The Green Skeptic: climate skeptics

Showing posts with label climate skeptics. Show all posts

22 December 2014

An Email from Santa Claus to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green Skeptic Tradition

Back in 2006, I published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. Readers had so much fun with it, it's become an annual tradition. Enjoy!

Happy Holidays!

_______________________

TO: Global Warming Skeptics

FROM: Santa Claus

DATE: A few nights before Xmas

SUBJECT: My Christmas List

_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part of what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started.

Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.) We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

24 December 2012

An Email from Santa Claus to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green Skeptic Tradition

A few Christmases ago, I published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. Readers had so much fun with it, it's become an annual tradition. Enjoy!

Happy Holidays!

Scott, aka The Green Skeptic

_______________________

TO: Global Warming Skeptics

FROM: Santa Claus

DATE: A few nights before Xmas

SUBJECT: My Christmas List

_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

24 October 2012

Our Climate War: FRONTLINE's "Climate of Doubt"

We're in the midst of an uncivil "Climate War" that pits Climate of Fear vs. Climate of Doubt.

Last night I watched a program called "Climate of Doubt," FRONTLINE's hour-long take on the influences and influencers who have reshaped the climate change debate over the past five years.

It was decidedly one-sided, unfortunately, and painted the skeptics and questioners with the same brush as the tobacco lobby and other malcontents.

Some of the tactics they used may have been learned from smoke and mirror campaigns, but it doesn't make their questioning any less valid. (More on that later.)

I'm often asked whether I am a climate skeptic. After all, my blog is The Green Skeptic. My answer is always the same: No, I am not a climate skeptic. (I consider myself a moderate, (Teddy) Roosevelt Republican, those statements combined effectively put me out of the running for any political office.)

I believe the climate is changing, I've seen it with my own two eyes in places as far afield as Alaska, Indonesia, and even the northeast where I live.

But I also believe that skepticism is a hallmark of human nature and it should be applied in liberal (pardon the usage) doses to every human endeavor, whether business, environmental or intellectual.

Skepticism is also a healthy part of the scientific method as hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified.

On the subject of the climate, my views are simple and I've said all this before here and in my appearances on FOX Business's Varney & Company:

1.) The climate is changing, but the true impacts are unknown, perhaps even unknowable;
2.) Some of that change is caused by man, but not all;
3.) We should focus on the cheapest ways to mitigate climate change while simultaneously insuring against the most likely potential changes that could have big impacts on our health and safety (changes in disease vectors, sea level rise near our coastal cities, impacts on food production); and
4.) There is huge potential investment opportunity in affordable solutions that may actually encourage prosperity not prevent it.

Now, back to my earlier comment about questioning.

The folks who are questioning the consensus of opinion or the validity of the science are neither necessarily wrong nor right. They may be looking at the data in ways that back up their arguments as much as anyone else who wants to prove a point. They may also be trying to deliberately confuse people about the issue, as the FRONTLINE program suggests, to create just such a climate of doubt.

Of course, as journalist John Hockenberry asked one of his interviewees last night, "What if you're wrong?"

The question could be asked about either side. Frankly, we won't know who is wrong or right until it's too late.

What really troubles me about the FRONTLINE program last night is that we've lost all foundation for rational, reasonable debate in this country. We have become a nation of blamers and attackers. Anything we don't agree with is shouted down rather than reasonably argued against. It happens on both sides of the issue and good people are getting hurt in the process.

There is a difference between passion and zeal, and we've lost sight of that difference.

We need to get back to rational, reasonable dialogue and a healthy skepticism and away from attack ads, smear campaigns, and trying to prove who is right.

We need to meet in the middle and develop cost-effective solutions to mitigate the impacts of even the most modest scenarios and, perhaps we'll end up promoting prosperity while insuring we're around to enjoy it.

We need to take a chill pill and create a climate of collaboration and put an end to this climate war.

23 December 2011

An Email from Santa to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green SkepticTradition

TO: Global Warming Skeptics
FROM: Santa Claus
DATE: A few nights before Xmas
SUBJECT: My Christmas List
_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part of what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started.

Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.) We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

20 September 2011

Skeptics, Solyndra and Setbacks, oh my: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

I sat down with Stewart Varney & Company this morning at Fox Business to talk about climate skeptics, Solyndra, and setbacks, oh my...

Here is the video:

And here is a link in case the viewer doesn't function in your browser: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

09 February 2011

Trying to Change a Climate Skeptic's Mind? Don't Bother

[Artwork by SHEPARD FAIREY]

If I had a dollar for every time a self-proclaimed "climate hawk" or environmentalist said they had the key to convincing "climate skeptics," I'd create a pretty awesome adaptation and innovation fund that could invest in more worthwhile pursuits.

My good friends at The Nature Conservancy's Cool Green Science blog are usually pretty level-headed as far as environmentalists go. And today's post actually has some pretty good links and resources for information on the science of climate change.

Yet, the title sends the wrong message: "How to Change a Climate Skeptic's Mind."

Really?

I'm not convinced it's worth the effort. I also think there are three reasons the public doesn’t see eye-to-eye with scientists on climate change:

1.) People don't trust "Science," with a capital S.
2.) Environmentalists rely on fear as a motivator.
3.) The culture of NOW: climate change impacts are not immediate; concerns over health, safety, finances are immediate.

"Climate deniers" (I won't call them skeptics, for obvious reasons) are preying on all three points, just as good marketers will. They know how to hit home. The reaction from the so-called "climate hawks" is to promote the crisis with more panic.

And the climate scientists react with more...well, science.

What's wrong with this picture?

Fear is a good motivator when the danger is immediate. We've survived many encounters with predator species in our long evolution. Fear helps us respond to immediate threats – and quickly.

Over the long-term, however, fear breeds inertia. While the arguments continue, the climate changes, and we lose our share of the new economy. Nothing gets done.

As for the science, it needs to be simple, transparent, and backed up by real-life examples rather than datasets and models. People don’t respond to data and models, they respond to real, tangible things that touch their lives.

In his recent book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter opines that Americans mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before, believing that it's a political constituency that doesn't always have our best interests in mind.

We shouldn’t be talking about trying to "convince," but rather to trying to show. (Remember that old adage about showing not telling?)

Finally, the message must come from someone other than a liberal politician or member of the choir. It is too easy for people, the media, etc., to dismiss climate change and the environment as a "left issue."

It is a universal issue and will require a universal response.

I think Evan Girvetz, the blogger and a senior scientist with The Nature Conservancy’s Global Climate Change Program, was actually onto something with an earlier post called "Translating How Climate Change Will Impact Your Backyard."

At least that post brought the potential impacts closer to home.

23 December 2010

Santa's Email to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green SkepticTradition

13 December 2010

Metrodome Roof Collapse Tied to Global Cooling?

Remarkable footage of the roof at the Metrodome in Minneapolis, Minnesota, collapsing under the weight of heavy snow.

Some climate skeptics are claiming the collapse is a clear sign of global cooling. Others blame friends of Brett Favre, who wanted to see his consecutive game streak continue. Here's the footage:

06 December 2010

Climate Change Groups Need to Rethink Their Approach

Yesterday morning I awoke to NPR Weekend Edition Sunday's report on how climate groups are retooling their arguments for global warming. It was music to my ears.

(And, yes, once you get over the shock that I've been a loyal NPR listener for 20+ years, you can read on.)

"The number of Americans who believe that global warming is a scientific fact has been dropping, and environmental groups and climate scientists who say the evidence for warming is clear are scratching their heads over this reversal and scrambling to find a new strategy," the reporter Christopher Joyce noted.

He went on to point out that "now climate activists are doing some soul-searching about where they've gone wrong. For one thing, they've been preaching to the choir."

Surprise, surprise. It's something we've been saying here at The Green Skeptic for a long time. Climate change boosters (or "Climate Hawks," as they've tried to rebrand themselves lately; ugh) are preaching to the choir and their message has gotten increasingly strident and alarmist.

They are using fear as a motivator, which only goes so far. Fear breeds inertia.

Yet the fear-mongers continue to beat the fear drum. And by focusing on the most extreme threats and doom-and-gloom scenarios, they are losing credibility.

Another thing we've been saying here for some time was echoed by Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who told NPR that "climate activists need to offer solutions, not just problems."

"But old habits are hard to break," says Joyce.

We believe it is time for a pragmatic and practical voice to emerge on the issue – and to take the conversation Beyond Global Warming -- which is what we're trying to provide at The Green Skeptic.

Listen to the story here: NPR

05 December 2009

Why I'm Not Going to Copenhagen

Why am I not going to Copenhagen? Because it's a waste of time, money, and CO2.

Seriously. Over the years, these large gatherings of nations, NGOs, scientists, policy brokers, lobbyists, celebrities, and demagogues has continued to spiral into irrelevance in my mind.

The result is always the same: a bunch of hot air, posturing, and agreements to agree to meet again, while everyone scrambles around vying for attention and trying to make their position the leading argument.

Copenhagen promises to be more of the same, and now there will be even more drama with President Obama, fresh from his Nobel Prize acceptance, showing up like Santa Claus bestowing presents to the delegates. Or not.

But the real reason I have no interest in being in Copenhagen next week is that I think the delegates there will be focused on the wrong things.

More than ever, I'm convinced that the climate crisis campaign has given way to climate chaos and that it has led to two very bad trends revealed in the news media of late: the "Climategate" scandal, which reveals some climate scientists behaving badly and the steep decline in public sentiment about whether global warming is really happening.

As I've said elsewhere, I do believe the climate is changing and there is a genuine risk posed by potentially escalating changes. Some of the dangers could be catastrophic, especially for some coastal and island communities or for any community that relies on glacier-fed streams.

The poor and vulnerable may be at the greatest risk, because there is very little safety net for them, but they are often forgotten in the debate.

What I'm not convinced about is whether anyone really knows what extent the changes will be, despite the dire predictions we all hear about and that are often represented as the "consensus" view.

I think it's time for a change in the way we think about global warming and climate change. We need to get beyond the doom-and-gloom hysteria and focus on adapting to a range of changes that will likely happen, investing in innovations that will help adapt and even mitigate some of those changes, and looking for creative ways to help people change their behavior that will facilitate both adaptation and innovation.

That last point is illustrated by The Fun Theory, a web site that was brought to my attention by Kim Larson, who is a leader in bringing healthier food to school children around the country.

The Fun Theory is a program developed by Volkswagen (yes, a car company) "dedicated to the thought that something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behavior for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that its change for the better."

How much better Copenhagen would be better if it was about creating fun, innovative ways of reducing CO2 rather than prescriptions.

But it won't happen; so I'll stay home next week.

01 December 2009

Mulling Over ClimateGate

"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ..."

That quote comes from the log of a computer modeler known as HARRY_READ_ME, which documents a struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. The log, along with emails from prominent climate researchers, is at the center of the "ClimateGate" controversy.

Depending upon your point of view, hacked computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal either a pattern of deceit, cover-up, and double-dealing or a bunch of grumpy, insular scientists frustrated by distractions to their multimillion dollar research, such as answering climate skeptics or exposing their data to public scrutiny.

Whichever side you're on, you've got to admit this stuff is brilliant.

And while climate skeptics have seized on these emails as the work of "a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians," as John Tierney put it in the New York Times, others have tried to dismiss it as irrelevant to the UN's advice on global warming.

Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, suggests we "follow the money," positing that an entire industry has grown up around proving the validity of the global warming data and its attendant economic ecosystem.

"Why did the money pour in so quickly?" Stephens asks. "Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"

The "Mr. Jones" to whom Mr. Stephens refers is Phil Jones, a climate researcher whose emails initiated the controversy. In one email he refers to a "trick" he applied to raw data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. He and others may even have lobbied for the firing of a journal editor who published papers questioning scientific consensus on global warming.

These are the kinds of mean-spirited, dirty tricks that were once associated with the Bush Administration. Remember the hew and cry over former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Phillip Cooney's tampering with scientific reports to minimize the anthropogenic connection to climate change?

It just shows that no one is averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get their point across and win the mindshare game. Does it damage their credibility? It sure does. I thought scientists were supposed to be above politics and positioning, and held themselves to a higher standard.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe climate change is happening. I've seen the results in my back yard and places as far away as India and Indonesia. I'm just not sure that the predictions of doom-and-gloom and disaster deserve to be considered without challenging the assumptions that go into making them.

After all, aren't computer models only as good as the data that goes into them?

These emails call into question the validity of assertions that the global warming hypothesis has been proved. Is it not, despite the concordance of a wide array of climate scientists, still only a hypothesis?

The question remains why did the scientists feel compelled to manipulate raw data in order to prove what they wanted to prove rather than defend their assertion that short-term fluctuations have little relevance in the face of long-term trends?

One solution to all of this has been suggested by Judith Curry, a specialist in climate-hurricane interactions at Georgia Tech, writing on Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit site.

Dr. Curry identifies "two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."

Hers is a cogent and sober set of recommendations and I applaud her openness and willingness to engage both sides in that forum. She ends her post by calling for the "climate research enterprise" to adapt to the "need for public credibility and transparency" in the wake of the increasing "policy relevance of climate research."

Let's hope this is the beginning of a new chapter where reasonable dialogue and common sense -- and scientific method -- prevail.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

24 November 2009

Still Skeptical After All These (5) Years

Today marks the 5th Anniversary of "the green skeptic." The blog, if not the person.

People often ask me why I'm skeptical and what I'm skeptical about.

Well, the answer is, I believe that skepticism is a hallmark of human nature. Without it, we are sheep.

I think we need to constantly challenge our assumptions about the way the world works or how others tell us it works. We must question even what our leaders tell us, regardless of what side of the aisle their derriere rests upon or what side of the issue they claim to represent.

As the recent controversy around emails sent by and among climate scientists reveals: we are none of us -- left, right or center -- averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get our point across and win the minds of others.

So, I'll remain a skeptic and try to stop the bleating where I can.

26 July 2008

Review: Climate Change: What's Your Business Strategy?

No matter what your company does or where it's located Climate Change is going to have an impact on your business.

As CEO, it is imperative you understand the potential impacts and opportunities presented by the issue.

But with the tremendous amount of noise out there, on both sides of the issue, it may be difficult to sift through it to find the right information to inform your business decisions and strategy.

Along comes a slim volume in Harvard Business Press' Memo to the CEO series, Climate Change: What's Your Business Strategy? by Andrew J. Hoffman and John G. Woody.

Short enough to read on your next transcontinental or international flight, this book provides all the background, current thinking about impacts and opportunities, and upcoming policy decisions that will affect your business.

You will also learn how some of the most successful companies are getting ahead of the game. Companies like SwissRe, which has come up with a three-tiered approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), or Duke Energy, which is anticipating regulations to come and making sure they have a seat at the table when they are secured.

Hoffman, associate director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, and Woody, a deal associate at MMA Renewable Ventures, have devised a simple, three-step approach for you to follow to best position your company.

Beginning with understanding your company's carbon footprint and taking action to reduce its size, Hoffman and Woody walk you through assessing the business opportunities and how to influence policy as it's being developed.

"Some business associations and lobbyists still dispute the science of climate change, but their numbers are dwindling," the authors conclude. "And businesses themselves are focusing on the undeniable economics of the problem. While some companies are adapting out of near-term operational necessity, others are acting to mitigate long-term strategic vulnerabilities, and the most forward-thinking are seizing on new business opportunities created by climate change and devising ways to make money from clean energy and efficient technology."

Pick up Climate Change: What's Your Business Strategy? and read it, have your management team read it, and then decide what your company needs to do to stay ahead in the game.

28 June 2008

Clean Tech: Bjorn Lomborg's Call for R&D Investments

Although we don't always agree, I share a healthy skepticism with Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School.

And, as his opinion piece in the Washington Post last week revealed, we are both concerned that the United States is "missing the opportunity of a lifetime," as Sam Wainwright said to George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Lomborg's assertion? That "the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

In other words, we need to get beyond global warming concerns and focus on accelerating the new green economy.

We are focusing on the wrong things.

As an example, "solar panels are one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many 'green' approaches do little more than make rich people feel they are helping the planet. We can't avoid climate change by forcing a few more inefficient solar panels onto rooftops."

The answer? We need to "dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later," Lomborg asserts. "Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners."

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project," according to Lomborg, "which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers."

This group of experts did a thorough cost-benefit analysis of various response to these challenges. In the end, they "didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels."

I've long argued here in The Green Skeptic that we've missed the opportunity thus far -- a 30-year opportunity to invest in the kind of R&D that gave us the Internet and other technological and economic advances. Lomborg agrees.

"The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development," Lomborg argues. "Which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House.

"Even if every nation spent 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development of low-carbon energy, this would be only about one-tenth as costly as the Kyoto Protocol and would save dramatically more than any of Kyoto's likely successors."

I concur. It's time to unleash the creativity and innovation that has long made this country a leader on the world economic stage, and set us on course for a low-carbon, economically prosperous future. A new green economy.

26 June 2008

Global Climate Change: Brits Skeptical About Climate Change, But Does Anyone Care?

An Ipsos MORI poll released last Sunday found that a majority of the British public does not believe human activity has caused global warming.

According to the poll, which first showed up in The Observer, found that 60 percent of the 1,039 British adults surveyed agreed that "many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change," with a further 40 percent saying they "sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say."

Still, 75 percent of the respondents said they were "concerned about climate change."

According to the Observer, "More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes."

But does it matter what folks in the UK think? Last we checked, it was the US that still needs to come around.

See original article in The Observer/Guardian online

24 December 2007

Global Climate Change: An Email from Santa (Reprint)

Last Christmas, we published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. We had so much fun with it, we thought we'd share it again. Enjoy!

I received this email from Jolly, or not so Jolly St. Nick tonight:
---------------
TO: Global Warming Skeptics
FROM: Santa Claus
DATE: A few nights before Xmas
SUBJECT: My Christmas List
________________________________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started. Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.) We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

13 December 2007

Global Climate Change: Showdown in Bali, EU and US Deadlock Threatens Talks

According to reports from Bali (wish I was there; for the diving, not the talks...)the European Union (EU) is now in a "showdown" with the US over climate change policy, saying the US needs to "wake-up."

Deadlocked (as usual). In what are the final hours of the Bali talks, EU officials called President Bush's Hawaii summit to be held next month "meaningless" without binding targets and an "ambitious roadmap" coming out of Bali.

According to reports, the US opposes the directive that industrialised countries reduce emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020. But Stavros Dimas, EU commissioner for the environment, called the 25-40% cuts for rich countries "indispensable."

The deadlock threatens failure for the Bali talks and a huge waste of time for officials and reps from more than 180 countries. Surprise, surprise. Anyone who thought things would be different in Bali was kidding herself.

"What is a roadmap without a destination?" Dimas said in a statement. "Now is the time for other industrial nations to wake up and show leadership, not only in words but in deeds."

More hot air and carbon emissions generated to fuel the acceleration of climate change. When will we learn that there has to be a better way?

I hope at least the diving was good for the delegates!

29 June 2007

Global Climate Change: Flannery's 10 True Climate Predictions

Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, stirred up some controversy earlier this week when he created a list of "ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true)" in The Times (of London):

1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893).

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists).

3) That sea-level would start rising.

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson).

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900).

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists).

8) That tropical diseases would increase.

9) That food crops would be adversely affected.

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean.

See the complete article, including links to original source material, more lists, and rebuttals: Flannery in Times Online

29 May 2007

Global Climate Change: Going to H-E-Double Hockey Sticks?

Stefan Rahmstorf of RealClimate posted this morning about the notorious millennial temperature curve, stating that new IPCC report compiles a dozen reconstructions for the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere, confirming that Northern Hemisphere temperatures are now higher than at any time during the past 1,000 years (see above image) and strengthening the conclusions drawn in the previous IPCC report of 2001. This despite opinions to the contrary such as those in the Wall Street Journal.

The authors also note that climate skeptics have long cited a graph from the 1990 IPCC report that was meant to illustrate an estimate for central England, but was not identified as such in the report. See also RealClimate's "Dummies Guide to the Hockey Stick."

23 May 2007

Global Climate Change: Real Climate's One Stop Link to Climate Change Resources

RealClimate has posted a compendium of links to resources on the climate change issue. They tout it as a "one stop link for resources" and it begins to live up to that billing: Start Here

RealClimate describes itself as "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

Contributors include NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann, along with a half-dozen or so others of some renown.

The compendium is divided into sections from noobs and neophytes to those who consider themselves "informed, but in need of serious discussion of common contrarian talking points." Bookmark this very useful post.

What Others Say About The Green Skeptic

"If you are into the green thing and dig the written word, Green Skeptic is the blog for you. Scott is passionate about conservation and has an awesome command of his craft."
-Hitchhiker's Guide to the Blogosphere

His "voice of informed pragmatism is very valuable."
-The Energy Collective

"The Gordon Gekko of Green."
-TheTruthAbout.com

"Looking for the best, balanced and sourced GREEN coverage on twitter? Follow @greenskeptic Class act who knows green up and down."
-AndySwan

"The voice of common sense from a seasoned environmentalist."
-Stuart Varney, Fox Business

22 December 2014

24 December 2012

Related articles

24 October 2012

23 December 2011

Related articles

20 September 2011

09 February 2011

Related articles

23 December 2010

Related articles

13 December 2010

06 December 2010

05 December 2009

01 December 2009

24 November 2009

26 July 2008

28 June 2008

26 June 2008

24 December 2007

13 December 2007

29 June 2007

29 May 2007

23 May 2007