Paul Krugman: Enemy of the Planet

Paul Krugman tackles the trashing of science by oil companies, Exxon in particular, to cloud research pointing to global warming. He also notes how the press, in its quest to be balanced, aids and abets this effort:

Enemy of the Planet, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Lee Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, was paid $686 million over 13 years. But that's not a reason to single him out for special excoriation. Executive compensation is out of control in corporate America as a whole, and unlike other grossly overpaid business leaders, Mr. Raymond can at least claim to have made money for his stockholders.

There's a better reason to excoriate Mr. Raymond ... he turned Exxon Mobil into an enemy of the planet. To understand why Exxon Mobil is a worse environmental villain than other big oil companies, you need to know a bit about how the science and politics of climate change have shifted over the years.

Global warming emerged as a major public issue in the late 1980's. But at first there was considerable scientific uncertainty.

Over time, the accumulation of evidence removed much of that uncertainty. ... there's now an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause. ... To dismiss this consensus, you have to believe in a vast conspiracy to misinform the public that somehow embraces thousands of scientists around the world. That sort of thing is the stuff of bad novels. ...

So how have corporate interests responded? In the early years, ... many companies from the oil industry, the auto industry and other sectors were members of a group called the Global Climate Coalition, whose de facto purpose was to oppose curbs on greenhouse gases. But as the scientific evidence became clearer, many members — including oil companies like BP and Shell — left the organization and conceded the need to do something about global warming.

Exxon, headed by Mr. Raymond, chose a different course of action: it decided to fight the science.

A leaked memo from a 1998 meeting ... describes a strategy of providing "logistical and moral support" to climate change dissenters, "thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' " And that's just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming skeptics.

The people and institutions Exxon Mobil supports aren't actually engaged in climate research. They're the real-world equivalents of the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the movie "Thank You for Smoking," whose purpose is to fail to find evidence of harmful effects.

But the fake research works for its sponsors, partly because it gets picked up by right-wing pundits, but mainly because it plays perfectly into the he-said-she-said conventions of "balanced" journalism. A 2003 study ... of reporting on global warming in major newspapers found that a majority of reports gave the skeptics — a few dozen people, many if not most receiving ... financial support from Exxon Mobil — roughly the same amount of attention as the scientific consensus, supported by thousands of independent researchers.

Has Exxon Mobil's war on climate science actually changed policy for the worse? Maybe not ... the Bush administration has done nothing, it's not clear that policies would have been any better even if Exxon Mobil had acted more responsibly.

But the fact is that whatever small chance there was of action to limit global warming became even smaller because Exxon Mobil chose to protect its profits by trashing good science. And that, not the paycheck, is the real scandal of Mr. Raymond's reign as Exxon Mobil's chief executive.

Previous (4/14) column: Paul Krugman: Weapons of Math Destruction
Next (4/21) column: Paul Krugman: The Great Revulsion

Comments

[Winslow R.]

"And that's just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming skeptics. "

I'm waiting for Krugman to expose the funding sources for neoliberal economists.

[ilsm]

While they invest less each year on exploration and extraction technology.

[myxzptlk]

I'm with you, Winslow. That vast left-wing conspiracy that has such a stranglehold on our economic policy. I don't agree with Krugman, so there must be a cabal there, somewhere. Now if you and I could just cook up some evidence, I'm sure we could get the cable news channels to run it...

[km4]

"Has Exxon Mobil's war on climate science actually changed policy for the worse? Maybe not ... the Bush administration has done nothing, it's not clear that policies would have been any better even if Exxon Mobil had acted more responsibly".

Krugman is once again 'on the money' and nicely points to George 'Kyoto' Bushco as deserved pondscum !

[save_the_rustbelt]

If gasoline hits $3 per gallon and stays there for 6 months running up to the November election it could have a major impact, especially on the House race.

Most Americans don't have time to ponder economics and politics, they are busy working and raising families. They relate to what they see everyday. GAs pumps.

Bush may set a record for low approval ratings. I would be very concerned if I was a GOP House member about now.

[Winslow R.]

myxzptlk wrote:

" That vast left-wing conspiracy that has such a stranglehold on our economic policy"

you need to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[myxzptlk]

Winslow, my apologies, I should have looked it up first!

[anne]

Notice, now effectively political deception traps us, not that it necessarily traps those will be paid $686 million, for they are the wishful trappers, but the rest of us. Paul Krugman has written a terrific column.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5232&u=11241|193|...

Male Wood Duck at Sunset
New York City--Central Park, The Pool.

Do find spring birds :)

[calmo]

From winslow's link, this line near the bottom took the air out of the stuff above it:
The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion.
Of course I'm just defending my original take on myxzptik's post as one of sarcasm ... and the appearance of a 2nd post, an apparent polite apology, only more so. (it is important to defend to the bitter end, people).
"vast left-wing conspiracy"... surely this is not quite so vast
"that has a stranglehold" ... I can't breathe, you?...
"on our economic policy" ...Jeeze, I used to know where that was. Oh, right. Our tax policy is located here: tax cuts.
myxzptik's post may or may not have been satirical ( No, people cannot be trusted with their apologies regarding the nature of the intent. I ask you, how often do people issue apologies?) [Some of us have a bias for satire, --way fewer for polite conduct.]
I am in awe of newcomer myxzptik, you?

[Robert]

Krugman's piece was far more polite than Exxon, Raymond or the API deserved. With the stakes so high, and their intent so cynical and shameful, diabolically intended to manipulate & deceive, AND since they were caught red-handed, it is astonishing that there is no public uproar, or crowds of students throwing stones at the windows of Exxon's midtown HQ.

John Browne at BP has shown that it need't be this way - that "big oil" can do better than sabotaging the futures of our children. China is executing wayward officials for lesser corruptions and violations of public trust. Orchestrating public deceptions for parochial gain should be no less than a hanging offense.

[calmo]

This is what the Exxon CEO sees: only a portion (of course he has it down to 2 decimal places, but we don't care) of what Gates made. [Please do not refute me by citing his zero salary.] A stellar performance that is reasonably, not outlandishly, compensated for. Worthy. Respectable. And enviable.

This is what other CEOs see: performance is rewarded. And you can never be rewarded too much by dollars.

This is what the public sees: exorbitant compensation. Outrageous even. [Some may even feel that the higher prices at the pump are personal donations to the cause.]
Obscene maybe. [Some may feel that the Energy policy has been contrived to loot the entire population for the robbers, the oil industry. The so-called tax cuts (that purport to put money back in the public's pockets) are public funds that are diverted to private interests.]

But of course we have oversight as we saw earlier this year with the hearings...which means things really are bad.

[Arne]

"scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause"

Statements like this help keep the 'debate' alive since it allows the naysayers to disagree on a point of fact. Human activity is a contributor, not "the cause".

[DJM]

Almost, but not quite....The Impish Mr. Mxyzptik; A Bizarro World (DC Comics)....hmmmmm, is there a hidden message here?

[DJM]

sarcasm...it is hard to catch that sometimes (in a written comment)and causes some misunderstanding...but I am a a fan of satire myself.

[Winslow R.]

My theory on economists is the same for people in general. The more 'money hungry' they are the more cautious you need to be. Since it is very difficult to 'judge' a person you have never met or for that matter seen their tax return, 'judging' can be close to fruitless.

In Krugman's case he seems to live a relatively austere lifestyle while being able to command large speaking fees. What to make of this?

To what extent are economists willing to 'sell' their reputations. To what extent are economists forced to 'invest' in their reputations.

The neoliberal -international version would seem to create many opportunities for profit. The neoliberal-american version seems to be a form of the international version tempered with a bit of politically necessary 'investment'. They do live in a 'democracy' after all.

Krugman seems to have the ability to 'invest' a bit more than a Delong and much more than say a Barlett or Mankiew when writing in the paid press, purely anecdotal evidence of course. If true, are 'fundamental' difference in views between economists truly a fundamental difference or just the 'need' for more income? Is it possible to sift out opinions based on that need? Of course there is always the question, who is willing to provide that income and for what purpose?

"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."

Joan Robinson

Perhaps a study of politics is also necessary?

[Winslow R.]

Mark wrote:

Paul Krugman: Enemy of the Planet

a bit of unintended sarcasm?

[No Name]

I find it funny that everyone thinks we can do anything to stop global warming. The issue has been around since the 1980s and what have we accomplished...... more emmissions.

And as far as Kyoto what a joke that is. If you dont include Chine and India, the biggest new emitters, then you are doing nothing. The developed world could abate all the way to zero, but China and India will just pollute more. Fungible.

There was an interesting article in the SF Chronicle about Japan and how they are having difficult time cutting back on emissions.

[No Name]

And Paul Krugman is the enemy of the planet :p

[anne]

No; it does not matter whether we are the cause of or a significant contributor to global warming for those who have an interest in denying the warming or denying there is anything that can be done about it. The split on such issues is impossible since the deniers have such a specific interest in denying.

[No Name]

Anne; If we arent the cause of the warming.... why worry about it. Nothing we can do. Seems like a waste of resources to deal with a problem that we cant fix. Best put our resources into getting off this rock before it gets to hot... or built big air conditioners.

If your beef is people deny that it is happening, then I can support that. But it seems to be in their interest to deny so why are you surprised they are doing it?

[Arne]

It is important to state the facts correctly, or you get into debates about facts instead or debates about solutions.

[Arne]

As an example of getting the facts right:
"If you dont include Chine and India, the biggest new emitters, then you are doing nothing." The united States IS the number 1 emitter, NOT China, NOT India. US per capita emmisions are 8 and 20 times higher.

India and China will be bigger emitters in the next decade, so it is important to include them in the solution.

[Robert]

no name said:

If we arent the cause of the warming.... why worry about it. Nothing we can do. Seems like a waste of resources to deal with a problem that we cant fix.

Impetus and acceleration are indeed two different things; nonetheless it's a pathetically nihilistic comment.

But it seems to be in their interest to deny so why are you surprised they are doing it?

Apologies in advance for going ad hominem here, but this is simply assinine. It's people like you who excuse cynical parochial self-interest at the expense of the interests of the many, thereby validating it. The world you de facto apologize for by questoning Anne's surprise (and outrage) is one where depraved self interest (not even the so-called rational self-interest of Randians) is rampant. The paradoxical thing (for conservative ideology) is that in such a world of depraved self-interest - the kind that will deceive, cheat, and manipulate for pecuniary gain - society is forced by such actions to police, legislate, and regulate draconianly; use their power to promulgate objective less-tainted thought in the media, in order to provide the majority of honest citizens a semblance of contervailing protection. But laissez-faire ideology can't have it both ways: either Randian self-interest yields benign outcomes that generally improves outcomes for all, or they all-too-often yield rampant depravity, that must be strongly opposed and challenged, whereupon as no-name suggests, one shouldn't be surprised by Exxon & Raymond acting in their own [depraved] interest.

[No Name]

Anne;
Thats what Im saying you have to include China and India because they are going to do more polluting in the future. The US surely has to cut back but if we cut back while China/India increase their pollution, net gain zero. Thats great for the environment!

Robert;
So what do we do about global warming? Force people out of their cars or are we going to require they cut back a little as if that will fix the problem? Are we going to make people stop heating their homes? You cant have it both ways.

If you think that the current levels of pollution is causing bad stuff then you would have to seriously cut back/change peoples lifestyles. I dont see that happening.

[Robert]

There is no free lunch, but nihilism such that which you exhibit, cynical deception for parochial gain such that exhibited by Raymond, Exxon, and Bush Admin energy policy, nor rigid hedonistic refusal to adapt behaviours to accomodate what most credible scientists overwhelmingly define as critical climatic imperatives, are not satisfactory.

The range of potential actions and responses are great and not nearly as facile or binary as "force people out of their cars or don't heat their homes". Me? I'd start with the pricing mechanism and go for large global carbon taxes that would be recycled into renewable energy; I'd mandate to at least double the min efficiency of any vehicle on the roads; eliminate NIMBY restrictions on wind-power; create a national grid that requires all utils to purchase all renewable energy produced at peak-prices; accelerated tax breaks for clean coal; mandate min efficiencies on all appliances; and dramatically increase min energy efficiencies in all building materials meeting bldg code; implement alternative finance (annual stickers) to do away with tolls to move traffic; dramatically increase investment in public transport; like in Tokyo, mandate new construction with maximum energy efficiencies including certain percentage of "greenspace" in urban buildings to decrease urban refractive heat; raise retail electricity prices; increase re-forestation and green-space conservation projects; construct more bike-paths; outlaw or heavily tax halogen and incandescent lighting; mandatory timers on hot-water heaters; higher consumption taxes on energy-intensive leisure (swimming pools etc.). And there are 1000 ways government can lead by way of example, all which will move the US to an a energy-input-to-GDP ratio more akin to that of other OECD nations. This is to start, and I am neither an environmental activist, nor an energy policy expert, but they are common sense ways better price externalities and create leadership and intertia in policy and action to overcome the nihilism, selfishness, uncivic-mindedness of people like no-name...

[calmo]

Imagine someone (Robert) announcing in advance that (s)he [There is George Eliot.] is going to use an ad hominem.
Ready? "simply assinine".
Now if that didn't take the barn doors off, what would?
Apparently this would: depraved

Enuff to make you grab a copy of Miss Manners, no?

Ok, I'm all dressed up now and wish to extend my gratitude to one Robert, no matter his gender, for such an impressively constructed post. In his valiant cause I would like to encourage No Name to visit Wikipedia with 'Air Pollution' to seed that cavernous utility that seems somewhat unlit on this matter.

[George Barnstable]

I dispute that humans are a significant cause of global warming, mostly because I don't think we yet have the requisite scientific skill to know what the hell we're talking about with respect to such a mind-bogglingly multivariate issue as climate.

Drawing a conclusion about the cause of the earth's warming trend is unbelievably arrogant. I'd like anyone posting here to explain, just for example, the following data:

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)."

Now, this quote is from an enviro-scoffer and is a bit misleading, since 1998 was the warmest year by a large margin, and the subsequent years first backed off and have been creeping very slowly up since, but it is substantially accurate (check out the graph at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/).

Over the last eight years, mean global temperatures appear to have levelled off at precisely the time when India and China have exploded industrially, spewing great gobs of emissions from their standards-free factories (anyone who doubts this can google a few webcams from those countries to see the pullution they deal with every day). If man is the chief cause of global warming, how can this be?

Here's another quote from a scholarly report on warming from the mid-nineties:

"Monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures for over 50% (10%) of the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere landmass, accounting for 37% of the global landmass, indicate that the rise of the minimum temperature has occurred at a rate three times that of the maximum temperature during the period 1951–90 (0.84°C versus 0.28°C). The decrease of the diurnal temperature range is approximately equal to the increase of mean temperature. The asymmetry is detectable in all seasons and in most of the regions studied."

What does this mean? In a nutshell, the Earth isn't getting warmer, so much as it is getting less cool every night. As the gap between daily high and daily low narrows, their average--from which mean global temperature is derived--goes up. Please explain why the Earth is not getting any warmer, but only cooling off less.

And as long as you are perusing the graph from U of East Anglia, please explain why global temps stayed flat from 1940 to 1980, precisely the era of greatest global expansion of industrialization, population growth, and automobile use. My pet theory: check out volcanic ash emissions in years just prior to global temperature upswings (Katmai in 1912; St. Helens in 1980--hmmm...)

If you answer in the most intellectually honest way, which is to say you answer, "There's really no way to answer these questions, given the current state of the science," then you are in effect saying that we really don't know enough about climate to draw any kind of conclusion about its causes. We barely are sufficiently advanced to keep accurate records, for goodness sakes.

Please drop the protest signs, cool off the Bush/Oil company rancor, reread (or just read) Francis Bacon and Milton Friedman, and come to the humbling yet emancipating realization that, in the absence of demonstrable scientific evidence of man's culpability in global temperature changes, your fervor is entirely religious in origin, with Gaia as your god.

Of course, if you're cool with just belonging to a faith-based movement because you get to march a lot and sing and aren't required to think so much as accept and amplify sermons from authority figures, more power to you.

[Dirk van Dijk]

Look, human activity is at least part of the problem, most likely the biggest part of the problem. Yes India and China need to be brought into the system. However, as the biggest emmitter, we have to take the lead. For starters, that would give us the moral standing to pressure India and China to do likewise. We are probably at the point where global warming is unstopable, yet there is a very real difference between the world heating up by 3 degrees over 30 years and increasing by 3 degrees over 100 years. Humanity can survive with the world 3 degrees warmer, but it will cause huge dislocations. The more time we have, the better technology we will have to deal with the problem. We will be able to breed foodstuffs that are better suited to the new climates. In both the 30 year case and the 100 year case (and 3 degrees is sort of a moderate secneario) sea levels will rise. However, if it happens in 30 years, it is unlikely that we will have any protections in place, and major cities in low lying areas will be unprepared. If it is over 100 years, well maybe we will have time to learn from the Dutch on how to protect ourselves. However, we have to start making wise choices now. Some of the choices will not be nice ones to make. For example, at what point do we write off Miami? The city will be underwater if the Greenland ice cap melts. What cities can be protected by higher seawalls and levies? How will they be financed? A higher gas tax would be a very small price to pay, perhaps implemented with $0.50 increases each year for 4 or 5 years, offset by say the elimination of the 10% tax rate, or raising the standard deduction to $10,000 for a single taxpayer from the current $5000. Even if we cant stop the process, we can at least slow it down, but it will take leadership to do so.

says...

"Look, human activity is at least part of the problem, most likely the biggest part of the problem."

Zero evidence of this contention, but it's scripture, so intone it gravely.

"Yes India and China need to be brought into the system. However, as the biggest emmitter, we have to take the lead."

Have you done the research to determine the net emissions after accounting for biomass sequestration? Do you even know what this means? If so, can you still say that we are the biggest emitters? Any idea why the Kyoto treaty refused to address this? Can you say America-bashing?

"We are probably at the point where global warming is unstopable, yet there is a very real difference between the world heating up by 3 degrees over 30 years and increasing by 3 degrees over 100 years."

The chart, man, the chart. I gave you the URL. It shows one degree over 160 years; half a degree over the past thirty years. Data, not dogma, please.

The rest of your post just makes me tired.

[Robert]

Not being a physical scientist, I could try and look real smart and informed by cutting and pasting Vancouver, BC-based Coby Beck's nice compendium of well-researched and linked "stock" replies to each Mr Barnstable's "stock" doubts, but Coby's site is such a hoot and so useful to boot, you can visit him yourself:
How to Talk to Global Warming Skeptic

And with all due respect to Mr Barstable the skeptic, I think it's a bit of a leap comparing a belief in objective, peer-reviewed science (granting him that Climatology is by its nature less precise than some other physical sciences) to belief in religion. The former acknowledges that that experts, using and building upon the knowledge of other experts, can for the most part be reliably called upon to evaluate the veracity of complex theories and models, put forth by other so-called experts to assist the lay person separating probable fact from possible fiction. The latter simply reduces complexity to simplicity without any intervening steps, and that is a dishonest objection.

[GB]

Robert, when you depict my objections as "stock," you in effect (knowingly or no) strip them of all their value. They have become something I've picked off a shelf or grazed off of the pasture like some dumb animal. I don't consider my objections/questions to be "stock," though they may be repeated elsewhere and previously.

I've tried, when I can, to look at the data that exist, rather than accept the conclusions others, even experts, have drawn from them. I realize that it is impossible to live in the modern world without putting trust in specialists and experts of every kind; however, to the extent that I do so, I am not being scientific. Rather, I am trusting, that is to say relying upon a faith-based system of gaining truth.

I'm not saying that this is either good or bad, or that it is a more or less successful strategy for modern existence. What I am saying is that to disseminate or promote as fact that which you have received on faith is more evangelical than educational.

By the way, I also believe in objective, peer-reviewed science--as a goal or ideal that is fallen short of proportionate to the subjectivity of the discipline and the material and institutional incentives in place for those pursuing it. Scientists are as imperfect and emotional as any other humans, even though they attain to that higher, objective ideal.

[anne]

I guess until I am offered a fair sum, not necessarily $686 million, though that would easily do, a lot lot less also, I will remain as faith based as I possibly can, and I can, never think for myself, the mere idea tires me, and think warrrminggg; "boo."

[Dirk van Dijk]

"Zero evidence of this contention"

In a word: BULLSHIT
Do you deny that CO2 levels have been rising at an alarming rate in the atmosphere? Do you deny that the burning of fossil fuels emits CO2? Yes I know what biomass sequestration is, and it would be a very good idea if we did much more of it. For example we could plant trees in the medians of most of the interstate highways for example. One degree over 160 years going forward, get serious. Ever hear about positive feedback loops? As the sea ice melts in the artic, the sunlight no longer reflects into space, and instead gets absorbed by the sea, thus causing the water to warm up, causing more ice to melt, etc etc. Also as permafrost starts to melt, the organic material that was stored there starts to release into the atmosphere, releasing both CO2 and Methane. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Fortunately there are some negative feedback loops as well, but are generally swamped in most models by the positive feedback loops. An example of a negative feedback loop, would be a warmer earth would tend to be more humid, thus more clouds, which reflect more light back into space.
Global warming is real, and there is no real scientific debate about it, just about the relative contributions of man vs. nature, and the speed at which it will occur. In the meantime, putting money into Miami real estate is likely to leave your investment underwater in the long term.

[GB]

""Zero evidence of this contention"

In a word: BULLSHIT
Do you deny that CO2 levels have been rising at an alarming rate in the atmosphere? Do you deny that the burning of fossil fuels emits CO2?"

Please read more carefully, and with less heat. The contention that I declare zero evidence for is, and I quote you, "Look, human activity is at least part of the problem, most likely the biggest part of the problem." I maintain that you have zero evidence to support the contention in that second clause.

"Yes I know what biomass sequestration is, and it would be a very good idea if we did much more of it. For example we could plant trees in the medians of most of the interstate highways for example."

Who taught you this idea? It is probable that the wild grasses, scotch broom etc that already cover the medians of our highways provide more sequestration that trees could. Overthinking is another form of sloppy thinking.

Meanwhile, the US is reforesting at a nice little clip due primarily to scientific advances in conglomerate agribusiness that allow more stuff to be grown on less land. True, some of this comes from the use of petro-derived fertilizers, thus offsetting the sequestration--but I bet you've never run the numbers on that, or have even considered the issue.

"Fortunately there are some negative feedback loops as well, but are generally swamped in most models by the positive feedback loops."

Were this true, given that at recently as 1000 years ago, the Earth was warmer than it is today, your giant bullyboy positive feedback loops, dwarfing the meek little negative loops in your models, would have resulted in precisely the kind of global catastrophe that didn't happen at all.

"Global warming is real, and there is no real scientific debate about it, just about the relative contributions of man vs. nature, and the speed at which it will occur."

Well now, what the hell have I just been saying all this time? Did I not point to a graph that showed warming trends? By the way, I'm still waiting for your first actual reference, Dirk.

Okay. A lot of this sloppy thinking and emotionalism ticks me off, but I also acknowledge that my writing style is provocative. Sorry for that. I'll try to lay off the needling, since I know it doesn't help.

[anne]

Needling is fine, bullying possibly not so fine :) The field or fields of course that would ask after global warming are not mine, but there seems to be overwhelming agreement from and in several different scientific fields that global warming is occurring. Now, as to what set off or is accentuating this particular episode of global warming in geologic time there seems to increasing agreement that it is "us." But, suppose that it is not us after all. The problem remains, and we had best look to resolutions rather than being obstacles to resolutions :)

[anne]

If global warming is occurring, and it surely seems to be, and seems to be beyond the point of stopping a number of violent effects, then in what ways might we lessen the effects or cope with them? Species of frogs, for instance, are going extinct or sorely threatened. Are we to intervene? Bangladesh, in its low lying regions providing for millions of people, is similarly threatened.

[anne]

Paul Krugman's essay is not challenged by the complaints, as far as I can tell :)

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/science/11cnd-frog.html?ex=1294635600&en=c7d220a995b7b341&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 11, 2006

Scientists Say Global Warming Devastates Frogs in Latin America
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Scientists studying a fast-dwindling genus of colorful frogs in Central and South America say that recent global warming has combined with a spreading fungus to create a killing zone, driving many species restricted to misty mountainsides to extinction.

The researchers said they had implicated widespread warming, as opposed to local variations in temperature or other conditions affecting the frogs, by finding that patterns of fungus outbreaks and species loss in widely dispersed patches of habitat were synchronized in a way that was statistically impossible to explain by chance.

Climate scientists have already linked most of the recent rise in the earth's average temperature to the buildup of greenhouse emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes. Thus the new findings, according to the researchers and some independent experts on amphibians, imply that warming driven by human activity may have already fostered outbreaks of disease and imperiled species with restricted habitats.

The study, led by J. Alan Pounds, the resident biologist at the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica, is to be published on Thursday in the journal Nature.

In an accompanying commentary, two scientists not involved in the research, Andy Dobson, a Princeton University ecologist, and Andrew R. Blaustein, a zoologist at Oregon State University, said the research provided "compelling evidence" that warming caused by human activity was already disrupting ecology.

"The frogs are sending an alarm call to all concerned about the future of biodiversity and the need to protect the greatest of all open-access resources -- the atmosphere," they wrote.

But other climate and amphibian experts criticized the paper, saying there were several layers of significant uncertainty that were not eliminated by the analysis.

Among those, they said, it is still unclear whether the lethal fungus, which attacks amphibian skin, has long been in the affected areas and dormant or is a recent arrival.

Some amphibian and climate experts who read the paper said it contained definitive statements - like "our study sheds light on the amphibian-decline mystery by showing that large-scale warming is a key factor" - that were not supported by data.

Over 110 species of brightly colored harlequin frogs, in the genus Atelopus, once lived near streams in the American tropics, but about two-thirds of them have vanished since the 1980's....

[anne]

Why frogs? When there are studies from field on field that tell us the earth is warming, and suggest we must be contributing, then at least begin to suspect that the studies are correct and correctly interpreted even if interpreted as to "blame" us.

[GB]

I think the main reason that a place like Bangladesh is threatened by possible flooding from global warming is that it is impoverished. Global warming did not cause the impoverishment.

Instead of intervening in the climate, the results of which efforts are all but impossible to predict, we might want to advocate the promotion of free markets, democracies, and the rule of law around the world. There is a body of evidence, much more one-sided and compelling than that for global warming causation, that demonstrates the salutary effects on human and animal habitats via the imposition of these political and economic systems.

For too many people, capitalism is just bad bad bad, the construct of pure greed. But let's say there is a brilliant and effective surgeon, who can perform miracles and save lives, and the reason he became a doctor is that he derives sexual pleasure from cutting into people (sorry for the image). Do you bar him from practicing medicine? What if individual greed begats group-level prosperity?

[anne]

Ah, I know, you see, we should all be as capitalist as, say, New Orleans, or Louisiana or America in response. So much for global warming. Bangladesh, by the way, is a democracy and capitalist, and needing our help, though we are bust promoting democracy elsewhere :)

[anne]

That is "busy" :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/science/earth/24clim.html?ex=1274587200&en=52b4f1b89813887a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

May 24, 2005

Ocean Warmth Tied to African Drought
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Few places are more vulnerable to drought than Africa. From the Sahel south of the Sahara to the southern lobe of the turbulent continent, there is a simple calculus, said Dr. Richard Washington, an expert on the region's climate at Oxford: "When the rains fail, people die."

So a concerted effort has been made over the last five years to understand what drives dry spells there and what will occur in a future warmed by accumulating heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. Most climate experts now say that significant human-caused warming is inevitable.

One new study bodes particularly poorly for southern Africa, indicating that a 50-year-long drying trend there is likely to continue and appears tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean.

The authors of the study say that the heating of that ocean, which lacks the natural variability of the Pacific and Atlantic, is one of the clearest fingerprints pointing to human-caused climate change.

"In our models, the Indian Ocean shows very clear and dramatic warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern Africa," said Dr. James W. Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and an author of the study. "It is consistent with what we would expect from an increase in greenhouse gases." ...

[anne]

Promoting greed to save us all from global warming, however, does have a certain definable charm to it.

[joshua corning]

Of course there is always the possibility that Exxon can muddy the science simply because the science is muddy and unclear as to what is the chief contributor to the recent warming trend.

To say it is in Exxon's interests to propose that GW is not human caused is obvious but what again are the interests of the "consensus". Is it even possible for an international political organization (IPCC) to recommend that the worst solution would be a strengthening of international control and regulation? Not bloody likely.

It is obvious that both sides have a vested interest...hell even Krugman has a vested interest in bashing bush and it would not surprise me if Bush was convinced of AGW that Krugman would be unconvinced...the question really is what does the science say. Sadly folks the science is not as clear as anyone here would like it to be, Exxon funding or no funding.

[Lee A. Arnold]

What do you need the science to say? Such and such will happen, on such and such a day?

[bakho]

From an industry POV, it is important to know what the rules will be 50 years from now. A power plant being planned today will still be within its operational lifetime 50 years from now. To dismiss global warming out of hand is to bet that emissions requirements for power plants 50 years from now will not differ from today's. Bet wrong and your power plant lifespan might shrink from 50 to 25 years or less.

By denying global warming and fighting the science, Bush has increased the uncertainty in the energy business. This helps create big winners (who bet correctly) but also big losers that bet incorrectly.

BTW- The history of energy in the US is that the consumers pay for the utilities mistakes. A country that bets wrong can put its manufacturing base at a competitive energy disadvantage. This is what is at stake.

[ctm]

Global warming skeptics remind me of Intelligent Design proponents. And supply-side economists.

[No Name]

Robert all I have been trying to get you to do is just for a moment, believe that we arent the driving cause behind global warming. What if it is 60% being driven by natural causes. What then?

[Lee A. Arnold]

No other cause has been brought forward and survived scrutiny. Please do. You would win the Nobel Prize if you found it.

Humans are the significant cause of the present episode of global warming. It isn't being 60% driven by natural causes.

In the other global warming episodes of the distant past, carbon dioxide increases LAGGED the global warming by approximately 800 years. In other words, something ELSE started the global warming (e.g. volcano dust, earth's orbital position, solar activity, etc.,) which was then massively reinforced ("positive feedback") by later CO2 release, probably from warming soils and tundra, and increased organic decomposition in the oceans.

For the present episode, there are NO other causes of global warming that happened. No climate skeptic has been able to come up with a reasonable alternative hypothesis. In fact the CO2 buildup closely parallels the Industrial Revolution:

SEE CORRELATED "HOCKEY STICK" PICTURE AT:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=122

AND SEE DISCUSSION AT
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

And we are only just beginning to melt the tundra, so the SECONDARY release of CO2 is just beginning.

[Bruce Malfin]

1) In defense of decent people at Exxon Mobil

For a few years, I’ve been one of those who always drive the extra mile to fill my tank elsewhere than at Esso’s or Mobil’s precisely for the reasons Paul Krugman outlines. But I’d like to make this clear: All the decent and friendly people that run Esso and Mobil service stations across the country and worldwide have nothing to do with all that crap from their top management. It sickens me to think that their teenage kids may look at them as “enemies of the world” while they have nothing to do with it.

2) In response to climate skeptic arguments

I’ve read the interesting contribution on George Barnstable above on the “less cooling vs. more warming” issue. I tend to agree that global warming mostly happens at night and by the way it makes me laugh when I hear people telling that they’ve personally witnessed climate warming over the years, while it actually happened when they were asleep. But:

(i) Night-time global warming is consistent with the greenhouse effect theory. The thickened layer of greenhouse gases prevents the earth from radiating heat back to outer space at night. On the contrary, if the overall temperature had increased mostly on day time, that would be a clue of increased solar radiation, not enhanced greenhouse effect. So the observation does confirm, not undermine, the greenhouse effect theory. Which theory, needless to recall, was not designed last year as a new fund-raising cause for the greenies, but by a reknown scientist back in 1824, long before it could be confirmed empirically.

(ii) Nightly warming is no less of a problem. When a heat wave killed thousands of elderly people in France a few years ago, the exceptionally high night temperature was the fatal factor. People can usually cope with very high daily temperature (however uncomfortable), but many elderly people could not sleep for several nights in a row and got extremely weakened until they passed away.

That's all I have to say about it today. Cheers.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Mistake correction: the hockey stick shows the temperature (not CO2) build-up in close parallel to the Industrial Revolution.

CO2 buildup was inferred by Stewart Callendar, reporting to the Royal Meteorological Society in 1938, from various air concentration measurements going back to the early 19th century. Regular atmospheric recording didn't begin until 1958 at Mauna Loa by Charles Keeling; see his graph at:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xKeeling71-2.htm

To begin reading Spencer Weart's history of the discovery of global warming at the American Institute of Physics:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

[DJM]

"I realize that it is impossible to live in the modern world without putting trust in specialists and experts of every kind; however, to the extent that I do so, I am not being scientific. Rather, I am trusting, that is to say relying upon a faith-based system of gaining truth."

Ha, and here I thought I was as secular (or at least agnostic)and science driven as I could be without becoming a downright atheist and it turns out I am operating on a faith based system after all....
Actually I realize how much I don't know and how little time the average person has to become educated in various subjects, so yeah I did understand that in the long run I too picked which experts I felt I could agree with and which ones seem suspect.

[DJM]

I don't have the link, my brother sends me articles from EV World about new inventions like these [excerpts]so I see that there is hope that someone somewhere will be able to save us from ourselves.

South African Researchers Develop High-Efficiency Solar Alloy
Source: IOL/S. Africa
[Feb 21, 2006]
The South African solar panels consist of a five micron thick layer of a unique metal alloy that converts light into energy. The photo-responsive alloy can operate on virtually all flexible surfaces, which means it could in future find a host of other applications.
In a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun.
This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past.
The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies.
The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers, lights, TVs, fridges, computers - in short all the mod-cons of the modern house.

[DJM]

Algae Could Be Key to Reducing Smokestack CO2
Source: Christian Science Monitor
[Jan 13, 2006]
Dr. Berzin thinks if he could find the right strain of algae, he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door. .................... The tiny, single-celled plant, he says, could transform the world's energy needs and cut global warming.
Overshadowed by a multibillion-dollar push into other "clean-coal" technologies, a handful of tiny companies are racing to create an even cleaner, greener process using the same slimy stuff that thrives in the world's oceans.

Algae to the Rescue?
Source: Dispatch.Com
[Mar 02, 2006]
Ohio researchers intend to use pond scum as pollution fighter, fuel source
Mention algae and most people think of green gunk growing in ponds. But researcher Dave Bayless says the slimy, overlooked plant could reduce pollution, slow global warming and potentially become a plentiful source of biodiesel fuel.
Bayless, director of the Ohio Coal Research Center and a professor of mechanical engineering at Ohio University, has designed a system that would use blue-green algae to eliminate a substantial portion of the toxic chemicals spewing from industrial smokestacks.

[DJM]

and most recently he sent this one also from EV World;
Natural Light 'To Reinvent Bulbs'

A light source that could put the traditional light bulb in the shade has been invented by US scientists.

The organic light-emitting diode (OLED) emits a brilliant white light when attached to an electricity supply. The material, described in the journal Nature, can be printed in wafer thin sheets that could transform walls, ceilings or even furniture into lights. The OLEDs do not heat up like today's light bulbs and so are far more energy efficient and should last longer. They also produce a light that is more akin to natural daylight than traditional bulbs.

[DJM]

Here is something that might be of interest,
on tonight's "Nova" report, "Dimming the Sun"
[Apr 18, 2006]
excerpt from EV World article about the show;

During the days following 9/11 when airlines were grounded, the lack of jet condensation trails resulted in warmer the temperature ranges during the day, while nights were cooler, resulting in the largest swing in the past 30 years.

[GB]

Interesting comments, all.

Anne, Bangladesh is a poor example. Yes, it is nominally democratic and capitalist, but in reality, most of the large enterprises are state-owned, and the government stinks with corruption to the point that it is near impossible to get anything efficiently done. I agree we should be helping more to change that.

Lee, which episode are you referring to when discussing the lack of CO2 lag? The recent chart from the U of EA shows a serious uptick from 1910 to 1940, then a forty year levelling off, then another uptick. I'm not doubting your facts, I'm just confused as to your reference.

Bruce, thanks for your thoughts on the nighttime effects. It makes a lot of sense.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Sorry for the confusion! I did not mean the temperature lag in our current episode of global warming, but the CO2 lag in previous global warmings.

See "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?" at RealClimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

[GB]

Lee,

Interesting link, thank you for providing it. The scientific waters are getting a little too deep for me to tread successfully, so I won't comment on what's there, except to note that the author takes pains to qualify his remarks on the role of CO2 itself in affecting climate. From the data he puts forth and that of the follow-on comments, it appears that CO2 has not been the cause of previous warmings, and that its affect as a feedback force multiplier is a theory that seems plausible and fits the data, but that cannot currently be proven.

I'm not trying to be a Pangloss, or to stick my head in the sand, but it appears to me that it's just as plausible and logical that the Earth warms and cools according to some internal mechanism (we are all just skidding around over vast gobs of molten rock on thin crusty skates, after all), and that the atmosphere is much more strongly self-regulating than we can perceive with our limited measuring capability.

We spout more CO2 into the air and the atmosphere thickens and warms up for a time; the warmth causes more biomass growth and subsequent CO2 sequestration. Humans clearcut and desertify, so that land biomass decreases; increased erosion carries silt down into the sea, where its nutrient content increases sea-borne biomass. Greater warmth causes more water vaporization, which causes more cloud cover, which blocks the sun's rays from penetrating the atmosphere, thus somewhat offsetting the warming.

I know, it's the "Living Earth" theory coming from a capitalist pig, but while I think it is more likely that we can't significantly change the long-term temperature of the Earth than that we can, I don't see this as an excuse to go belching pollution willy-nilly. I just think that the reasons (and incentives) for polluting or not polluting would be more effective if they were simply and admittedly aesthetic.

An analogy: when someone tries to get me to vote to ban smoking in public places by trotting out all sorts of rubbery statistics about second-hand smoke, my eyes glaze over. If someone says, "I think smoke is stinky and gross, and I want to be able to go into a new restaurant with my family without risking having the smell of ciggies ruin my meal or chase me out," I will at least respect the guy, though I probably won't support him due to individual rights concerns. However, every day there are restaurant owners who are in effect saying to me, "I don't want you to have to smell smoke, so I've banned it from my place, risking the loss of business from smokers, in the hope that it will attract you." I support those restaurant owners.

Similarly, as Americans have become more affluent, they have developed an aesthetic sensibility against pollution and habitat destruction, and generally have the largesse to contribute to their reduction by paying more for products that hew to higher environmental standards. This is all to the good, because it is market-driven. The more that polluters are honestly exposed and are subsequently forced by loss of business to address their enviro-sins, the better I like it.

The trick is, then, to make everyone affluent enough to develop these standards. Putting out energies toward this end is a much better strategy for a cleaner and healthier (not to say warmer or colder) planet than to petition governments to enact ever more regulation and legislation for lobbyists and corruptible pols to later bend and amend to service their needs.

Man, sorry for the logorrhea there, sometimes I just get to yammerin'. back to work for me, and thanks again for the interesting links. It's good to learn.

[anne]

Well, no, though you are being clever :) The field of statistics, was shaped early last century by studies in England of the health effects of smoking. The studies were startling clear, but the effects were denied successfully for decades. Smoking is a prime world health problem, and a worker in a smoke filled environment is beset by a needless health hazard for which the answer is not "quit working."

[GB]

The answer does not have to be "Quit working." It can be "Quit working there." Of course, if you are talking about a third world situation, then I agree that there may be constraints that more or less force a person to subject themselves to secondhand smoke. The answer, once again, is to multiply their choices and elevate their standard of living.

I would dispute the notion that the statistics on secondhand smoke are "startlingly clear," but I'm not sure if you were referring to primary smoking or passive smoke.

[Lee A. Arnold]

GB -- Most of what you say is possibly true, and the scientists are looking at all of it, all of the time. Scientists try to test alternative logical explanations, it's what they do.

But I have two disagreements with you:

(1) There is no doubt that CO2 causes warming (or "radiative forcing," as they call it) and would have performed as a positive feedback in previous warmings -- that is just physics.

(2) It is starting to look like the climate is a fairly sensitive system, and we changed it rather easily, so maybe we can change it back again.

[GB]

Lee,

I don't think we really disagree--I may have not expressed myself well.

I'm thinking of the long-term effects of CO2 versus short-term. The physics of radiative forcing I can understand, but without knowing how the atmospheric forces may move to regulate CO2 levels, I don't think we can claim that increasing our CO2 emissions will create the kind of snowball effect that I think many activists are painting (e.g. if we don't do something now, it may be too late). In the absence of this knowledge, we risk pouring a lot of money into a process that will have relatively little return on investment--which, to me, is a poor economic choice.

Again, on your second point, I might well agree with you that the short-term environment is malleable. Certainly, volcanic episodes have wacked out the climate for years at a time. Still, these events show, I think, that the Earth has considerable power to regain its equilibrium.

I believe there was a five or ten year period a few hundred years back, after a large eruption, wherein the sky was darkened enough to cause horrible winters and severely shortened growing seasons around the world. Current slippery-slope environmental models, if faced with such a climate change, might have foretold centuries or millenia of worsening conditions due to the Earth's supposed atmospheric fragility. No doubt there would be negative loops dwarfing positive loops, rather than the reverse as positied by Dirk above.

But it didn't happen. The Earth found its center again, though of course this center is slowly rising and falling due to a force or forces we don't yet understand.

I guess the basic question for me is: where are we to put out best efforts and resources?

Anyhow, like I said above, I don't think we are too far apart on these specific points--only on their implications, perhaps.

[anne]

No; that is the point of my right to health. I have a right to a smoke free workplace, which is happily realized at last almost everywhere.

[GB]

I don't understand, Anne. If you don't own the workplace, or your job there, from what do you derive this right you claim, anymore than someone else might derive a "right" to enjoyment of the cool, menthol goodness of Lucky Strikes?

[anne]

Working in a safe environment is simply more important than anyone else's right to smoke. Interestingly, this is becoming ever more widely accepted and your surprise is useful and warranted :)

[DJM]

I believe the fallacy of comparing things like volcanic episodes that have whacked out the climate for years at a time, and the effect of ongoing and expanding polluting industry etcetera is possibly the duration of the event.

[GB]

I'm afraid I don't understand the "useful and warranted" part, unless you mean to say that it is useful for there to be cautionary notes sounding off whenever individual freedoms are under attack, and it is warranted to be suspicious of the wholesale disenfranchisement of property owners rights for an ostensible public good that might easily be extended to perfumes, flowers, flourescent lighting, Twinkies in the vending machine (attractive nuisance is a valid legal strategy in this litigious world) ad nauseum.

You make the claim, "Working in a safe environment is simply more important than anyone else's right to smoke," and the support for this belief is that a lot of other people believe it, too. Well, most people in this country believe in the Christian god, but I don't want it imposed upon me if I choose not to. There was a time most people worldwide thought that slavery was natural and smoking was cool. The mob is not a justification.

[GB]

DJM,

I agree that the two events are unalike in their duration, but that could easily be seen as evidence in favor of eruption. Surely, it is plausible that a sudden, sharp event may be more destabilizing than a gradual one. If you slowly push my shoulder, I have time to set my feet more widely and push back. If you give me a quick shove, I may fall over.

I think magnitude is probably more important than duration. As in toxicology, it's the dose that makes something poisonous. Typically, below a certain threshhold, even horrible toxins are harmless; on the other hand, too much water will kill you.

I don't know how volcanic and other natural emissions compare to manmade, so I'm no help on that.

[DJM]

Sometimes comparing apples and oranges just doesn't help...the toxicity of the gradual buildup of pollutants and the resulting changes in our atmosphere and the cascading effects of it all, probably can't really be accurately compared to poisoning someone or pushing on their shoulder.
Besides magnitude and duration there is also the consideration of the scope or extent of the pollution....which is more planet wide every day.....

[DJM]

It is my understanding that many things in nature can heal themselves if given time out. Continuous stress on nature or man is often eventually lethal. Take the example of the water eroding rock and creating the Grand Canyon .......or sand blasting, which isn't a single grain of sand or the air pressure alone, but many grains combined with the air pressure and the amount of time applied for the effect to take place.

[anne]

"It is my understanding that many things in nature can heal themselves if given time out. Continuous stress on nature or man is often eventually lethal."

Nicely stated. Global warming convincingly appears to be a continual stress that Presidential policy is set on ignoring or even denying, abetted by a slew of prime corporations. I suppose only continued experience and individual pressure such as Paul Krugman has here applied will change our public stance to the developing problems. Denying global warming as a problem beyond the corporate interest in so doing, is becoming as puzzling as the denying of evolution as a sneering at what science properly is.

[GreenGOP]

I never thought I'd hear a liberal complain that the press is "trying to be balanced!" If only that were the case! More surprising is that it's said by someone writing for the NY Times, well known for its left of center slant.

[DevsAd]

GreenGOP:

Yes, I think we are all pleased that the press is finally started to ask the White House, the President, and others tough questions. The way papers like the NY Times, and now the WaPo are in bed with the administration and supported the run-up to the war is shameful.

Glad to hear you agree.

[Hockey Stick]

Let's face it --> after all the research and studies, we still don't know.

And, if we're going to commit billions (maybe trillions) to mitigate the effects of GW we had better be acting on more than not only "just a hunch" but on more than even our most profound "belief".
We have got to KNOW!
And we had better clearly know it is human-induced and is not from some natural cause.
Because, whatever course of action, or inaction, we choose, will have huge potential ramifications for our planet and for the well-being of our fellow life-forms, and our brothers and sisters.

I disagree that there will be no harm if we act on the basis of the current "consensus" if in reality it ends up being unwarranted -- that kind of bad policy will kill people.
The huge resources so diverted, if scientifically unjustified, can never be beneficial or even just neutral in their effects, given the opportunity cost that will be incurred.
People will die if we waste our efforts on the basis of an unjustifiable ideology.
But conversely the same is true if such efforts are proven to be needed.

There is no time!
The resources must be allocated now to eliminate any doubt, and move these discussions from the realm of "opinion" to "fact".
I would respectfully disagree with those who maintain that the "facts" have been proven.
Let's not allow our political servants to avoid this task --> the time is now!

If you take the time to review some of the material below, I think one thing you will have to admit, is that BIG egos do get in the way. If we could only remove the drive for money, funding, prestige, etc. that seems to so totally blind the researchers from both industry and science, we might have a better chance of getting closer to the truth. It is clear not only that many of the GW skeptics can be accused of being beholden to industry; there is no less an evident sycophantic behavior in the "consensus" GW crowd.

When you traverse the websites below you will come across many characters.
But that's a reflection of our nature -- human nature.

There's Michael Crichton and Bjørn Lomborg who are lambasted because they are "against the environment".
On the other side, among many, is Mann (and gang: Mann, Bradley and Hughes with their 'hockey-stick' graph article --- referred to as “MBH98”).
Then there are the 2 statistical "experts" McIntyre and McKitrick who "honestly" try to validate the Hockey Stick model, but come to the conclusion it is an "artifact".
Then the revered (no more?) Scientific American writes a diatribe attacking McIntyre. Who would have expected that?
And then the website RealClimate joins in to attack anyone who questions Mann et al.

Who to believe?
Let's face it --> when there are big bucks involved (on ALL sides) not to mention reputations and potential Nobel Prizes, "who're yah gonna call?"
Where in the world are the Dag Hammarskjöld-s and Albert Schweitzer-s and others of like ilk when we so badly need them?
("The ones not doing it for themselves?")

Check out some various takes (attacks? defences?) at various sites:

Michael Crichton's efforts (Novel-Writing skeptic):
http://www.crichton-official.com/
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote08.html

Site of Consensus View of GW (defends Mann et al; site started by Michael Mann and friend):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Various sundry sites I found (you can Google yourself silly with this!):
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15557
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

Steve McIntyre's efforts (Statistician-skeptic; his site):
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=429
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Scientific American (various articles):
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=30&articleID=00007F57-9CE1-1213-9BEF83414B7F0000
http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SCC=Q&Q=Michael+Mann&x=18&y=8
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=4
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=EC423F35-0C25-49BE-A609-08B829CAD00

probably some site from industry (I don't know):
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

and so on...
decide fer yerselves

[DJM]

Often the same people who support the death penalty without reservation, support preemptive war on very shaky evidence, believe everything their favorite televangelist says, .....(I could think of more examples but I am sure that is enough for some of us to "get the picture").....those people need some degree of PROOF that global warming is real, and they want concrete evidence that people are to blame, before they are willing to even consider changes they might effect their comfort zone or finances(national or personal).

[Hockey Stick]

You're right DJM,

as if we needed more proof, I just happened to catch NOVA last night
(it was a re-broadcast, so you guys have probably already seen it)
on. of all things,
"GLOBAL DIMMING" --- now, that was scary ---

--- please see link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
--- actual title for this show was "Dimming the Sun"

--- basic storyline was that the reason we have not seen and personally experienced all of the expected effects from GW is that the particulate pollution we (the industrialized countries) have been putting up into the atmosphere all these years (esp. since 1960) has been masking the real warming effects of CO2; which in itself might not be news, but the degree to which this masking (the "negating of the warming" if you will) has been occurring is unbelievably MUCH greater than anyone thought possible (you can see what's coming from this trainwreck of ideas)...

...that much might seem rather self-evident to all of you, but the
intent was to show that not only the particles themselves have been reflecting sunlight back into space but that the clouds that form around these tiny particles have water droplets that are much smaller than those of "clean-air" clouds in the past (the research seemed sound) --- and that these droplets stay small, thus reflecting way more back into space than otherwise would be the case --- these clouds are much more "white" if you like -- like mirrors --

--- normal "clean-air" clouds have only so much particulate matter to which the water vapour starts to cling to, so that the rest of the water vapour has to join the existing initial small drops that formed around the existing particulates, since once the particles in clean air (even clean air has pollen, dust etc.) are all employed, those first-created drops start to get bigger and bigger and then drop as rain -- no problem so far --

-- but if there is an over-abundance of particles as in "dirty-air", then the droplets are much slower to attract remaining water vapour to them, since the attraction is initially more to the much larger number of other particles that are present...
.... these smaller droplets are less likely to join with water vapour and are way-more bright and reflective of sunlight, thus the "Global Dimming" ---
that would be fine if that is as far as it went --- but these types of clouds and the particles themselves have had a much larger impact than anyone thought possible --- the program said a "ten-fold" greater impact than the GW models had been using for compensating...

--- so what! you might think --- that it's good that the GW is lessened by "dimming" since we seem unable to reduce Green House gases directly --- yeah, ok, except that in the developed world we are starting to slow down the emission of the "dirty particles" and that means, oh-oh, the impact from these GH gases is gonna be way-greater than what we were thinking --- unless you wanna live with the bad air forever, which has bad health effects, etc. Even China and India will eventually adopt the scrubbers, catalytic converters, and other clean-air technologies because otherwise their people would be dropping like flies in the dirty air in the cities and factories... and in their lungs...
it's a witches' circle
---
also the fact that less sunlight gets to the surface of the planet has another dark effect... something called less "pan evaporation".... requires the photons from the sun (can you believe it?) to hit the water (apparently shown to be the strongest reason for surface water evaporation, greater than wind, dryness of ambient air, etc.)
... with the dirty air, the seasonal rains that used to come north from the equator to the sub-Sahara failed because the sea off of western Africa did not warm up enough, which caused the "belt" of summer rain clouds to not be drawn north as in the past, and this caused the great Sahel famines of 1960-1990 (roughly) like when millions died in the sub-Sahara (Ethiopia) -- now as a consequence of cleaner air over the recent past, the rains have not been failing to the same degree...

... but now Asia and India are taking over to produce the required dirty air to keep the masking game going --- for now
--- as one scientist said (Hansen) if we had not had the masking, most of us would see GW as being self-evident because we would already be feeling it --- personally ---
--- one poignant note in the program was that because of Sept. 11 tragedy, one scientist had 3 days to make surface measurements of sunlight in all of the lower 48 states, with no contrails being produced by jets (all planes were all grounded for 3 days post Sept 11) --- a perfect situation for getting these "experimental" results --- and then follow up with comparisons to the 3 days before and 3 days after these 3 no-fly days --- he was able to prove that the effect of just the removal of these contrails was UNBELIEVABLE in the amount of additional energy reaching the ground in the lower 48 --- meaning, you guessed it, that as we continue to clean up the air, GW will make its presence known with a "vengeance".

--- thus it was that one of the unintended gifts to us from the sacrifice of the victims of Sept.11 was this one confirmation of a very important part of the puzzle

please check the site and
"decide fer yerselves"

[Hokey Stick]

Before you get too riled up, Hockey Stick,
please take a quick read of the David Deming article at site

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm

[Craig]

Many say we will see $3.50/gal this summer. If you factor in Iran, who knows how high it could go. Everyone knows America MUST get off the oil. After September 11, 2001 I expected our President to call on Americans to GET OFF THE OIL. I was expecting a speech like the one JFK gave that motivated us to reach for the moon. As you know, this never happened. Eventually I realized that the only way this is going to happen is for us to do it ourselves. To that end I created this idea and have been trying to make it a reality..

The EPA is offering a research grant opportunity that I believe is a perfect fit for this idea. I have sent an e-mail to a hand picked list of university professors who have experience with government research projects. I’m looking to form a research team to apply for the EPA grant, conduct a social-economic experiment and surveys to determine to what extent the American public will support it, project the economic potential of WPH, and identify logistical, social and political obstacles as well as opportunities.

All government grants are awarded based on merit of the proposed research. I believe WPH has merit but your help is needed to verify it. You can help by posting your feedback. Let the professors and the EPA know what you think about WPH. Do you think this idea is worth pursuing? We need to know if Americans will support a plan like this.

Do you have any ideas to improve the plan?

Share any and all of your thoughts.

Tell your friends and family about this Blog post and ask them to post their thoughts on WPH

http://wepayhalf.org

Thank you

Craig