Is Global Warming Dead? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

I sat down to do a "lightning round" on environmental issues with Stuart Varney on FOX Business this morning. We talked about global warming, car emissions, and green jobs.

According to Stuart, I took two out of three -- although I think it may be more like 3-0 -- and I got the last laugh!

Here's the video:



And in case your browser doesn't support the format, here is a link: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

Green Jobs, Gore's Gaff & Government Getting Out of the Way: The Green Skeptic on FOX

This morning I talked with Stuart Varney about green jobs, Al Gore's bizarre statement equating climate skeptics with racists, and getting the government out of the way of private sector job creation.

Here's the video:




And here's a link in case the player doesn't work in your browser: The Green Skeptic on FOX

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

Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest - 11/12/10

My "Jee" key is not functionin  on my laptop keyboard, so I'm  oin  to win  it here and see how many words I can write without the letter  .  Here are my links for this week:

The Green Skeptic?

First of all, I'm takin  an informal poll: A friend of a friend created this logo for The Green Skeptic. What do you think? Use or Lose?

(It's really hard to have to cut and paste every time you need to use a letter!)

Crowdsourced funding taking shape: Chinese VC Backs Green Energy Social Media Platform.

Don't believe in global warming? Bracken Hendricks says, That's not very conservative.

Leslie Blodgett took Notes From Recent Geothermal Meetings

GE Announces Largest Single Electric Vehicle Commitment, Commits to Convert Half of Global Fleet By 2015.

Finally, Eric Wesoff, writin in Greentech Media, offers reason #1 Why the Election is Bad for Cleantech.

Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest - 09/03/10

September. Summer coming to a close, kids going back to school. Soon the leaves will be turning. But before we go there, let's take a look at some of the stories that grabbed our attention this week:

Bill Gates' interview in Technology Review sparked some lively conversation over at Andy Revkin's New York Times Dot Earth blog, including this rebuttal from Richard Rosen of Boston's Tellus Institute: A Challenge to Mr. Gates

Which prompted this email response from Mr. Gates himself: The Back Gates

The Times also had a special report on energy efficiency "Doing More While Using Less Energy"
 
Hell froze over as renowned environmental skeptic Bjorn Lomborg called for $100bn a year to fight global warming: Bjorn Dilemma

Rob Day of Black Coral Capital provided some fine analysis of The Call for R&D
 
Philadelphia was in the news again with this piece on efforts to make Philadelphia's Navy Yard a mini-city of energy innovation: Grid Wit?
 
The Brookings Institution also weighed in with "Energy (and Economic) Transformation Come to the Philadelphia Navy Yard"
 
And Lux Research assesses the likely winners and losers in the next round of solar meltdowns: Who Will Thrive, Survive, or Dive?
 
Have a great holiday weekend!

Lomborg: A Saul/Paul Conversion?

Image via WikipediaHas Bjørn Lomborg had a Saul/Paul conversion on the road to Global Warming's Damascus? Or is Lomborg once again playing the media for attention on the eve of releasing a new book? 

The Guardian reported this morning that the world's most high-profile climate change sceptic (er, skeptic) is now declaring that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront," in his new book to be published next month.

Read The Guardian story here.

What timing for an about-face: Lomborg has long been a media darling, vilified by the extreme greens and trotted out by climate deniers whenever he has a new book to push.

His views on the climate were debunked by Howard Friel in some detail in his recent book The Lomborg Deception, where he alledgedly picked apart nearly all of the assertions made in Lomborg's book Cool It!, a follow-up to The Skeptical Environmentalist.

To be fair, Lomborg never really denied that greenhouse gases emissions from fossil fuels were having an impact on the climate.  He simply didn't think it was going to be the runaway disaster it was being made out to be. 

He also argued that focusing on eradicating HIV AIDs and malaria from the planet as the most economical investments we could make to solve the planet's pressing issues.
 
"The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

He outlines his views in this TED Talk from February 2005: TED Lomborg.  Lomborg asks the audience, Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming?
  
In Lomborg's view, more immediate concerns of health and poverty needed to be addressed.  He's now calling for over $100 billion to be spent annually to address climate change.

But the damage was done, as the author's books fanned the flames of the debate and lent credibility (however fact-unchecked) to climate-change deniers from across the spectrum.

Now even Rajendra Pachauri, the beleagured head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, himself being pressured to step down after a recent independent review of the panel's work, has flip-flopped.

Pachauri once compared Lomborg to Hitler, but now, according to the Guardian, blurbs the book by his former nemesis.

Lomborg's arguments tick people off, in part because his tone is cavalier and dismissive and his fact-checking isn't always done with the rigor of his assertions.

It remains to be seen whether this latest salvo, whether a conversion or a diversion, will move the needle (or lower the thermostat) on the planet's path to a warmer future.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bjorn Lomborg: Famous Climate Skeptic Changes His Tune (huffingtonpost.com)
• A Lomborg About-Face on Warming? (volokh.com)
• Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change (businessgreen.com)
• Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• Lomborg v Lomborg [Class M] (scienceblogs.com)
• The Lomborg Deception [Deltoid] (scienceblogs.com)

Has the Green Movement Stalled? Green Skeptic on Fox Business

I was on Fox Business' Varney & Company this morning for Earth Day.

Tyson Slocum from Public Citizen was also on the program and we had fun talking about whether the environmental movement has stalled:

Whole Foods Flak: Give Mackey a Break

Image via Wikipedia

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is in hot water with environmentalists, liberal media pundits, and the climate crisis police for expressing his doubt about the scientific consensus around the causes of climate change.

The hulabaloo stems from the following passage from The New Yorker profile by Nick Paumgarten:

"One of the books on the list was 'Heaven and Earth: Global Warming—the Missing Science,' a skeptical take on climate change. Mackey told me that he agrees with the book's assertion that, as he put it, 'no scientific consensus exists' regarding the causes of climate change; he added, with a candor you could call bold or reckless, that it would be a pity to allow 'hysteria about global warming' to cause us 'to raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty.' One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree. He also said, 'Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures.'"

But he already answered critics, telling Paumgarten,

"I have my own views, and they're not necessarily the same as Whole Foods'...People want me to suppress who I am. I guess that's why so many politicians and C.E.O.s get to be sort of boring, because they end up suppressing any individuality to conform to some phony, inauthentic way of being. I'd rather be myself."

Now, I don't shop at Whole Paycheck, frankly because it's always seemed overpriced and under quality. I prefer Trader Joe's or our local food co-op. And Mackey has some pretty wacky views -- his embracing of the "Course in Miracles" is example enough -- and has done some bonehead things (remember the Wild Oats scandal).

But the fact that Mackey can't express his doubts about the "consensus" on climate change without people calling for his head is just ludicrous. Give the guy a break. Don't patronize his store if you don't agree with him, but stop the witch hunt, please. You're acting as bad as your enemy.

Read the whole CEO profile in The New Yorker

Related articles by Zemanta

• Waylon Lewis: John Mackey, Whole Foods CEO: I don't Believe in Climate Change. (huffingtonpost.com)
• Whole Foods CEO is big climate change denier, says we shouldn't expect more from Whole Foods than we expect from Safeway (americablog.com)
• Whole Foods CEO John Mackey Also a Global Warming Denier (firedoglake.com)
• What are we really arguing about when we argue about climate change? (guardian.co.uk)
• Peter Schwartz: John Mackey - The Anti-CEO (huffingtonpost.com)
• Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker - but this may be the reason (guardian.co.uk)
• Whole Foods' John Mackey a Climate Change Skeptic?!? Seems So. (treehugger.com)
• The foods, the Whole Foods, and nothing but the foods (kottke.org)

Green Decade: Were the Aughts All for Naught?

It was the best of decades; it was the worst of decades. Any way you slice it, the Aughts were a surprising decade for the green movement.

Janus-headed, the Aughts were, as entrepreneur and hedge-fund blogger Howard Lindzon pointed out in his end of the decade post, the "decade was all about two things, creative and greedy destruction."

From the Clinton/Gore failures to act on climate change when they had the opportunity, if not the Congress, to the Bush Administration's eviscerating the EPA and altering documents while encouraging quiet progress on emissions reductions, doesn't seem like a decade of progress.

Still, the Aughts saw "sustainability" and "green" move decidedly more mainstream, but it didn't start out that way.

In early 2000, just before the dot-com bubble burst, I was being romanced by a start-up called "Verde.com," which billed itself as "a 360-degree media company, like Martha Stewart." Unfortunately, there was no Martha Stewart in the model, and the idea was seven years too soon. It flamed out by summer.

By 2007-08, Al Gore became the Martha Stewart of Green, and Discovery Communications launched "planet green," which had a lot of similarities to the Verde model. Green became the new Black.

Celebrities jumped on the bandwagon, driven by Mr. Gore, and the environment even had its own rock extravaganza. But despite its celebrity staying power, and some traction even in the wake of recession, at decade's end consumer choices still have "more to do with the personal benefit as opposed to having some sort of general sense that we have to save the planet," as GfK's Tim Kenyon told Joel Makower.

And there is a growing sense that, despite the scientific "consensus" on climate change and heightened public awareness brought about by Mr. Gore's Academy Award-winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth," environmentalists and climate scientists alike may have played too heavy a hand when it comes to the "climate crisis."

At the end of the Aughts an increased number of Americans believe global warming is exaggerated and fewer see solid evidence of global warming. In fact, as a 2009 Pew study revealed, more Americans believe in angels than human's role in global warming.

Meanwhile, on the practical side, Green Buildings LEED the way. The US Green Building Council launched its certification in 2000 and in the ensuing years it became not only the gold standard, but ubiquitous in the building trade.  So much so that a survey of commercial real estate executives conducted by Turner Construction Company in late 2008 showed that plans to build green would not be affected by credit market conditions.

Biodiversity loss continued to spiral through the decade, with the latest update of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species cataloging 17,291 out of 47,677 assessed species being threatened with extinction.

While a 2004 study by World Wildlife Fund, Status of Coral Reefs Around the World, found that 20 percent of the world’s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no immediate prospects of recovery, another 24 percent are under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures, and a further 26 percent are under a longer term threat of collapse.

Still, some progress was made on the conservation front with Brazil leading the way. Brazil accounted for 60 percent of total terrestrial conservation during the decade, according to Mongabay.com's analysis of global conservation data. Unfortunately, Brazil also topped the list of forest destroyers, losing 175,000 square kilometers of Amazon rainforest over the decade.

The Aughts may also mark the end of big, global plans, treaties and conventions that fail to inspire or make progress. One of the hard lessons of this decade has been that globalization of environmental action is doomed to failure by entrenched interests. In the teens, big treaties and plans must give way to local action, stewardship, and adaptation.

I learned this the hard way at the Nature Conservancy as we pushed forward with a big hairy audacious goal that was not, ultimately, achievable. When I pressed others on what would happen if we didn't meet our targets by 2015, I was told "we'll just revise the goal." That sounded too much like the UN and World Bank for my taste.

We also watched with horror as centralized decisions to protect forests in one country led to increased destruction in other countries and biofuels production led to unintended consequences, from skyrocketing food prices to forest destruction.

Yet, I have seen how local people from Indonesia to Ecuador and India to the Caribbean are taking action despite big global pronouncements. I remain convinced that conservation needs to be local to be global -- or "glocal," to use Tom Friedman's coinage. We need local action with a global understanding and a heavy dose of scenario planning.

By the end of the decade, the Copenhagen Climate Summit laid a big goose egg on the UN's efforts to get a global agreement on reducing emissions. Tolling the death knell for top-down, government-led negotiations, in my opinion.

This was also the decade when green became gold. Venture investors poured money into clean tech innovations in the latter half of the decade, reaching a record $7.6 billion in 2008 and only dipping to around $5 billion in 2009, as entrepreneurs and investors tried to help lead the economy back to health.

Wal-Mart surprised everybody in the 00s by leading the way with new standards for sustainability on its shelves, in its stores, and up and down its supply chain. Industrial carpet manufacturer Interface made progress on climbing "Mt. Sustainability," and GE re-envisioned itself as a purveyor of "ecoimagination," bringing good and green things to life.

The Toyota Prius hybrid was introduced in July 2000 and, in its peak year of sales 2007, Toyota sold 180,000 units in the United States. But the Aughts truly were the decade of the "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicle," which includes SUVs and light trucks.

In 2000, there were 79,084,979 such vehicles on US roads; by 2007 there were more than 100 million, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In 2004 alone, GM sold 28,898 gas-hog Hummers, many of them to suburban families and even city dwellers.

Despite the resistance and doublespeak of US auto-manufacturers, by decade's end, Ford saw its hybrid sales increase and was betting its future on cars like the Escape Hybrid, Fusion and Focus, while GM, limping along with the help of a government bailout, promised the plug-in hybrid Volt and was looking for a buyer for its Hummer division.

In 2005, I wrote that the green tent needed to be expanded. Over the decade, the tent expanded, but is it yet big enough? At the start of the decade, green was seen as a pursuit of elite, white highly educated liberals. The complexion has changed a little, thanks to environmental leaders like Van Jones, Majora Carter, and Jerome Ringo, along with religious leaders like Ted Haggard, Jim Ball, and Rick Warren, but has it really become more inclusive?

In many ways, it seems the movement is even more liberal than it was last century as, other than Governors Schwarzenegger and Crist, the GOP has largely abandoned the environment despite the legacy of Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. And, in my view, the more partisan this issue becomes, the more ground it will lose.

Were the Aughts all for Naught? I'm guessing not. Really some progress has been made in a decade of extreme triumphs and failures, tragedies and excess. But we've still along way to go.

What lessons have I learned this past decade? I've learned that private, direct action really is the best way to make change happen; that a new green economy is possible only when we figure out how to make it profitable; that neither big governments nor big NGOs are the game-changers and we should put our trust in the entrepreneurs (social or otherwise); and, finally, that efficiency and innovation can help lead the way to a better future.

May the teens, be a decade of progress and prosperity. Happy New Year!

(Thanks to James Bedell of build2sustain and Jamie Burdett of Worn Again for suggestions that led to the focus of this post.)

Santa: Takes on the Climate Change Skeptics

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!

And have a Happy Holiday.

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.

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate (wired.com)
• Terence Corcoran: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism - Part 1 (network.nationalpost.com)
• All the president's emails: reports from Copenhagen to Michelle Obama, Joe Biden (guardian.co.uk)
• Arctic is the warmest it's been in 2,000 years (thestar.com)
• Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute (nytimes.com)

Green Conflict at UN? The Green Skeptic Weighs-in on Fox Business

Questions about business connections of UN climate chief Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and potential conflicts of interest surfaced in the Telegraph earlier this week. The Green Skeptic talks with Elizabeth MacDonald of FoxBusiness:

Maya Lin's "Unchopping a Tree" from "What Is Missing?"

A few years ago, Maya Lin told me about a project she was conjuring. She said it would be her last memorial. I've been amazed and privileged to see it develop over the years.

Maya takes a complex subject and makes it simple. In her words:

What is Missing? will make the critical link between global warming concerns and habitat protection: if 20% of global warming emissions are caused by deforestation then What is Missing? will integrally connect these issues, asking the question:

Can we save two birds with one tree?

The project will have a number of components, including sound and media installations, permanently installed sculptures at select science institutions, and even some branded products.

With all the brouhaha going on at Copenhagen, it is refreshing to just let an artist challenge our way of thinking about this subject.

Here is Maya Lin's video "Unchopping a Tree," which premiered at the Copenhagen Climate Summit this week:



Maya Lin - Unchopping a Tree from What is Missing? Foundation on Vimeo.

For more information, visit What is Missing?

And here is a link to the poem by W.S. Merwin that inspired the title "Unchopping a Tree"

Green Skeptic on Fox Business: Who's Attending the Climate Summit?

"Hide the Decline" Sends Up ClimateGate

As the Copenhagen Climate talks begin, this video send-up of the ClimateGate issue came across my in box.

Regardless of your position on global warming, you ought to get a chuckle out of this:

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ed Miliband to answer climate questions in Obama-style phone-in (guardian.co.uk)
• 'Climate change' group think and the heretics (tech.bl0x.info)
• Study: Slowdown in warming last year not permanent (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Copenhagan: On the climate change front line in Bangladesh (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama shifts Copenhagen visit to boost deal (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama shifts visit to climate summit (msnbc.msn.com)

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• More Insight on Those Leaked Climate Change Emails (boingboing.net)
• "They've Been Cooking The Science For A Long Time": Sen. Inhofe on Climate Change (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• Global Warming Scam ~ CRU Files Hacked (liveactivecultures.net)
• Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims (telegraph.co.uk)
• Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute (nytimes.com)
• Hacked climate scientists' emails in context (boingboing.net)
• Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away George Monbiot (guardian.co.uk)
• ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal (michellemalkin.com)
• CRU Hackery Update; Dr. Jones Explains his "Hide the Decline" Email (minx.cc)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

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.

REDD Ain't the New Black: 10 Concerns About Paying Countries for Forest Protection

Image via Wikipedia

I was asked the other day why I think the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) is a flawed, if not bad idea.

Here are 10 concerns I have about the REDD scheme:

1.) I've said it before, but will say it again: Entrusting governments to protect their forests in light of competing interests of growth, feeding hungry, and poverty reduction is very risky.

2.) We can't ensure that forest protection won't lead to shutting out the interests of local people and lining the pockets of corrupt government officials, corporations, or even NGOs. Better to trust the local community to manage their forest assets -- or at the very least, make sure they have a seat at the table.

3.) Underdeveloped monitoring and accounting could lead to unscrupulous speculation and gaming the system. How can we protect against the Bernie Madoff of the carbon market or the Enron of global forest protection? (And don't forget organized crime: Interpol, the world's leading policing agency, raised concerns in early October that chances were very high criminal gangs could take advantage of REDD schemes, according to an article in the Guardian.)

4.) We need to raise standards of living by valuing and maintaining natural capital not converting it and not, necessarily, setting it aside. And we need to ensure that the local communities have more influence and power over how their resources are managed for the multiple uses they require for access to pathways out of poverty.

5.) Right now REDD is only about reducing emissions: the money goes to those nations with high rates of deforestation. This could lead to perverse incentives or unintended consequences. If a nation has a low deforestation rate, they can't participate. What's to stop them from thinking, "Hey, if I accelerate my deforestation rate, I'll get paid to stop..."

6.) We need market mechanisms to drive protection. People won't protect it if there is no money in it, especially when cutting it down pays. We need to put a dollar value on the services forests provide: watershed protection, stabilizing soils, flood protection, as well as generating rainfall, storing carbon, and moderating the climate. What is that worth? Nicholas Stern suggested a $15B market value – that's a pittance compared to global insurance business of $3T -- a relatively cheap insurance policy.

7.) Could creating forest bonds, insurance products or user-fee water funds be tied to the ecosystem services provided by forests, ensuring that such things as agricultural productivity or water supplies linked to rainfall coming out of forests? (Some conservation groups have tried this, such as The Nature Conservancy's Water Funds in Ecuador.)

8.) We need an investment grading system for countries that participate in schemes like REDD: Those with good governance, clear land title law, and high forest protection receive AAA rating; those with high levels of corruption, conflict, and high deforestation are relegated to subprime. (This has been suggested by others, but I don't think it has been implemented.)

9.) I've said this before, too: Philanthropy and government taxes are not going to be able to protect the world's forest assets – you need viable market mechanisms and the will to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the people who depend upon the forests.

10.) The solutions must be market-based: If someone is getting paid $5 to cut down a tree, you're going to have to pay him $6 to leave it there; if you can pay him $10 to not cut and make some money off a related product or service, even better. We need to figure out how to make that happen and ensure there are proper financial incentives for the 1.6B people who depend upon forests for water, food, and livelihoods.

To date, rich countries have put up $52M to establish nine UN-sanctioned REDD pilot schemes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa -- and private schemes are forming through a consortia of banks, conservation groups, and other businesses.

I just don't think handing out what essentially amounts to aid to developing countries is the right solution. I do hope the Copenhagen delegates consider the unintended consequences of their bold actions. (Remember the food vs. fuel issue created by jumping on the ethanol bandwagon!)

REDD ain't the new black, at least not to this green skeptic.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fraud menaces UN forest scheme (guardian.co.uk)
• Redd: Forests at the frontline of tackling climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• Proposal could revolutionize value of forests (cnn.com)
• Paying to save trees: Last gasp for the forest (innovationtoronto.com)
• Prepare for a Copenhagen compromise (guardian.co.uk)

Boxing Match in the Senate? Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Being Introduced Today

With Democratic Senators Boxer and Kerry preparing to launch their Climate Bill salvo into the Senate, opponents are gearing up for a fight.

According to USA Today, "Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of climate-change action, predicted the bill won't even be debated on the Senate floor before the end of the year, let alone come up for a vote."

The New York Times reports that "...the 684-page Senate draft bill (pdf) diverges from the House measure in its push for a 2020 emissions target of 20 percent, compared with the House's bill's 17 percent limit.

Both the House-passed bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), and the preliminary Boxer-Kerry proposal contain the same longer-term emissions limits of 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and an 83 percent cut for 2050."

I haven't had a chance to read the Senate draft bill, but will try to have a look at it in the next day or so.

But it sounds like Senators on both sides may want to get out their boxing gloves.

Review: Early Spring: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World by Amy Seidl

It was late spring by the time I started reading Amy Seidl's book, Early Spring: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World, but it was hard to tell.

April showers had given way to, well, May showers; and some of the warmest days of the year had produce intense clouds of pollen that were producing equally intense allergy symptoms in every one I met.

Dramatic and even extreme changes in weather patterns are one of the expected changes of a warming world. Seidl offers several others, including some terrifying possibilities involving insects, disease vectors, and pathogens. Oh my.

Seidl has written a book that is equal parts nature memoir, climate witness journal (a new genre!), and environmental impact study. Ultimately, it is a book that is both scientific and personal without being either dry or cloying. A none too difficult feat.

Seidl is an accomplished ecologist and field scientist, and her book is informed and made informative by fact and research.

But Seidl is also a mother and her observations are infused with a mother's concern and love for her children and their world.

The two aspects are complementary and together make for an engaging mix. Seidl explains the science of climate change as well as the potential impacts. She does so by bringing the impacts home in a way that makes it accessible to her readers.

Early in the book, in fact, she identifies this as a concern of hers:

"From my window I see no glaciers. I don't live near the ocean nor has my family's trip to coastal Maine been put on hold. The forecast of the scale of change that the earth will experience in the next century is unfathomable, and yet we are asked to believe it now because the risk of not believing is too grave."

From her window, in her farm, in her hollow in rural Vermont, Amy Seidl witnesses changes to her local climate and asks us to bear witness, too, in ours. Not to stand idly by and let it happen but

"to look to the landscapes where we live and ask: how they are signaling what the future holds; how do they contain indicators of the oncoming flux? By seeing these signals and rediscovering life in the landscapes where we live, we will expand our relationship to life itself and wake to what it means to live in a warming world."

Amy Seidl has written a powerful and approachable book about our 21st Century dilemma and a call for "a new set of values" with which to deal with it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climate Change Is Biggest Health Threat Of 21st Century: Report (huffingtonpost.com)
• Dire warning: Climate change may displace up to 200 million (cnn.com)
• The gathering storm (boston.com)
• Climate adaptation is not enough (guardian.co.uk)
• EARTH MEANDERS: Radical Idealism: Come Home to Gaia (ecoearth.info)