Interesting report [Archive]

Tempest Stormwind

01-14-2008, 12:56 AM

I've been so bogged down in the science recently that I had to step back and think for a minute.

It is only natural for me, a trained (but inexperienced) scientist, to look for scientific explanations, as I find them the most convincing. However, as others on comments have noted, I tend to patiently repeat the same information over and over again, which is something that I found myself accusing solargw about today. This gave me pause: Could I be guilty of the very thing I'm finding reprehensible in the denialists? Thinking about it, I realized that the reason I was doing that was because, to me, science is the most convincing tool to demonstrate this. I still think that (as it's a scientific issue), but it's evident that others don't share this belief, or I wouldn't need to repeat the same results and papers over and over.

Going over some of my older correspondance, I noted that the report that had the biggest splash with the more hardcore denialists I'd spoken to wasn't a science report at all -- it was the Pentagon abrupt-climate-change scenario document. One even went so far as to say "The Pentagon considers it a threat for national security? Give me a break!"

Of course, I made the mistake of citing it based on the scientific credentials behind it, which is a bit of a problem because unlike a scientific paper, the science behind that report is not cited well. If you just read the paper and didn't realize it was a Pentagon call for action, it wouldn't look out of place on a speculative blog.

So I went looking for other military statements on climate change.

Try this one on for size. (http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Cl imate%20Change.pdf)

It's published by the Center for Naval Analyses Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Naval_Analyses_(FFRDC)_ at_The_CNA_Corp.), which is basically a think tank... but it's a think tank funded federally by the Navy, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't even fall on the climate-change-yay-nay bias spectrum at all, in the same way the Pentagon report didn't (although the source is less prestigious). It is also much more recent: 2007 as opposed to 2003.

However, what set this one apart was the author list. Although they're all retired from active service, all eleven of the authors hold extremely high military rank (General, Lieutenant General, Admiral, and Vice Admiral).

The take-home message? Very similar to the Pentagon's, but unlike the Pentagon report, this one (to me, at least) appears more rigorous. It also explicitly cites the sources it uses (which include the IPCC, NAS, NOAA, NASA, and the Hadley center).

However, that's not why I'm calling attention to it here.

What's particularly appropriate to the Manpollo message, though, are what the individual authors insert as testimonials. Take a look and see if they struck a chord:
We never have 100 percent certainty. We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me.Our nuclear submarines operate in an unforgiving environment. Our Navy has recognized this environment and has mitigated the risk. … We should begin planning for a similar approach in dealing with potential climate change effects on our national security.There was also a phone interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNcFC-rejaA) with Gen. Zinni (former Chief of Staff of US Central Command) where he explicitly says that it's "almost like an insurance policy" (4:50).

We will never have certainty... don't listen to special-interest sources (one aspect of evaluation of sources)... mitigation of risk rather than leaving it to chance... taking a page from the playbook of insurance...

Gee, where have I heard that before?

Tempest Stormwind

01-25-2008, 11:38 PM

Another "Straight from the horse's mouth" one that got sent to me today.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell-en/our_strategy/shell_global_scenarios/two_energy_futures/two_energy_futures_25012008.html

It seems to have originated from a general letter to all employees (http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/24/email-correspondence-with-shell-on-22-january-2008-concerning-another-leaked-shell-internal-communication/), but I can't verify that bit.

Note the source: Direct from the CEO of Shell. (Note: Shell *is* in USCAP, but this statement would be more convincing than the USCAP statement to a skeptic.)

It's a call for direct global action (decentralized at the start, I might add) on phasing fossil fuels out -- focusing heavily on the economic costs of a situation where we "scramble" to solve the problem, using climate change only as one of many metrics for measuring desirability.

Seems to me another very interesting report from a source that most people not heavily entrenched in this debate would find quite interesting, especially considering the source is from an oil energy company. (Fixed. Shell is one of the companies that knows that oil is only as good as the energy it can provide.)

waspbloke

01-26-2008, 09:17 AM

Tempest Stormwind

01-26-2008, 01:12 PM

I think he's pulling a page from ClimateAudit, myself. Head there and search for "Fraud". MacIntyre is smart enough to avoid direct accusations, but he insinuates fraud on virtually every climate scientist out there on nearly every post.

The thing is, people tend to emulate what they find effective. You and I are both men of science; our arguments on these videos take the form of scientific statements (you have a far better background in the literature than I do, while I rely on my wordsmithing and statistics). My guess is that Wilbert really, really finds accusations of fraud convincing (note that he will immediately discount any source if it is in the slightest bit connected with Mann, Hansen, Schmidt or Connolley -- i.e. Connolley is his reason for avoiding Wikipedia, as opposed to the more legitimate issues with that site). This is basically the same approach MacIntyre uses (he obsesses about proving fraud in MBH98, complaining about things like Mann 'refusing' to release r^2 statistics, and conveniently ignores that it was updated not last year (http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Mann_et_al-JGR07.pdf) with all the stats he requested). Due to the similarities, he likely takes MacIntyre as an authoritative source.

So the trick to reaching him, if I'm right, is to bust out MacIntyre's approach without stooping to his level. For all his issues, there is at least one positive thing I can say about him: He's doggedly persistent about data analysis when something doesn't seem to add up (although he does so only when it discredits an AGW researcher; recently, the RSS satellite record showed abnormally low temperatures for 2007, but he just took it at face value instead of auditing it, leaving RSS themselves to catch the error). A simple approach, then, is to summarize Get What You Want in a floodthread responding to him: Show that it simply isn't prudent to argue for inaction, even if you disbelieve GW. Quote the Shell statement I put above and perhaps the two Exxon statements (Rex Tillerson's and their PR director's); I'll see about finding other such statements from people who you wouldn't expect to say things like that who have no connection to those MacIntyre attacks.

Vsaluki's a hyppocrite. Step back from the mudslinging and look at his statements: They sound good, but anyone versed in the science sees they're mutually exclusive. (He's the guy arguing for low climate sensitivity + MWP.) I pointed these out to him and he basically ignored me and kept pressing on.

wonderingmind42

01-26-2008, 10:48 PM

Tempest Stormwind

01-26-2008, 11:36 PM

. . . and by "interesting" I mean "frightening."

Real Climate summarizes it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/the-forecast-in-the-streets/#more-518

Sounds like a mini-Manpollo Project--multidisciplinary experts hashing out future scenarios, looking at three, called "expected," "severe," and "catastrophic." Under the "catastrophic" scenario, apparently one of the experts suggested checking out the movie "Mad Max!"

Paging through that report now (it's a bit of a doozie), it appears that it's the spiritual successor to the Pentagon report from earlier, a scenario-based mini-Manpollo that assumes (by all means fairly) climate change is real, and focuses on the degree of impact. It'd be a good one to cite along with the CNA report I started this thread with. (See the phone interview I linked for a few good soundbites if you're quote-seeking.)

Tempest, thanks for the heads up on the Shell letter. It absolutely blew me away.

Me too, which is exactly why I cited it. In fact:

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Column A outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Column A world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.

But the Column A scenario will be realized only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, transport, and buildings.

Because I think you'll see that however you construct this, the argument still leads to the same inescapable conclusion, which is this: When faced with uncertainty about the future, the only responsible choice, the only defensible choice, really the only choice... is Blueprints, in order to eliminate [Scramble] as a possible outcome.

...

What you do is—spread the word! Because the only way we really get into Blueprints... is by policy changes. And those only happen when enough people demand it. So you forward this video to others. If they forward it to ten others, and so on, in just 4 steps, that’s over ten thousand people that may have their opinions influenced. That’s power. Use it.

Hmm.

wonderingmind42

01-27-2008, 12:31 AM

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Column A outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Column A world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.

But the Column A scenario will be realized only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, transport, and buildings.

Because I think you'll see that however you construct this, the argument still leads to the same inescapable conclusion, which is this: When faced with uncertainty about the future, the only responsible choice, the only defensible choice, really the only choice... is Blueprints, in order to eliminate [Scramble] as a possible outcome.

...

What you do is—spread the word! Because the only way we really get into Blueprints... is by policy changes. And those only happen when enough people demand it. So you forward this video to others. If they forward it to ten others, and so on, in just 4 steps, that’s over ten thousand people that may have their opinions influenced. That’s power. Use it.

Hrm.

So who's the dope, here: they're making the big bucks, and I'm shelling out for energy drinks so that I can stay up at night to say the same thing. :o

Bleh.

BaerbelW

01-27-2008, 05:16 AM

Hrm.

So who's the dope, here: they're making the big bucks, and I'm shelling out for energy drinks so that I can stay up at night to say the same thing. :o

Bleh.

Hi Folks,
not sure if it makes sense, but what about sending Greg's videos (or the links) to the CEO of Shell? And asking him, if by chance he had already seen them because his message is so similar in some paragrahps?

Cheers
Baerbel

waspbloke

01-27-2008, 02:36 PM

. . . and by "interesting" I mean "frightening."

Real Climate summarizes it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/the-forecast-in-the-streets/#more-518

Sounds like a mini-Manpollo Project...

Seen this one:
http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.html

Without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies’ adaptive capacities within the coming decades. This could result in destabilization and violence, jeopardizing national and international security to a new degree. However, climate change could also unite the international community, provided that it recognizes climate change as a threat to humankind and soon sets the course for the avoid-ance of dangerous anthropogenic climate change by adopting a dynamic and globally coordinated climate policy. If it fails to do so, climate change will draw ever-deeper lines of division and conflict in international relations, triggering numerous conflicts between and within countries over the distribution of resources, especially water and land, over the management of migration, or over compensation payments between the countries mainly responsible for climate change and those countries most affected by its destructive effects.

What an introduction! Just a touch of nice in amongst all the AARRGGHH!

Tempest Stormwind

02-03-2008, 09:22 PM

I couldn't clean it up as much as I'd like, but...

A few days ago, Jeffrey Sachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs) gave a talk (via recording, due to a sudden schedule change from Ban Ki-Moon) at my university on the topic of "Economics in a Crowded World". This is especially significant because of my location -- Alberta's home to Canada's tar sands projects. Since he wasn't able to attend in person, his talk was followed by Andrew Nikiforuk (http://www.andrewnikiforuk.com/) of the CBC and Rick Hyndman (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/det/bios/hynd_bio.pdf) (PDF) of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (and formerly in the Alberta Department of Energy). Although Sachs didn't speak only on climate change (in fact, much of what he said could work well as a followup to Dr. Bartlett's work...), his commentors did, and it was quite interesting.

Of course, this being me, I snuck a microphone into the talk.

If you're interested, check out these links for the talk (http://www.mediafire.com/?bx26jiyxto5) and the questions (http://www.mediafire.com/?dmmt0sv1ntb) afterward. They're Ogg Vorbis files, and I apologize for the volume, but the mike had to be concealed. (Thus, they're extremely quiet except for bursts of loud applause nearby or when I accidenally jostled the mike.) If you can't play Ogg Vorbis files, consider VLC (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/), easily the best media player on the internet. (I still have the raw WAVs if someone's better at audio work than I am wants to clean them up...).

Pay particular attention to Sachs and Hyndman, especially on the Q&A for Hyndman (well, not the first guy asking questions; I recognized him from a rally earlier as a radical Communist Party supporter who here tries to derail the discussion, but everyone after him is worth a listen). I think you'll be as surprised as I was at some of the results.

Tempest Stormwind

02-08-2008, 12:40 AM

Another one to add to the pile that people will probably be interested in.

I can't believe I didn't know about this sooner, but Naomi Oreskes gave a talk (http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459) that everyone should take a look at. The first half of it is rather review-like for most of us, but is a goldmine for quotes. The second half deals directly with denialism. The conclusion is pretty telling, and it's well worth a listen-to -- especially for someone with no background in the history of the scientific consensus. It'd work best for someone who buys Marshall Institute propaganda but hasn't heard the name Oreskes (they've probably heard of her study, but may not remember her name).

I'll be testing it out this weekend with a skeptic I know who's a vocal trove of classic septic (sic) arguments, with his biggest one being the "no consensus" line.

(EDIT)

In particular, it cites this report (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf) -- which is, in essence, an All-American IPCC-style metastudy from the National Research Council in 1979 (9 years before the IPCC was founded and over a decade before their first report). It reaches, unsurprisingly, the same conclusion. If the skeptic distrusts the IPCC because it's the UN, not the US, send 'em that.

waspbloke

02-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Very interesting video indeed. But also depressing. Considering the track record of certain individuals and the scandalous way that other issues have been stalled by these tactics - and the pride that some of the principal players seem to take from their success, seems a bit incredible that they have been able to carry off the same trick all over again. Why did anybody even listen to these guys in the first place?

I just noticed you trying it out on the usual suspect(s) in "Al Gore Debates...". Unfortunately I can already hear the cogs whirring away - "How to throw mud over this one...?"

By the way, worth noting that that video's view count has slowed down a lot over the last month, apart from the usual stuck-in-a-rut types, I'm wondering if there is much else to do there apart from practicing on wilbert :D. 20/20 Stossel has been removed now too. I've been lurking on the Bob Carter CO2 video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI), there's a guy called jffryfnt who has been single-handedly doing battle, that said, he's gone a bit quiet the last few days.

Tempest Stormwind

02-08-2008, 07:32 PM

I brought it up there because I doubt I can keep my rational cool on the Bob Carter video(s). Part of the reason (I think) I'm listened to is because I keep my cool -- in truth, I do this by sticking to my strengths, and I know Carter's one of my weaknesses. You know that rage you get when you see someone obviously lying and feeling good about it -- the thing you probably felt when you see clips from Global Warming Swindle? Yeah, Carter elicits that response from me, so if I deal with him, it's exclusively through text.

(YouTube "swindle debate" -- he shows up there too. You'll note he creatively misdirects attention away from the fact that he doesn't answer questions... often while jumping to conclusions. Dr. David Karoly (one of the IPCC lead authors) gets rather fed up with him and makes a minor habit of interrupting him with an accurate "that's not true" throughout the interview. In the end, all this does is make Karoly look like an ass, even though he got the science absolutely right. It's a rather interesting debate in its own right, though; you'd probably get a kick out of it even though you no doubt know all the information already -- the coal industry representative, the environmentalist/former BP chair, and the Stern Report economist all show that they're ready to move on, and that we should focus on risk management. (which Carter dismisses as the precautionary principle, ignoring that all three of them *do* speak of degree of risk... meaning his counter is like dismissing HIAE as Pascal's Wager.))

Tempest Stormwind

07-08-2008, 09:47 AM

Wow.

Remember the CNA report that I started this thread with? And the Age of Consequences report that Greg couldn't bear to read?

Even as powerful as those were, especially considering their authorship... they were fundamentally from think tanks.

Turns out the National Intelligence Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Council) has also been doing this sort of thing. The report itself is classified, but the NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91906085&m=91906045) (by the director of the CNA's Military Advisory Board) and house statement record (http://www.climateactionproject.com/docs/FingarSFR.GCC062508.pdf) (21 page PDF; by NIC's chair) are available.

I heard about this from Joe Romm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/turning-wind-farms-into-weapons-systems-part-i/), who found this segment the key:
We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years…From a national security perspective, climate change has the potential to affect lives (for example, through food and water shortages, increased health problems including the spread of disease, and increased potential for conflict), property (for example through ground subsidence, flooding, coastal erosion and extreme weather events) and other security interests.

The United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access to critical raw materials such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these…

In addition, anticipated impacts to the Homeland — including possible increases in the severity of storms in the Gulf, increased demand for energy resources, disruptions in US and Arctic infrastructure and increases in immigration from resource-scarce regions of the world — are expected to be costly.

In a word, ouch. We've got more weight behind the national-and-global security link now. Hope this is useful.

floydman72

07-17-2008, 01:23 PM

Comment on video "Global Warming"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ov6GPTB4Tio&feature=related&

Roman55Legions (6 hours ago)
vsaluki Look up Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

wilbert1755 (5 hours ago)
That guy is a fraud!"Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" and Soon be be expose and procecuted for them Videos.

waspbloke (24 minutes ago)
"That guy is a fraud!"Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" and Soon be be expose and procecuted for them Videos."

Where do you get off?

How is he a "fraud" - go on expose him!

Prosecuted for advising people to do a proper risk assessment and not to take anybodies word for it (including his) but to do their own research? Do tell us under whose authority would those videos fall foul of regulation?

The casual way these guys (wilbert1755, vsaluki, sydneydoc, jackson32 et al) cast words like "lies", "fraud" etc into their comments about organizations and authoritative sources is one thing but that really p*ssed me off. I know he (wilbert) has watched the video and I am sure he knows how unsupportable that comment is, just the completely wreckless way they try to rubbish any source that they disagree with is causing me to get close to loosing my cool with these people.
for god's sake wilbert1755. I would just love to know how you arrived at that conclusion 'he's a fraud' . Here is a guy who said right from the get go that he was in no way trying to change your beliefs in global climate change in fact i remember him telling people to keep hold of their beliefs because this video was designed to ALLOW people to make up there own minds and make an unbiased conscious decision about how to act in the most (potentially) devestaing event ever to face mankind. wake up dude and listen to those videos again. He is one of the good guys..

Tempest Stormwind

08-05-2008, 12:04 AM

Um, wow.

Seems someone else has been interested in reports along these same lines and cataloged them better than I have. (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/climate-change-security/) Link away!

(That's actually another well-referenced blog for tackling claims on the Oregon Petition (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/), CO2-is-plant-food (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/co2-plant-food-part-ii/), and Bjorn Lomborg (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/willful-idocy/), plus others.)

gaiasdaughter

08-05-2008, 07:22 AM

776281

01-05-2009, 03:18 PM

Working Paper Number 13 The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth
Robert Repetto

Influential studies have predicted that moderate climate change, up to 3 or 4 degrees Fahrenheit, will not be very damaging to the United States as a whole and will bring some benefits. Underlying the argument that climate change will not be very damaging to the U.S. economy is the contention that vulnerable organizations, firms and households will take steps to adapt.
According to a recent review, “The literature indicates that U.S. society can on the whole adapt with either net gains or some costs if warming occurs at the lower end of the projected range of magnitude, assuming no change in climate variability and generally making optimistic assumptions about adaptation.”
However, saying that the U.S. can adapt does not imply that it will adapt, at least not in the efficient and timely way needed if major damages are to be avoided. The question is whether it is likely that such steps will actually be taken and whether they will be taken in sufficient time to limit damages. If not, damages from climate change will be considerably higher than has been estimated. There is an important distinction between anticipatory or preventive adaptation that predicts and responds
to vulnerabilities before damages are incurred and reactive adaptation that gears up to limit the recurrence of damage only after effects of climate change have been felt and damage done
Unfortunately, experience shows that, in the United States, responses to disaster are mainly reactive, often characterized by inattention beforehand and over-response afterwards
Reactive adaptation would be likely to lag persistently behind the
emerging risks. The more rapid the rise in atmospheric concentrations, the
faster the rate of climate change and the less effective reactive adaptation
is likely to be.
Adaptation in some instances is inhibited by moral hazard issues. For example, governmental crop insurance and disaster relief programs have reduced the incentives for farmers, households, and businesses to take action to avoid weather damages
Organizations are inherently sluggish in responding to new conditions. In organizational decision-making, there is a strong status quo bias. The status quo is almost always the default option
Humans are myopic decision-makers, sharply discounting events in the farther future or past.......People tend to underestimate cumulative probabilities when the probability of an event in a single period is low.......Humans exhibit strong “anchoring” to the status quo, tending to make only small adjustments away from it.......People tend to resist and deny information that contradicts their value or ideological beliefs. An identifiable minority of “climate skeptics” continues
to deny the scientific evidence and the conclusions of scientists regarding climate change.
According to recent testimony from the Government Accountability Office, “The National Flood Insurance Program and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation have not developed information on the programs’ longer term exposure to the potential risk of increased extreme weather events associated with climate change
...the Army Corp of Engineers partnered with other agencies to
produce a comprehensive plan to coordinate and improve the more than 100 flood control systems in the basin. That study was based on recently updated hydrologic frequency models, which still are based on historical records
In summary, throughout the Southwest, where water availability is likely to be greatly affected by climate change within the planning horizon of
infrastructure investments, adaptation up to this point has been slow and
tentative.
In January 2001, the Department of Interior issued a directive to the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service and other federal resource management agencies to “consider and analyze potential climate change effects in their management plans and activities.” According to a 2007 GAO report, land and resource managers have simply ignored that directive
Despite a half century of climate change that has significantly affected temperature and precipitation patterns and has already had widespread ecological and hydrological impacts, and despite a near certainty that the United States will experience at least as much climate change in the coming decades, just as a result of the current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, those organizations in the public and private sectors that are most at risk, that are making long-term investments and commitments, and that have the planning, forecasting and institutional capacity to adapt, have not yet done so.

In short we can adapt, but will we. According to Robert Repetto, probably not.

Link
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C29/
scroll down to Dec 3

gaiasdaughter

01-05-2009, 06:28 PM

I would be interested in reading more about 'adaptation.' "It's okay, we'll adapt," sounds good until one starts to grapple with what 'adaptation' really entails. Does that mean millions of people who live on the coast relocating to already overcrowded cities? Does that mean millions of people living in desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix relocating to even more crowded cities? Or does that mean, "A lot of people are going to be left homeless due to floods, wildfires, hurricanes and drought. Many of them will be herded into shelters where they will wait in line for a turn at the toilet or else move in with Gramma in Cincinnatti." And who thinks we are talking about 3-5 degrees fahrenheit? Models are done in degrees centrigrade which is 9/5 or almost twice the amount of rise as degrees fahrenheit.

Sorry, I get overwrought. I can't believe things are as bad as they are and people still don't get it.

776281

01-05-2009, 07:07 PM

Adaption is not in any way going to be pretty. But with adequate preparation it may not be as bad.

Even if we stopped increasing CO2 concentrations further warming is inevitable. And the politicians are not talking about stopping CO2 emissions but of slowing them.

Are we going to proactive and get ready or reactive. Can't see us moving from WA even though I know that we will run out of water. Crispy fried veggies aren't quite as tasty when crispy fried while still in the garden.

dblspeed

01-06-2009, 08:17 AM

It's a call for direct global action (decentralized at the start, I might add) on phasing fossil fuels out -- focusing heavily on the economic costs of a situation where we "scramble" to solve the problem, using climate change only as one of many metrics for measuring desirability.

Since peak retrievable oil is already in the past, it would seem a perfectly smart thing to do. Should expect to see Shell Oil renamed as Shell Energy in the not so distant future. I especially like the "using climate change" line too as it shows it's real purpose as a sales tool.

That Texas Oil Man running commercials for green energy now is quite artfully done too. Truth in advertising would be more accurate if he said "We're going Green, Cuz we just aint got no more of the black stuff to sell ya".

In the transistional period to come, there are going to be many hurdles to clear. Sadly I think Oil is the least of our worries.

Tempest Stormwind

01-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Ironically, in the year since that memo came out, Shell's basically stopped their ads for renewables (van der Veer essentially said they were greenwash) and invested heavily in the Alberta tar sands, on the justification that tar sands emit only slightly less CO2 than other potential investment areas (van der Veer mentions coal, pretty much the only fossil fuel that is (possibly*) more carbon-intensive, despite oil mostly serving fuel needs and coal mostly serving electricity). Colour me unimpressed.

* Depends if you're considering coal-to-liquids as coal, and the scale of the tar sands project. This also only looks at carbon emissions *from the fuel*, and not all of those involved in reclaiming it -- nor does it look at the damage the rest of it causes (for the tar sands, look at local media from the towns of Fort Chipewyan and Fort MacKay; these show up in my local news somewhat as well as I live in Alberta. For coal, consider what happened recently in Tennessee (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/30/133946/67), or local media from mining states.)

776281

01-14-2009, 04:59 PM

Another report
New and much improved “Unified Synthesis Report” is open for a second round of public comment
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has released a second iteration of a report that synthesizes and describes in lay terms the current scientific understanding of global climate disruption. Major improvements over a heavily criticized initial draft released in July 2008 have been made by a set of authors and a review team comprised of an impressive group of scientists and experts with impeccable credentials. We encourage readers to review this report and submit comments by the February 27 deadline. We hope the Obama administration will publish it expeditiously and embrace it as a significant assessment of the potential consequences of climate change for the United States.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/second-public-review-draft/default.php

I'd love to quote but it says do not cite or quite.

Tempest Stormwind

01-15-2009, 02:29 AM

Aside: That report has already been attacked by the denialists (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/do_not_cite_or_quote.php) -- over a placeholder image in a clearly-marked draft.

gaiasdaughter

03-09-2009, 06:53 PM

I wasn't sure where to post this, but it is an interesting report, er article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/denial-climate-change-psychology), er whatever! :):
Jeremy Clarkson and Michael O'Leary won't listen to green cliches and complaints about polar bears Let's talk about global warming in language deniers understand: energy independence and potential for new enterprise

Dr Myanna Lahsen, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Colorado, has specialised in understanding how professional scientists, some of them with highly respected careers, turn climate sceptic. She found the largest common factor was a shared sense that they had personally lost prestige and authority as the result of campaigns by liberals and environmentalists. She concluded that their engagement in climate issues "can be understood in part as a struggle to preserve their particular culturally charged understanding of environmental reality."

In other words, like the general public, they form their beliefs through reference to a world view formed through politics and life experience. In order to maintain their scepticism in the face of a sustained, and sometimes heated, challenge from their peers, they have created a mutually supportive dissident culture around an identity as victimised speakers for the truth.

randomidea

08-12-2009, 08:31 AM

The Independent of London received a report on climate change (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-planets-future-climate-change-will-cause-civilisation-to-collapse-1742759.html). The article says, "An effort on the scale of the Apollo mission that sent men to the Moon is needed if humanity is to have a fighting chance of surviving the ravages of climate change."

Has Greg's idea for a Manpollo Project crept into the AGCD scientific community and mainstream media?

Other highlights:

"'Too many greedy and deceitful decisions led to a world recession and demonstrated the international interdependence of economics and ethics.'"

"'The scope and scale of the future effects of climate change – ranging from changes in weather patterns to loss of livelihoods and disappearing states – has unprecedented implications for political and social stability.'"

"'Many perceive the current economic disaster as an opportunity to invest in the next generation of greener technologies, to rethink economic and development assumptions, and to put the world on course for a better future.'"

"It calls on governments to work to 10-year plans to tackle growing threats to human survival, targeting particularly the US and China, which need to apply the sort of effort and resources that put men on the Moon."

"'This is not only important for the environment; it is also a strategy to increase the likelihood of international peace. Without some agreement, it will be difficult to get the kind of global coherence needed to address climate change seriously.'"

... .. .

I wonder if there is something to focusing on AGCD as a threat to world peace? I recall that one Pentagon report saying something similar. It seems plausible that AGCD will raise civilian crime rates, cause state militarization and, subsequently, terrorism.

I haven't read Greg's book yet (I really want to); maybe he already touches upon the subject?

I realize I'm digging up a dead thread (and I didn't read all of it). Didn't know where else to put it. I thought discussing this might be interesting. It's been a while.

sinimod

02-06-2010, 08:59 AM

From "The Wonk Room"

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/01/qdr-climate-threat/

For the first time, the Pentagon’s primary planning document addresses the threat of global warming, noting that it will accelerate instability and conflict around the globe.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is the strategic framework for the Department of Defense and can be found here:

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

The Wonk Room posts some of the significant language regarding climate impact from the QDR.

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.

776281

02-09-2010, 07:06 PM

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf

Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies?
Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks
John R. Mashey JohnMashey (At) yahoo.com February 8, 2010

Anti-science manufactures public ignorance or doubt regarding science that produces ―inconvenient‖ results. Many anti-science PR tactics were created for the tobacco companies in1954, and employed since for other areas, sometimes by the same people. Some climate scientists have been singled out for unending harassment and personal attack, including Ben Santer, Michael Mann. Phil Jones, and others. Internet usage has helped amplify such attacks far beyond those available in the tobacco wars, especially as seen in the recent crescendo to ―Climategate. These show little more that the frustration of scientists trying to do a good job, for everyone on Earth, but unfortunately left unprotected from endless, malicious
harassment by the laws and institutions around them. But the Internet is a two-edged sword, and some people have left some incriminating evidence around, and certain people‟s email logs would be far more
interesting than those of “Climategate.”

A considerable amount in one place well worth a read. Many of you will be cognizant of many of the facts but this is still well put together.

sinimod

02-15-2010, 09:58 PM

From Bill Moyers Journal

Michael Winship: From the Annals of Sno-Cone Science

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/02/michael_winship_from_the_annal.html

One big fact that convinces me of the reality of climate change is the seriousness with which America’s defense and intelligence agencies are taking it as a worldwide threat.

“While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.”

Among its other findings, the review [Quadrenniel Defense Review] cites a 2008 National Intelligence Council report that more than 30 U.S. military installations were “already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.