringing down our emissions immediately, before Manhattan finds itself under water. Spending more money on research into technologies that may or may not be more efficient, and may or may not be economically viable 10 years from now, is insufficient. There are plenty of technologies, such as driving smaller cars, or hybrids, or taking buses, or living in smaller houses, that do not need to be researched and developed; they just need to be chosen. And they will be chosen if we make indulging in SUVs and McMansions prohibitively expensive, to reflect the social cost of global warming , and the cost of disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil-rig explosion that forced Obama to make this address in the first place. Obama should know all this, and his decision to pretend otherwise reeks of the same lack of courage and candor he had just lambasted unnamed predecessors for. Tossing out the pain-free idea that we can invest our way out of this problem is politically convenient, but it is not realistic. Obama swiftly pivoted to sounding like he was filled with steely resolve, saying, “But the one approach I will not accept is inaction.” But merely investing in energy research is little better than inaction. What Obama needed to say , if he was willing to stake his presidency on combating catastrophic climate change, as he had previously staked his presidency—and won—on the proposition that Americans are all entitled to affordable health insurance, was that he would not tolerate anything short of a bill that caps or taxes carbon emissions. He did not, and we will all suffer the consequences.

Continued here:
Newsweek’s Adler: Obama ‘Chickens Out,’ Fails to Push for Taxes to Make ‘SUVs… Prohibitively Expensive’

On Hardball: Obama Too Cautious About Exerting His Power

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, on Monday’s Hardball, pushed Barack Obama to “overdo” and “overstep” in his efforts to get BP to plug the leak and stop the oil spill in the Gulf, something Fineman claimed Obama hadn’t done yet because “he’s usefully and rightfully dangerous about power. I think he thought…George W. Bush overstepped in terms of executive power…he’s an observer by nature.” This observation from Fineman seems particularly odd, as it comes at the same time the President has pushed for a $50 billion in additional domestic spending. Fineman made the comment after the Politico’s Roger Simon insisted there’s only so much Obama can do, as he insisted: “He’s not Iron Man. He cannot dive a mile underwater and stop this by himself.” However host Chris Matthews asserted Obama could do more and he asked if the President will be “tough” and “really threaten BP” and openly wondered: “Does he know he’s a powerful man?” After Fineman responded that Obama needs to “overstep” a concerned Matthews questioned: “Even at the risk of being called a socialist again?” The following exchanges were aired on the June 14 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: I guess the first question is can this president honestly claim he has command and control when it looks like BP is the boss? ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: No, he can’t. And he said in the interview that “We analyzed the problem and we had no greater ability to stop the leak than BP did, so we’re gonna let BP do it.” And he can’t control BP. MATTHEWS: Well looking down the road is BP going to be the big shot, and he’s going to be, as I call him, the Vatican observer watching them do what they do? And that’s all he can do. SIMON: All he can do is threaten them. All he can do is send the attorney general down there. All he can do is threaten to, to depress their stock price to such an extent they’ll go belly up. But that’s all he can do. He’s not Iron Man. He cannot dive a mile underwater and stop this by himself. … MATTHEWS: Howard, the question I have is what can he do? I’m looking back to history. I’m a political person, not an oil person, as we all are. Harry Truman, the coal miners wouldn’t mine coal after World War II. He, he conscripted them all. He drafted them. When Big Steel raised its prices and sort of, Kennedy felt was screwing them, basically, he said “Okay I’m sending the IRS to your house. I’m gonna see if you got any, any action with your secretaries at work.” He was unbelievable! He went after them and said, “Bob McNamara don’t buy any more steel from U.S. Steel.” I mean he was unbelievable. Will this president be that tough? Will he threaten, really threaten BP with all the actions of an Executive? HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Well if he, if he does he’ll only be dragged kicking and screaming into it because that’s just Barack Obama’s nature. He’s judicious. MATTHEWS: Does he know he’s a powerful man? FINEMAN: He’s, he’s an observer. I think he’s usefully and rightfully dangerous about power. I think he thought George Bush, George W. Bush overstepped in terms of executive power. And it’s also, he’s an observer by nature. But before I continue I just want to say that Roger, whom I’ve known for decades, is the best in the business and we’re so happy to have him back. And, and he’s seen this before. He’s seen presidents who use power or don’t use power. If you don’t use it, you lose it. Barack Obama should overdo. He should overstep. MATTHEWS: Even at the risk of being called a socialist again? FINEMAN: Even at the risk of having a lawsuit filed against him. The Army should be in there. The Navy should be in there. They should- MATTHEWS: Okay you agree with Roger, you agree- FINEMAN: You know, and by the way BP is not in danger of going broke tomorrow. SIMON: Right. FINEMAN: But yet Obama is putting this whole escrow idea out there, so that BP can possibly do its dividend on June 21st.

Go here to see the original:
On Hardball: Obama Too Cautious About Exerting His Power

Saturday Night Funnies: Boxer Says CO2 Leading Cause of Conflict Next 20 Years

On Thursday, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) took to the floor of the Senate and claimed that carbon dioxide — that naturally occurring gas integral to life on this planet! — “will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way” (transcript and commentary follow): I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way. And that’s why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue, so we can create those new technologies that get us off this foreign oil.  As bonus coverage, here’s how this Senator treats higher-ups in the military:

Original post:
Saturday Night Funnies: Boxer Says CO2 Leading Cause of Conflict Next 20 Years