The Nobel Prize-winning international scientific panel studying global warming is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it’s seeking some kind of independent review because of recent criticism about its four 2007 reports.
Critics have found a few unsettling errors, including projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, in the thousands of pages of the reports.
Here is the statement:
Rep. Mike Noel, the Legislature’s chief climate-change skeptic, declared Thursday that global warming is a conspiracy to control world population.
The House Natural Resources Committee then approved a resolution that expresses the Utah Legislature’s belief that “climate alarmists’ carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.”
The resolution, sent to the House on a 10-1 vote, would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to drop plans to regulate the pollution blamed for climate change “until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.”
The resolution is a smorgasboard of anti-science rhetoric, coal-industry talking points and nonsensical fearmongering. Here are some lowlights of the claims the resolution makes:
WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years
How could global temperatures have declined in some areas? Global temperatures are, by definition, an average of temperatures globally. Temperatures in one particular geographical location tell us absolutely nothing about global temperatures. Either way, the claim is false.
WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as “Climategate,” indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate “tricks” related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;
I’m glad to see governmental bodies buying into ridiculous conspiracy theories.
WHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published;
Imagine that. Scientists responsible for reviewing scientific papers don’t recommend the publication of anti-science and plainly inaccurate papers.
WHEREAS, the climate change “gravy train,” estimated at more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a “scientific consensus” at research institutions and universities;
There is far more money to be made in the climate denial industry than there is practicing legitimate climate science. The oil and coal industries pay top dollar to shills willing to lie to promote their agendas. This is extremely well documented.
There is plenty more insanity where those quotes came from. Here is the full resolution, as passed yesterday by the Utah House Natural Resources Committee:
hjr012 –
Update — This KSL TV in SLC has some good video footage of the committee debate.
A major trade group for the insurance industry is warning that it is “exceedingly risky” for companies to blindly accept scientific conclusions around climate change, given the “serious questions” around the extent to which humans cause atmospheric warming.The assertion was made in a letter to insurance regulators, who will administer the nation’s first mandatory climate requirements on corporations in May. Large insurers will have to answer about a dozen questions related to the preparations they are taking to safeguard themselves from climatic hazards.
Here is the letter:
Learn more about Swifthack here.
It is a well-known fact that powerful vested interests and those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.The Centre for Public Integrity in the US has found that some 770 companies and interest groups have hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence America’s federal policies on climate change in the past year, just as the stakes became higher with the prospect of far-reaching climate legislation in the US. That translates into more than four lobbyists for each member of Congress in Washington DC.
The climate sceptics have also been active in other ways. Take the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia and the use of private communications between the scientists involved to discredit the science contained in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which I chair. These scientists are highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable.
Audio of Guardian’s interview with Pachauri is available here.
But a new poll released by the National Wildlife Federation is revealing that Swifthack has failed to move the needle with voters…… Among those who said they had read or seen something about the stolen emails, 53% said it did not affect their view at all. The remainder was largely split — 26% said it made them less likely to support the U.S. taking action to reduce global warming while 20% said it made them more likely to support action.
Even a harshly framed attack about the emails failed to influence voters in any significant way … 63% still say they believe global warming is happening.
Here are the full results of the poll:
It’s absolutely baffling to me that as I present & participate in sessions on the latest cutting-edge climate science, the international media has gone hook, line & sinker for a distraction about hacked emails pushed by polluters and science deniers. But it’s a sad reflection of the disconnect between the scientific debate here in San Francisco and the political debates happening in Washington and Copenhagen.
And here is the schedule of previous and remaining diaries in this weekend-long event:
Climate Change Reality Blogathon: Dedicated to our dear friend Steve of JohnnyRook’s Climaticide Chronicles
Saturday December 12 (All times Pacific)
2:30a Philip Radford,President Obama: Now is the the time for climate action!
4:00a A Siegel, Climate Change Reality: THE Progressive Crisis
7:00a Senator Jeff Merkley,
Climate Change Reality: The Stakes in Copenhagen
8:00a Senator John Kerry, Climate Change Reality: The Senate Debate
9:00a Pete Altman, Climate Change Reality: The Voices of Reason are Prevailing over ClimateGate
10:00a Keith Schneider, Big Copenhagen Climate Demonstration — Noisy, Colorful, Insistent — Pushes Negotiators to Act
2:00p RLMiller, Climate Change CLEAR Unreality: We’re all Alaskans now!
4:00p Jill Richardson, The sad truth about the future of food
5:00p rb137, They aren’t listening to usSunday December 13 (All times Pacific)
4:00a A Siegel
8:00a DrAmandaStaudt
9:00a Pete Altman
9:30a Richard Graves
10:00a Keith Schneider
10:30a Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
11:00a RLMiller
12:00p Daniel J Kessler
1:00p Mike MacCracken
2:00p Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
3:00p Bruce Nilles
4:00p oke
5:00p boatsie
“My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann’s earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
“In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown,” North said.
Pew Research Center for People and the Press:
About one-in-five Americans (19%) have heard a lot about the international meeting to discuss climate change in Copenhagen that is now underway. About as many (17%) say they have heard a lot about the disclosure of private emails between prominent climate scientists regarding global warming data. Fewer have heard a lot about the White House job summit that took place a week ago (11%) or about Comcast’s plan to buy NBC Universal (11%).There is virtually no difference in awareness of the Copenhagen climate-change meeting by party. About six-in-ten Republicans, Democrats and independents have heard at least a little about the gathering; that includes 20% of Republicans, 19% of Democrats and 18% of independents who have heard a lot about it.
Republicans, however, are more likely to have heard about the climate-related email controversy: 23% have heard a lot about this, compared with 11% of Democrats. Among independents, 17% have heard a lot.
A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Here is the analysis:
CHRIS HAYES, “THE NATION”: Good evening, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Why did “The Washington Post” let us get lectured about science and politics by someone who quit her only state office, and has a pastor who runs these precautionary exorcisms on her so she can stave off witchcraft.
HAYES: I thought it was a really atrocious decision on the part of “The Washington Post” to run this op-ed. What exactly it contributed to the debate-there are people like Greg Mankiw, who worked in the Bush White House, an economist at Harvard. He’s a very conservative guy. He strongly opposes the cap and trade. He wants to see a carbon tax. There is a debate to be had.
But to give over your op-ed page to someone who makes, essentially a conspiracy claim, it would be like if they turned it over to someone who wanted to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. “The Washington Post” would never, in a million years, do that and they shouldn’t be doing this.
OLBERMANN: From Mrs. Palin’s point of view, from the GOP point of view, is this at all about getting elected anymore, or is this just kind of political cover for big business? Keeping the country safe from polluters for another hour, another month, another year, whatever it is they can manage?
HAYES: Luckily, they go hand in hand. I actually think what’s motivating Palin-and you can actually see, she has moved, you know, in the direction of the conspiracy theorists on this issue. What’s motivating her is the fact that the polling on this is really disturbing, because it has become an article of faith among the right wing base that this is a grand socialist conspiracy to usher in state control.
So I think she’s really, as she is want to do, pandering to that base right now. I think what’s driving that kind of op-ed, more than any kind of business shilling, is the fact that it has become one of these issues, like the birth certificate, that you can sort of win points with the base with.
OLBERMANN: And by the way, the video we’re seeing right now, that was taken in July in Washington, D.C. All right, that’s-bad joke, I’m sorry. But let’s put all these points together now about the predilections of the far right and what they believe and what they don’t. What is the Palin explanation for polar ice melting, which she acknowledges. If it is witchcraft, why has she not sent Pastor Moothy (ph) to fix it. A slightly more serious version of that, and if this is not man-made, if it is part of the right-wing agenda, if it all should be theocratically interpreted, if it’s all in God’s hands, how come Sister Sarah, with her direct line to God, has not instructed God to fix this?
HAYES: You know, what’s really interesting about this op-ed is that it’s not even internally logically consistent conspiracy mongering. There are two alternate theories of the conspiracy the denialists make. One is, yes, the world is warming, but it is not caused by humans. The other, the science that says the world is warming is fake and part of the conspiracy. And she endorses both. Those both cannot obtain.
The fact of the matter is, she governs the one state in the union that is most immediately seeing the effects of climate change. The permafrost is actually melting. There are houses that have cracked because of it in the state of Alaska. And because of that, she was forced to kind of acknowledge the fact that warming is happening. She can’t have it both ways.
And the editors of “The Washington Post” didn’t see fit to make any kind of intervention, to at least have a logically consistent piece of work on their pages.
OLBERMANN: Which brings up the idea of an end game for the GOP and Palin. What is the end game? Let’s say they are 100 percent right, that climate-gate exists, that this is a scam, that changes in climate are natural. Do they have a plan for how to keep the government together, to criminalize abortion during the rapture and the upcoming ice age and/or universal sweat lodge, whichever comes first?
HAYES: You know, I don’t know what the right-wing government’s plan is. But I will say, on an extremely serious note, that this-you know, we’ve talked about this in a million different ways-and Al Gore-and there are a lot of messengers who are better at this than I am. But it’s hard to over-state the stakes right now, in Copenhagen, in the climate change legislation moving through Congress. We are at a sort of pivotal moment in the fate of the Earth, but also as a test of the moral fabric of American democracy. And history is going to look extremely, extremely unkindly on this op-ed and the people that are using their platform to sort of propagate this very monstrous deception.
