Watch Fossil Fuel’s lobbyist News Corp’s Andrew Bolt and all you will see is the the voice of the reactionary right wing elders not just aloof but defiant and with tin ears broadcasting and mocking the young 17 year olds who are soon to be voters (ODT)
But the voice and face of the revolt on Monday night painted a different picture. Bellemo was no dill headed for a dole queue.
Striking students defy PM to protest at inaction on climate change
Striking students defy PM to protest at inaction on climate change
Student activism has many precedents over decades, but in 2018 it resonated especially strongly. It’s been the year of the teenage revolt in the US after the Parkland school shooting in February, a tragedy that sent survivors out on a potent public campaign for gun control.
Their message: we may not yet be able to vote, but we do have a voice.
President Donald Trump on Monday appeared largely unimpressed by the dire warnings outlined in a recent scientific report issued by more than a dozen federal agencies, which, among its various conclusions, found that the United States is bound for economic disaster unless its reliance on fossil fuels is dramatically curtailed.
“I’ve seen it, I’ve read some of it, and it’s fine,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for a campaign rally in Mississippi. The milquetoast response was paired with a physical shrug of the shoulders.
Trump then directly dismissed the report’s conclusion that climate change will bring severe economic damage to the country.
“I don’t believe it,” Trump continued. “No, no I don’t believe it.” He then appeared to blame China, Japan, and “all of Asia” for being the world’s worst climate change offenders, while claiming that the US is currently the “cleanest we’ve ever been.”
IN ORDER TO get to my point of energy policy and climate change, I need to take you back in time to the years 2010-11 when Tony Abbott was the Coalition Opposition leader.
Whoever wins the next election is going to face a monumental task to reduce our emissions in order to tackle the existential threat posed by climate change.
In one way, it would serve Scott Morrison right to have to face the consequences of his lies. But the country cannot afford someone who thinks prayer is the answer to the drought.
Our Prime Minister, the man charged with making the decisions on how to keep us safe, is a bald-faced liar.
But more importantly, this is California, the world’s fifth-largest economy and home to 40 million people, making a huge statement of intent that it’s serious about solving the climate crisis. And not just making a statement – SB 100 will mean the state reshapes its power sector and replaces dirty coal, oil, and gas facilities with wind, solar, and other clean energy technologies to do it.
If you think this bill sends a message to the rest of the country that if California can go all in on clean energy, there’s no reason they can’t too – you’re right. And fossil fuel companies have every reason to be terrified.
The me before we in the crazy Capitalist structure. Free market unregulated competition forces me to oversupply, cause a major problem that then we have to pay and fix. Ergo I can’t lose in that never ending denier’s cycle.(ODT)
“Big Oil is asking tax payers to pay for protecting their refineries from sea level rise that they caused by keeping us addicted to oil? Yeah…no.”
Jon Queally, staff writer
Yet we are now in a surreal world where consequences and causes are disconnected, where science is ignored in the face of existential threats and where building coal-fired power stations is viewed by some in Government – such as former PM Abbott, Member for Hughes Craig Kelly and Resource Minister Matt Canavan, among others – as some sort of an answer to Australia’s future.
It is now viewed in Government as heresy to mention the drought and climate change in the same sentence, just as it is when bushfire strikes. Those who do so risk being accused of politicising the issue, or worse, of pushing a “green-left” agenda. So toxic are the climate wars that it is now taboo to discuss the possibility that we may be entering a dangerous new time in our “sunburnt country”.
Despite the distraction and political chaos of Brexit negotiations, the United Kingdom has just published a far-reaching and thoroughly impressive plan to manage risks from climate change.
This follows on from their broader 25-year Environment Plan, released in January. It aims to “help the natural world regain and retain good health”, to enable it to better cope with climate change.
The recently released climate plan is a strategy to save lives from heat, flood and fire — yes, fire, even in the UK!
It’s important to understand that the JCPOA is not just an agreement between the US and Iran, but one negotiated alongside our partners in the P5+1 – the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany – and endorsed by the United Nations security council. Trump’s withdrawal further deepens tensions with our most important democratic allies, France, the UK and Germany, who all continue to support the agreement and have consistently said that it is in their own national security interests to see it upheld.
Trump also rejected the advice of his own top national security officials like the joint chiefs chairman, Gen Joseph Dunford, and defense secretary, James Mattis, both of whom have repeatedly stated that staying in the agreement is in the national security interests of the US. Nuclear non-proliferation and national security professionals around the world share that assessment. Just as he has done on the issue of climate change with his withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, Trump has chosen to ignore the overwhelming expert consensus and sided instead with a small ideological faction, with disastrous consequences for our global security.
Meanwhile, Columbia University’s Silencing Science Tracker documents news stories about climate scientists who have been discouraged from conducting, publishing or otherwise communicating scientific research. These groups have documented four ways that climate-related information has become less accessible since Trump took office.
So, even with the inherent uncertainty in the pace and potency of these overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change, safety from it all is only likely in a handful of countries – those that currently have mild climates, that are wealthy and resource-rich, that have good healthcare systems, that aren’t politically unstable, and aren’t likely to experience dangerous weather extremes on a regular basis.
That leaves us with a pretty short list, then: Canada, Northern Europe, New Zealand, and perhaps Japan, for example. Wait, what about the Land of the Free – the wealthiest, perhaps most resourceful nation on Earth? Isn’t this a safe haven? Actually, no, not quite.
those who deny Climate Change and the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science deniers with obscure qualifications or worse-to right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training what so ever.These people have no way of evaluating the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions. One of the most outspoken deniers (Andrew Bolt) has, in recent times, been found guilty of deceptive lying in that he defamed some white skinned aboriginals. One has to wonder how many he has told when writing about his favorite topic climate change.Which brings me to the point of this piece: Hypocrisy.Now who said this?
As Turnbull theatrically struts around throwing out childish taunts like Blackout Bill and No Coal Joel, it should be remembered that it isn’t Labor who has changed their support for emissions reduction and renewable energy.You cannot privatise an essential utility and then create such uncertainty that the industry effectively grinds to a halt.Our energy crisis can be laid squarely at the feet of a divided Coalition whose own power struggles over the last decade have made it impossible for them to come up with any sort of enduring policy.
So far, major broadcast networks are failing to note the link between Harvey and climate change
The acclaimed political critic and philosopher delves into a number of pressing subjects in a special hour-long talk with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!
Syria and Nicaragua are proud to accept the United States into their league of third-world nations for whom climate change is neither a priority nor a concern.Meanwhile, the President of the United States has now informed the world that he is willing to cede leadership on climate change to China, preferring to bow before the Kochs and other oligarchs instead.
The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy “now appears irreversible” as the cost of green power plunges, according to a new report. In The Transition Takes Hold, Clean Energy Canada said some 6.7 million people were working in the sector worldwide with one out of every 50 new jobs in the US being created by the solar industry alone.
Financial officials from the world’s biggest economies have dropped from a joint statement any mention of financing action on climate change, reportedly following pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia. Finance ministers from the G20, which comprises more than 80 percent of the global economy, debated the wording of their final joint statement on trade at their summit in the German resort of Baden-Baden.
Over the past three years, almost all of the world’s reefs have experienced summertime heat stress.
The greatest hallmark of the Coalition’s baked-in streak of climate denialism is the extent to which it will contort itself not to have a credible policy.
A senior NASA official has taken the extraordinary step of personally rebuking One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts’ claims the agency had falsified key data to exaggerate current extreme warming in the Arctic.
Australia the only country to receive a rating of ‘very poor’ in a majority of categories in Climate Transparency scorecard
The Queensland government has agreed to recommendations that will help the reef survive climate change.
Despite aggressive attempts to convince the public otherwise, new analysis of the vast body of research shows 97% of scientists agree that human activities are fuelling climate change.
A new study warns coral’s ability to withstand bleaching would suffer in warmer oceans.
By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – – The US corporate press is letting the presidential candidates set the …
ATLANTA – (CT&P) – The Weather Channel is advising all elderly or weak individuals in the path of Winter Storm Jonas to go ahead and commit suicide before the storm hits.
Weather Channel stalwart Jim Cantore, reporting from the nation’s capital, told viewers today that suicide would be preferable to a slow, agonizing death at the hands of the blizzard.
“If you are elderly, weak, or disabled, and unable to flee the path of the storm, it would be much better for you to go ahead and end it all now while you still have power,” said Cantore, after shooting up half a gram of methamphetamine.
“You certainly don’t want to slowly freeze to death in your home surrounded by cats, who are sure to devour your bloated corpse in the days to come. In fact, I advise even young adults who are depressed or have bleak economic futures to do the same. Remember, no one will be coming to check on you because you have no friends and you alienated your family a long time ago. Just get it over with, for God’s sake.”
David Clark, president of the Weather Channel, was quick to point out that although Cantore’s recommendations had merit, they represented his opinions alone and were not those of Weather Channel management.
ATLANTA – (CT&P) – The Weather Channel is warning its viewers in Tennessee and North Carolina that when ice forms on roads, cars tend slide out of control, which can cause wrecks.
Winter Storm Ilias, which has caused raised blood pressure, racing heartbeats, and raging hornyness among Weather Channel personnel, is currently moving across Tennessee and western North Carolina causing hazardous driving conditions in higher elevations.
Since no one in Tennessee or North Carolina has ever seen snow or ice before, the helpful folks at the Weather Channel have mentioned about 500 fucking times this morning alone that when it’s cold, water falling from the sky turns to something else, and it can be damn dangerous.
“I don’t know what I’d do without the Weather Channel,” said Greta Hangnail of Ducktown, Tennessee. “I’ve seen pictures of all that ice and snow in my National Geographic, but I had no idea it could happen in the United States. I thought all that stuff was up in Canada.”
Jeffrey Scrotum of Mulebutt, North Carolina told a local TV reporter that he had heard from his grandpa that one time it snowed up in the Smoky Mountains but that was a long time ago.
“I don’t know nothing about no snow and ice,” said Scrotum. “You really think I can’t drive on it? Why would that be?”
The Weather Channel is advising that everyone in both states should go ape shit and go buy all the milk and bread in every fucking grocery store within 100 miles of their homes just in case the storm traps them in their miserable homes for more than three or four hours.
They also advise that no one should drive for at least three or four days after the storm is over because black ice could be lurking everywhere and cause massive casualties on a scale not seen since World War II.
“It’s always best to cower in fear and hunker down wherever you are once the storm hits,” said Bernie Shortschlong, a winter storm specialist. “From what I’m seeing on radar I think it’ll be safe for folks in the Deep South to return to work sometime next week.”
China — the world’s biggest polluter — will use this week’s UN conference in Paris to stake a global leadership claim on climate change.
When the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference opens in Paris on November 30, annual global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will be about 32 billion metric tons.
In a recent poll, two-thirds of Americans say they accept climate change, and the vast majority say human activities cause it – but they aren’t very worried
There’s much more variety than you might think.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has been caught on tape joking about low-lying islands being swamped by rising seas in a 23-second exchange that risked offending Indigenous people, ethnic leaders and Australia’s Pacific neighbours in one fell swoop.
There’s a part of the story you might not have known.
Australians who install coal-fired power stations on their roof at home will soon be eligible for a Government-funded rebate, under new plans unveiled today.
Speaking at the program’s launch, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the initiative would become the centerpiece of a range of Government policies designed to address the country’s future energy needs.
“Let’s be up front about this, the world is changing. So we need to think differently about how we generate our power needs into the future,” he said.
Mr Abbott said the new scheme was innovative and cost effective. “What this new scheme does is allow ordinary Australians to generate their own electricity, reducing their reliance on more traditional forms of energy, and lowering the monthly bill at the same time”.
Homeowners will be eligible for rebates of up to $5,000, depending on the size of their power station.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the scheme will mean production and emissions levels at large-scale coal-fired power plants will fall. “We expect carbon emissions in some stations to fall by as much as 30%. That’s above and beyond the targets set by many other OECD countries,” he said.
Mr Abbott said as part of the new initiative rebate schemes for solar panels will be scrapped. “People can still install solar panels if they wish, but there won’t be a rebate. They’re unsightly and ugly, so we’re trying to discourage them”.
Since ascending to the Catholic Church’s top perch in March 2013, Pope Francis hasn’t shied away from taking political stances that rankle conservatives. He has said evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. Asked about gay priests, he responded, “Who am I to judge?” And he has embraced a populist approach to tackling income inequality.
Now the pope risks drawing conservative ire on climate change. In a document set to be released on Thursday—which leaked to an Italian publication and was published as an act of “sabotage against the pope,” according to a Vatican official—Francis will apparently call for a strong, multi-country push to curb global warming and the “human causes that produce and accentuate it,” according to the Guardian. The message will reportedly call out climate deniers, saying “the attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions.”
There’s a growing contingent of congressional Republicans who are Catholic, and a number of the party’s leading presidential candidates (or potential candidates) are Catholic. If those candidates’ past statements on climate change are any indication, they could soon find themselves at odds with the pope over the looming encyclical. Here’s what they’ve said:
Rick Santorum: “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re good at, which is theology and morality.”
Jeb Bush: Bush has said anybody who thinks the science on climate change is settled is “arrogant.”
Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor’s views might be the most in line with the pope’s: “I think global warming is real. I don’t think that’s deniable. And I do think human activity contributes to it.”
Bobby Jindal: While acknowledging that human activity has had an impact on the climate, Jindal has decried Obama’s environmental regulations as “reckless and based on a radical leftist ideology that will kill American jobs and increase energy prices,” according to the Associated Press.
Marco Rubio: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has tabled a plan that he hopes will placate supporters of wind turbines, while removing the ugly, noisy devices from view.
The ambitious strategy will see the turbines removed from roadsides and windfarms, and placed inside unused storage sheds in regional Australia. Some new sheds may also be built if enough existing space cannot by found.
Mr Abbott said it was a sensible plan that demonstrated the Government’s ongoing commitment to renewable energy, while ensuring Australians did not have to look at anything ugly. “When you look across the globe, no one else is putting wind turbines inside sheds. This is an innovative, workable solution, and once again Australia is leading the world”.
A Liberal party insider said it was an example of a more consultative, balanced Abbott who was willing to compromise to get things done. “He’s really listening. He really understands the planet’s energy issues, and he’s willing to do something about it”.
Coal-fired power stations are a stunning addition to the Australian landscape, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said this morning.
“When you get up close to these things, it’s something quite special. The sheer size of the stations, the elegance of the chimneys themselves, the plumes of smoke filling the air around you. I’d recommend all Australians take the family out to see one”.
The PM said they made good spots for camping trips. “They’re not only visually beautiful, there’s a serenity about them too. You can hear a pin drop. A largish pin”.
He singled out the smell as a particular highlight. “It’s that distinctive smokey aroma that you get with these types of set ups”.
Mr Abbott said if it weren’t for the Senate, Australia would have a lot more coal stations gracing our farms, regional towns and countryside. “I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament, and I must say, I would love to see rows and rows of coal stations, around Lake George for example. It would bring the area to life”.
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (CT&P) – Leaders of the Criminally Negligent Parents Association and the Vacuous Housewives Club of Orange County, the two largest anti-vaccination groups in the country, have called a crisis meeting this weekend to discuss how to respond to the barrage of criticism the groups are receiving over the measles outbreak currently sweeping the country.
Officeholders of both organizations will be present at the emergency summit as well as several luminaries and public advocates for the misguided cause. Former Playmate and Rhodes Scholar Jenny McCarthy, serial killer and conspiracy theory kook Jeffrey John Aufderheide, virus rights advocate Senator Thom “Typhoid” Tillis (R-NC), and New Jersey governor and planetoid Chris Christie will all be in attendance.
The emergency summit will commence on Saturday morning with a series of round table discussions on how to best deflect the criticism of nearly every sane person in the United States and carry on with the asinine policies that have loosed a once-eradicated disease on an unsuspecting public.
The discussions will be followed up with a gala dance featuring West African witch doctors and shamans on loan from obscure Brazilian rain forest tribes.
Late Saturday night, VIP guests will be treated to a gathering where famous medium and charlatan John Edward MaGee Jr. will conduct a séance in an attempt to reach long-dead anti-intellectuals and enemies of science to seek their advice in averting a catastrophe for “The Cause.”
Mr. MaGee will enter the “spirit world” and try to speak with such revered personalities as Puritan John Cotton, Chairman Mao of China, various former leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, and most importantly, leader of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge guerrillas, Pol-Pot.
“We’d like to get some advice on just how we can keep this dumb ass anti-vaccination movement going,” said Jenny McCarthy, president of the Vapid Blonde Models Society. “I’d really like to get in touch with General Fransisco Franco of Spain to get some advice on how we could initiate our very own ‘White Terror’ campaign. After all, I think we can all agree that intellectuals and scientists are Public Enemy #1 in this country.”
Jeffrey John Aufderheide agreed with McCarthy saying: “We have to nip this criticism in the bud. Most of it is coming from alien lizard people from outer space posing as cable TV pundits anyway. If we don’t find some way to stop this invasion from Planet 10, the earth is doomed.”
Most pundits believe that the summit meeting has a snowball’s chance in hell of stemming the tide of criticism for the anti-vax crowd. “Even the mentally deficient American public has enough sense to see the logic in protecting our kids from the ravages of preventable diseases,” said Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.
Even in California the tide seems to be turning against the dunderheads in the anti-vax crowd. State politicians from both sides of the aisle are proposing legislation to join 32 other states in limiting exemptions for childhood vaccinations.
“We’ve got to get a grip on things before these morons fuck things up for the rest of us,” said California State Senator Richard Pan, a pediatrician from the 6th District. “If these idiots don’t want to vaccinate their kids, fine. Let them live in total isolation from the rest of us. The nitwits don’t make any valuable contribution to society anyway. Fuck ‘em!”
What is it about the temperature that some of us find so hard to accept?
The year just ended was one of the hottest on record. In NSW it was the absolute hottest, in Victoria the second-hottest, and in Australia the third hottest.
The first step in getting people to at least agree that it’s getting hotter is to stop talking about how to prevent it. Muddying the two, as we do all the time, gets people’s backs up.
The measure is compiled by the Bureau of Meteorology. It dates back to 1910. A separate global reading prepared by the World Meteorological Organisation has 2014 the hottest year since international records began in 1880. Not a single year since 1985 has been below average and every one of the 10 hottest years has been since 1998.
That it’s getting hotter is what economists call an empirical question – a matter of fact not worth arguing about, although it is certainly worth arguing about the reasons for the increase and what we may do about it.
But that’s not the way many Australians see it. I posted the Bureau of Meteorology’s findings on Twitter on Tuesday and was told: “Not really”. Apparently, “climate-wise we are in pretty good shape”.
If the bureau had been displaying measures of the temperature on a specific day or a cricket commentator had been displaying the cricket score, there would be no quibbling. The discussion would centre about the reasons for the result and its implications.
But when it comes to the slowly rising temperature some of us won’t even accept the readings. And that says something about us, or at least about those of us who won’t accept what’s in front of our faces.
I am not prepared to believe that these people are anti-science. Some of them are engineers, some mining company company executives. Like all of us, they depend on science in their everyday lives.
Nor am I prepared to believe they’ve led sheltered lives, although it’s a popular theory. In the United States a survey of six months of coverage on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel found that 37 of its 40 mentions of climate change were misleading.
The misleading coverage included “broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and cherry-picking of data”.
Fox News called global warming a “fraud”, a “hoax” and “pseudo science”.
Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal fared little better. 39 of its 48 references were misleading.
In Australia it’s not as bad. Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian gives more space to climate change than any other newspaper. Its articles are 47 per cent negative, 44 per cent neutral and 9 per cent positive, according to the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism.
It’s impossible to read The Australian‘s articles without feeling at least a bit curious about climate change.
Another theory is that it’s to do with psychology. Some people are more threatened by bad news than others, making them less able to accept that it’s real.
And now a more sophisticated theory suggests that it’s not about the facts at all. It’s really a debate about the implications, disguised as a debate about the facts. Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay, a researcher and associate professor in neuroscience at Duke University in North Carolina find that belief in temperature forecasts is correlated with beliefs about government regulation and what those forecasts would mean for government regulation.
They assembled a panel of at least 40 Republicans and 40 Democrats and asked each whether they believed the consensus forecast about temperature increases. Half were told that climate change could be fought in a market friendly way, the other half that it would need heavy-handed regulation. Of the Republicans, the proportion who accepted the temperature forecast was 55 per cent when they were told climate change could be addressed by the free market and only 22 per cent when they were told it would need regulation.
(Democrats were about 70 per cent likely believe the temperature forecast and weren’t much swayed by how climate change would be fought.)
The finding is important. It means that the first step in getting people to at least agree that it’s getting hotter is to stop talking about how to prevent it. Muddying the two, as we do all the time, gets people’s backs up.
It is getting hotter. Seven of Australia’s 10 hottest years on record have been since the Sydney Olympics. Last year was 0.91C hotter than the long-term average. Last year’s maximums were 1.16C hotter than long-term average maximums. Warming is a fact. The Bureau of Meteorology accepts it, the government accepts it and it shouldn’t be beyond our abilities to accept it.
Then we can talk about what to do.
Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age.
Deal would for first time commit all countries – including developing nations – to cutting emissions
International negotiators at the Lima climate change talks have agreed on a plan to fight global warming that would for the first time commit all countries to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan, agreed at United Nations talks on Sunday, was hailed as an important first step towards a climate change deal due to be finalised in Paris next year. The proposals call on countries to reveal how they will cut carbon pollution, ideally by March next year.
“As a text it’s not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks.
However, negotiators acknowledged they had put off the most difficult decisions for later.
And with 2014 on course to be the hottest year on record, campaigners warned the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change.
“It’s definitely watered down from what we expected,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They also warned negotiators had left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline for reaching a deal in Paris. “The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch up,” said Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid’s senior climate change advisor.
But after a difficult negotiation – which over-ran by two days– officials said they were satisfied with the outcome.
“It was contentious along the way but it fundamentally accomplished what we wanted it to,” Todd Stern, the US State Department’s climate change envoy, said.
The five-page text agreed on Sunday – now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action – represents the embryonic phase of the deal due to be delivered in Paris.
As sketched out in Lima, all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries would pledge action on climate change.
Wealthy countries would help developing countries fight climate change, by investing in clean energy technology or offering climate aid.
Countries already threatened by climate change – such as small island states which face being swallowed up by rising seas – were promised a “loss and damage” programme of financial aid.
The all-inclusive nature of the emissions cuts constitutes a break with one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks – that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
“I think for the first time ever the world can contemplate a global deal applicable to all and Lima has helped that process,” the UK’s energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said.
If all goes well, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US, will as part of the agreement formally pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as will India, Brazil and other rising economies.
But much remains uncertain about the prospects of a strong deal emerging from Paris – not least because of the problems that arose during the negotiations in Lima.
The Lima negotiations had opened on 1 December amid a spirit of optimism following an agreement last month between the US and China to cut carbon pollution.
But it soon became apparent that the US-China deal on its own would have no effect on bridging the perennial dividing line of climate negotiations – the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The talks over-ran by two days because of clashes over which countries should carry the burden of fighting climate change.
There were also disputes over climate finance. Wealthy countries were accused of failing to live up to their earlier promises of mobilising billions to help developing countries fight climate change.
But after a day of brinkmanship on Saturday – with Stern warning of a “major breakdown” – the deal was done.
“We got what we wanted,” Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister, said.
But much now remains to be done if the broad outlines agreed at Lima are to materialise in a full-fledged climate deal.
The US, China, and the European Union have already come forward with pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Under the plan, countries are due to come forward by March 2015 with their proposed emissions reductions targets.
The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C.
But much remains vague or poorly defined. The countries put off decisions about the legal structure of the agreement, and deferred decisions about ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries.
The biggest issue left unresolved for Paris is the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The draft text retains language of “common but differentiated responsibilities” that has over the years given developing countries a pass on cutting emissions. That language remains in the text although with a rider “in light of different national circumstances”. Stern acknowledged to reporters the issue was likely to come up again at Paris.
And the text adopted on Sunday no longer makes it mandatory for countries to provide detailed information about their prospect reductions targets.
Campaigners said that would make it increasingly difficult to be sure the deal would manage to keep warming within the 2 degree threshold.
A while back, University of Alabama at Huntsville Scientist Roy Spencer, who has a history of the same kind of errors always going in the same direction, managed to get a study published under an implicit theory that “clouds drive climate,” rather than also serve as a response to it.
The study was sufficiently flawed that the editor of the science journal involved (“Remote Sensing”) took responsibility for it’s publication, and chose to resign over it; citing the degree and type of the error, which went outside the normal curve of “mistake” in the highly professional and well vetted world of academic journal publishing. He also, however, blamed not only himself, but the scientists involved in the paper, which itself was not only comprised of “fundamental error” and “false claims,” but which was written as if the scientific arguments or views with which the authors tried to take issue, did not even exist.
By both trapping earth surface radiated thermal radiation on the one hand, but increasing the earth atmosphere albedo (and thus reflecting more solar radiation directly back into the upper atmosphere and space) on the other, clouds of course play an enormous role in weather.
And while clouds also help shape a large part of climate over time, they form as a result of underlying climatic conditions. Unlike long lived atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, ice sheet and permafrost conditions, incoming solar radiation, and ocean heat concentrations, clouds are extremely ephemeral, and ever changing on an exceedingly short basis.
Thus, the idea that clouds, formed by evaporation and atmospheric water vapor (which serves as a very important but extremely short lived and changing greenhouse gas) don’t reflect a response to the fundamentals that drive climate, but serve as a key driver of climate, is far fetched.
Seemingly far fetched arguments are fine – even needed – in science: they check conventional thinking and sometimes lead to great breakthroughs, and often better understanding. But the most critical focus when presenting a potentially far-fetched argument, is of course foremost to assess the arguments against it, and help illustrate where and why they are in error. Spencer, and his colleague William Braswell, rather astoundingly, simply ignored all the “arguments” that went counter to the rather strange claims they made.
This is not just bad science. It is, fundamentally, almost anti-science.
There is a lot of pseudo science on the issue of climate change, widely, repeatedly, and passionately promulgated around the world – and in the U.K., the U.S.,and Australia in particular – that often terribly misconstrues the issue:
Consider the wildly popular notion of claiming that Climate Change is not real or major, since “antarctic sea ice extent has been growing,” despite the far more relevant fact, usually completely ignored, that total polar ice – arctic sea ice, antarctic sea ice, northern polar land ice sheet mass, and southern polar ice sheet mass, has been diminishing; and diminishing at an accelerating, rate. (The arctic sea ice extent is also more relevant than the antarctic extent because the arctic is open water, and historically has had a solid ice cover through the summer months, which may be changing, while the Antarctic is land. Ans so antarctic sea ice – a little further way from the pole – has traditionally largely disappeared during the summer months. So unlike in the north, a complete disappearance wouldn’t comprise nearly as radical of a change.And it is more relevant since the rate of change – diminishment – in the arctic, has been massive in comparison with the rate of change – augmentation – in the antarctic.)
To pick out one of the four areas of polar ice melt to argue one way, when all four, far more relevantly, illustrate the exact opposite, would be considered remarkable in any other area of scientific inquiry; yet passes for routine, and acceptable, when it comes to Climate Change Naysaying. (“CCN”)
While Climate Change Naysayers have falsely turned the issue of ice melt into a refutation of Climate Change, the issue of ice melt is actually the opposite, and very relevant:
Even small changes in ice sheet mass can have large climate consequences. Additionally, the increase in antarctic ice sea ice extent masks key regional shifts, and is slowly increasing due to major changes in the Southern Annular Mode (“SAM” winds), pushing the new ice northward and allowing new formation, and also likely due to increased glacial melt insulation. More importantly, the rate of loss of arctic sea ice- which in some regard is again a more important indicator since the north pole is mainly open water while the south pole is a continent (Antarctica) is about 10 fold (~1000%) faster than the rate of antarctic increase. And that rate of decline of arctic sea ice itself is profound, and, accelerating.
The massive ice sheets at both ends of the earth stabilize our climate, and have kept us in the moderately temperate to occasionally frigid (i.e, “encroaching glaciation”) range of the Ice Age period we are currently in, and have been in for over a million or more years. (Note that our alteration of the long term greenhouse gas concentrations now extends back at least several million years, to a time period pre-dating the current ice age with its massive ice sheet structures at both ends of the planet.) And these ice sheets are also now melting: And melting at an accelerating rate, at both ends of the earth.
To thus claim that the earth is not warming – as is now routinely done, and which even forms a good portion of Climate Change denialism, “skepticism” and confusion – during a short term geological period of consistently high (and even on a shorter term basis, still very moderately increasing after a very high shorter term increase in the 90s from the decade before) is both preposterous and extraordinarily misleading, as the earth is still accumulating heat – which is what matters – and at an accelerating pace.
Energy going into melting ice sheets will not be reflected in geologically short term ambient air temperatures. Yet we over focus on current air temperature as if this defines Climate Change, when right now, ambient air temperature is the least important aspect of a problem that ultimately reflects the changing (increasing) net energy balance of the earth.
And much of this accumulating energy is going into melting these ice sheets; melting permafrost regions (within which are over a trillion tons of carbon – almost double the amount of total carbon in the atmosphere right now – much of which will be released in the far more atmospheric heat energy absorption and re radiation intensive CH4, or methane, form, and ultimately a positive feedback loop); and, most notably of all, heating the world ocean – and doing so at a geologically massive, and, accelerating, rate.
In fact, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual 2013 report (emphasis added):
About 93 per cent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system between 1971 and 2010 was taken up by the ocean.
From around 1980 to 2000, the ocean gained about 50 zettajoules [10 to the 21st power] of heat. Between 2000 and 2013, [the ocean gained] about three times that amount
Part of the ignorance on this issue – which is not just lack of knowledge, but incorrect knowledge and conclusion constantly, and often aggressively promulgated to the world and media – is fed mainly by non scientists, or scientists in other fields than those directly connected to climate change, who have either been misled on the issue themselves (further reinforced by a massive number of wildly popular, highly insular, and self reinforcing anti Climate Change websites and even media outlets); or – though often quick to project the argument of “belief” outward onto others – by ideological belief or scientifically irrelevant conflation of the actual science of the issue, with concern and presumption over possible political and economic ramifications and assumptions of it.
And part of it has been fed by a few, if rare, actual climate related practicing scientists, such as in the case of the far too disproportionately influential Roy Spencer, among a few others – such as, for example, John Christy, who, ironically, is also at the very same University of Alabama at Huntsville as Spencer.
Spencer (as well as Christy and the small handful of others), is far too disproportionately influential in part because he is one of the very few actual practicing climate scientists who takes a dim view of the idea that radical long term atmospheric heat energy re absorption will significantly alter future climate; and in large part it is because of the massive use, constant exposure, and promulgation of any possible seemingly credible argument or arguer in support of Climate Change Naysaying.
But Spencer’s strange cloud argument was not novel, nor creatively expressive of the flaws in current understanding, nor an improvement upon or even contribution to it; but instead, consisted of hype and base misrepresentation masquerading as science.
Notably, although tens of thousands of such “papers” have been “published” by anti Climate Change organizations and lobbying groups, very few if any have been been published by vetted scientific journals that actually undermine the basic theory of Climate Change itself.
Naturally, Climate Change Naysayers have a theory for this as well – as when one wants or needs to have a belief, self-plausible appearing theories are infinite. Hence it’s a “conspiracy,” that all of the “Climate Change” refuting “studies don’t get published in any of the fully vetted and highly professional and rigorous scientific journals – even though the basic process of science relies upon contention, questioning and constant re-examination, and there is far more interest, and likely even fame, in scientifically (not rhetorically) showing our massive and still ongoing alteration of the long term nature of our atmosphere to not be a big deal future climate wise. So such studies, if valid, or at least reasonable and not based upon basic misconstruction or misinformation, would be welcome, and a big deal.
There is just no solid argument for it because the only thing keeping Climate Change from being so slam dunk clear that it would be more patently obvious to the non scientific, is that it is in the future, it scans a broad range of time, and it covers a broad range of general responses which due to the very nature of climate itself can’t realistically be broken down into concise pathways of short term precisely predictable and in advance measurable (until, somewhat, after the fact) change, as opposed to broader and longer time frame scale change.
And of course there is massive desire to believe that we are not affecting the environment, so that we “don’t have to” change; don’t have to shift what are probably long term counter productive agricultural practices for a whole host of reasons; don’t have to have rigorous and open minded economic conversations about just what really defines economic progress and freedom long term, what measures it, and what really contributes to it; and perhaps most of all, don’t have to to actively rather than passively switch off of fossil fuels upon which we have grown so “comfortable.” (With former President George Bush even going so far to call our reliance upon oil an “addiction” in his 2006 National State of the Union Address) or infringe upon what some see as a basic, inviolate, “God given” right – namely, very cheap fossil fuel energy.
For despite the hype to the contrary, the cherry picking of select data, the constant conflation of the normal process of scientific correction, adjustment and learning with refutation of Climate Change itself, and the constant assertion that a failure to be able to precisely predict that actual short term geological path of Climate Change itself means that the issue of major climatic shifts is therefore not valid, the basic Climate Change theory – contrary to what is often so loquaciously if misleading expressed – is fairly straightforward, if imprecise:
Greenhouse gases absorb and re radiate mid to long wave thermal radiation (surface heat emission, whereas incoming, and immediately re reflected solar radiation, is mainly in short wave form), that would otherwise continue to radiate upward into the upper atmosphere and space. And a radical shift in their concentrations to levels not seen on earth in millions of years will likely be masked for quite some time upon a “relatively” stable climate system; but, as the underlying conditions of that stability – earth albedo, ocean energy, ice sheet presence, permafrost coverage, and the ongoing increased (and still massively increasing) thermal absorption and re radiation itself, in conjunction with the increasingly changed underlying conditions – all change, will ultimately and invariably have to fundamentally alter that system.
Roy Spencer is not trying to figure out the nature of this change, what contributes to it, and what we can learn about it; but, along with a large portion of the world and in particular online and lobbying community, is instead trying to refute it, and for very specific reasons. And his wacky, and widely repudiated “contrarian” study that not only misrepresented his findings but oddly also even failed to address the substance of the very theories he was attempting to repudiate – in, lo and behold, the direction of concluding that Climate Change is “much less significant” – was no coincidental happenstance simply arrived at through objective analyses of the relevant science, facts, and data. It was in fact instead very purposeful, and part of a broader pattern that has nevertheless conditioned itself to believe it is really simply following the “better” science.
Part of the problem isn’t just the constant perpetuation and amplification of misinformation and issue misconstruction itself by interested, misinformation, conspiracy theory, or ideological led groups (along with often facilitatingly poor explication, and a lot of presumptive “conclusions” over what an average individual should somehow know in a veritable sea of misinformation on the issue by some groups concerned with the issue or even the massive misrepresentation on it) – but a good portion of the media itself. This includes, among others “talks a good game” but misinformation radical Glenn Beck’s provocative online “magazine” Blaze; Forbes; and the widely misnamed “Fox News.” (It is misnamed not because of the fairly ironic “Fox” title, but because it should be Fox Advocacy, as it is really advocacy couched as news – something, when recipients believe they are getting actual “fair and balanced,” to use Fox’s constantly iterated term, “news and analysis,” which is far more effective than outright advocacy at influencing belief.)
Let’s take an example, tying it into the Spencer paper so flawed, that, questionable action or not, the editor of the publishing paper resigned over it.
So how did Fox News handle this story? A search of all Fox Roy Spencer related articles made no substantive mention of any error, retraction or correction.
Yet here, in marked contrast, is the very first sentence of Fox’s online story about the study itself.
Has a central tenant of global warming just collapsed?
Famous comedian and satirist Jon Stewart was one of the first to categorize the extensive use of Fox’ News question marks as a form of veiled advocacy; that is, opinion, often extreme opinion, pushed across as if it were investigative analysis.
The study covered a period of about 10 years – from 2000 – 20009. Given the enormous range of climate variability itself, let alone one expected to shift (and one that is starting to show such signs, “oddly” coincidental or not), and as the climate is expected to shift over time, the heightened expectation of increased weather and overall variability, and unpredictability, ten years is a remarkably short period to draw contrary conclusions from.
Making the assertion that Climate Change is much less relevant than previously thought, based upon ten years of temperature of “random” cloud cover, misses what the Climate Change issue really is. Far more problematically, yet for reasons again never illuminated, it also relied upon the wild presumption that cloud cover, even though an ongoing ephemeral phenomenon, is largely irrelevant to the process of anthropogenic or atmospheric heat re radiating molecular driven climate change, and yet itself an initial driver of climate rather than at least in part a resultant conditional phenomenon, or in part, “result,” of it.
Again, this goes against the entire body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which itself is fine if there is a coherent reason offered as to why; but more potently, the argument makes little sense, and again, there is no coherent reason (or any reason) offered as to why.
Climate change, as noted in this previous link, more accurately refers to “the long term geologic history of earth, and the recent rapid additions to the long lived concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to levels not collectively seen in at least several million years; and the expected, if somewhat uncertain, range of likely and even severe changes to longer term climate in response.”
The issue or “theory” sits somewhere between the “theory” of gravity and a strong hypothesis, based upon basic earth physics; our long standing geologic record; the earth’s tendency to somewhat easily shift and change climatically as it is; and the geologically radical, outstandingly rapid, and still ongoing change upward in the atmospheric level of long lived greenhouse gases.
And the scientific theory is that this change is likely to bring about a lagging, possibly jagged, almost certainly non linear, increasingly volatile, and short term unpredictable (and long term unpredictable in terms of being exact or precise) shift or series of shifts in our climate: With our long term climate overall, ultimately shifting over to a new, stable stases, well after current atmospheric concentrations of long lived greenhouse gases, from a geologic perspective, have stabilized. (Right now, from a geologic perspective, far from stabilizing, they are essentially shooting straight up.)
Models try to capture this as best as they are able, and invariably get caught up in the problems of trying to pinpoint with accurate precision, what future climate is not only going to be, but exactly when it will be as well, and along what exact path it will follow as well.
This would be a difficult if not near impossible task with respect to just basic climate alone. It is even more so when the atmospheric concentrations of long term heat trapping gases have shot up to geologically radical levels – leading to far more re radiated atmospheric heat, and over time, the increase in energy build up of the earth itself: Something – with respect to warming ice sheets, increasing net ice melt, increasing permafrost subsurface temperatures, and ocean temperatures – also, again, correspondingly observed.
Yet the inability to exactly pinpoint both the precise degree of average ambient rise or just change, as well as the precise almost geologically meaningless path on a nearly year to year or decade to decade basis, has been widely mistaken for the efficacy, vitality or sensibility of the “Climate Change” phenomenon itself, and again, also aggressively and repeatedly promulgated as another false repudiation, or refutation, of it.
Yet regarding that Fox story – of which a google search provided not a one follow up correction, even after the Spencer study, prompting a major headline proclaiming the Climate Change theory itself to have been all but undermined, was largely repudiated and shown to be hogwash, including even by the publishing Journal itself, here are the second and third sentences :
Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planetwide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment.But long-term data from NASA satellites seems to contradict the predictions dramatically, according to a new study.
Yes, according to a study – albeit subsequently left out by Fox – so fundamentally flawed, by an author who has a systematic pattern of always making mistakes in the same direction, and apparently strong non science oriented reasons for doing so, that the two year editor of the journal resigned over it. Not over pressure, but over the egregiousness of the mistake and “most likely problematic” falsity of the claims, according to the editor himself.
Yet nevertheless, without ever a subsequent correction to be found, here are the fifth and sixth sentences of the Fox article:
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” [Spencer] said. The planet isn’t heating up, in other words.
Except, it is:
Net ice melt is increasing. Glaciers and ice sheets are warming and melting not just in the arctic, but the antarctic as well. And again, at an accelerating rate. Subsurface temperatures in permafrost regions, which cover over a fifth of the globe, are increasing (even faster in some areas than the ambient surface air temperature above them). And the oceans, which cover almost three quarters of the globe, are gaining warmth at a rate that is many times, and according to one scientific study, 15 times (or fifteen hundred percent) faster than at any time in the past ten thousand years.
And, less important than the above changes, but still notably, overall temperatures over time – as in climate, the longer term, not shorter term, trend matters – are increasing, in a way that is already geologically unusual, with almost all of the 20 warmest years on record in the past 25 years alone, and, astonishingly, 13 of the 14 warmest years ever on record – even with the oceans still warming when they should have cooled to keep the air so consistently warm if the globe itself wasn’t still warming – all occurring in the past 14 years. And, though somewhat minor, but simply augmenting the general trend a little more, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the “meteorological” summer (June, July, and August) was the hottest on record. (It was the fourth hottest according to NASA), and 2014 is on track to possibly become the new hottest year ever.
But Fox, before ending up the piece with one of the more tame quotes on the matter (and on Spencer) by Texas A & M atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler, calling it “incorrect,” further honed its powerful and completely unsubstantiated underlying “Climate Changes is not really real” message veiled as news, by publishing what not only dances near the edge of pure fiction, but crosses firmly over the line into it:
James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute, wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear — and it compromises what he called a “central premise of alarmist global warming theory.”
Yes, Taylor – a paid advocate for the Heartland Institute, itself designed and funded specifically for the purpose of repudiating the concept of Climate Change – did write that. And Forbes, another near constant (but not always) Climate Change misinformation media source, did publish it.
Yet most scientists (although suddenly the word scientist, in an overt attempt at wildly spun advocacy – the opposite of news reporting, almost by definition – means “alarmist,” not scientist, in every single of the many pieces that Forbes has “published” by Taylor), note that Spencer is not really practicing science here; that the paper got some of the most basic things backward; that Spencer has a scientific history of being repeatedly wrong, and always in the same direction; and that while it is nice to model, Climate Change refers to the long term general expected effect over time from what has been a multi million year geologic change in a matter of a mere few hundred years, much of which has occurred in the past 50 or so years alone. Not models.
But for Fox, one of the leading sources of “news” in America and the leading and, according to studies, not just the most watched, but the “most trusted,” of the very few national cable news channels, it was not actual climate scientists, but James Taylor – a lawyer who took science classes in college, and a paid advocate who works for a center specifically designed for the purpose of refuting Climate Change, – who is the science expert that Fox nevertheless elected to quote in terms of the article, and achieve Fox’s seeming aims: namely, to undermine and refute the idea of Climate Change and, it seems, any real understanding of the issue that doesn’t align with its extreme (if common in the Internet and its extremely self selecting and self reinforcing) and highly misinformed view that Climate Change does not pose a significant threat of major, non linear, climatic shifting, with major to massive consequences for the specific world in which we evolved, and built up our civilization upon.
And so the powerful beat of misinformation continues to reverberate through the land, and alter the informational landscape upon which a democracy, for good analysis, assessment, and decision making, relies.