More

U.S. And China Begin To Bridge Differences At Cancun Climate Meeting

ARTHUR MAX   12/ 1/10 09:33 PM ET   AP

CANCUN, Mexico — The United States and China appeared close to agreement Wednesday on a key issue that has troubled climate change negotiations, boosting prospects that talks on global warming will score their first success in years.

Analysts said the tone over measuring emissions had softened between the two major protagonists in the 193-nation talks. Over the past year they repeatedly exchanged accusations of reneging on commitments and undermining the talks.

The much disputed issue involves how countries account for their actions to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases and to what extent they will allow other countries to review their books. The process is known as measuring, reporting and verifying, or MRV in negotiating parlance.

Details remain to be worked out and MRV is only one of several elements that negotiators want to adopt as a package in Cancun.

"Maybe the differences are not that huge," said Su Wei, China's chief negotiator. "In general, both countries would like to promote the process" and emerge from Cancun with a deal.

The veteran diplomat said China had put in place a rigorous system for measuring and assessing its carbon emissions, and had no objection if other countries examined its reports. "We have no problem with MRV," he said.

Previously, China had said only some of its actions would be open to international scrutiny.

Earlier this week, U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing said the U.S. and China had "spent a lot of energy in the past month working on those issues where we disagree and trying to resolve them. My sense is we have made progress." He did not specify those issues.

The annual climate conference is the first since the Copenhagen summit last December, which broke up in acrimony after failing to reach a broad agreement binding industrial nations to deep emissions cuts and committing developing countries to move toward low-carbon growth.

Instead, the summit, which drew President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and nearly 120 other world leaders, ended with a three-page statement of principles that fell short of the unanimous approval required by all parties.

This year, negotiators lowered their sights and were seeking to adopt a package of secondary issues that will keep the negotiations alive.

Kathrin Gutman, who follows the talks for the World Wildlife Fund, said an agreement on verification would be an important piece of a deal that could "unlock the larger discussion" on emissions reductions.

She said the two sides had refused to formally discuss the subject as recently as the last preparatory meeting a month ago, which was held in the Chinese city of Tianjin.

The shift apparently derived from compromise proposals by India and Singapore.

Barbara Finamore, the China expert for Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Chinese attitude at Cancun reflected "a sea change" in approach.

"China made a strategic decision to be as positive, open and forthcoming as they can," she said in an interview.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — The United States and China appeared close to agreement Wednesday on a key issue that has troubled climate change negotiations, boosting prospects that talks on global warming w...
CANCUN, Mexico — The United States and China appeared close to agreement Wednesday on a key issue that has troubled climate change negotiations, boosting prospects that talks on global warming w...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 495
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:03 AM on 12/07/2010
Thanks for fixing the title!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:36 AM on 12/09/2010
Now, how about an appropriate picture, or no picture at all?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
05:54 PM on 12/06/2010
The Pentagon: Global Warming Is Real and a Destabiliz­ing Force

----------­----------­----------­----------­-

From the Pentagon's Quadrennia­l Defense Review (2010):

Climate-re­lated changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperatur­e and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost­, lengthenin­g growing seasons, lengthenin­g ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alteration­s in river flows.

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. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authoritie­s for humanitari­an assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

http://www­.defense.g­ov/qdr/ima­ges/QDR_as­_of_­12Feb10_1­0­00.pdf
08:03 AM on 12/06/2010
The Truth about Climategate and the Whitewash Investigations

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (52 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/understanding_the_climategate_inquiries.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:51 AM on 12/06/2010
You claim to understand computer programmin­­g, so prove it.
1) Why do programs that involve large amounts of calculatio­­ns (such as when solving coupled differenti­­al equations) often normalize the numbers so they are as close to one as possible?
2) When taking the difference of two exponentia­­ls ( e^x - e^-x for large x) what trick should be used to prevent large errors?
09:44 AM on 12/06/2010
We already went over and you failed.

You questions cannot be answered as stated because they refer to specific applications not generalized computer science questions.

You are too computer illiterate to know why.
09:48 AM on 12/06/2010
Here lets prove your computer illiteracy,

Name the book, chapter and page of what Computer Science/ Computer Programming text book these questions appear.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:57 AM on 12/06/2010
Poptech, who is sponsoring you to keep wallpapering the place with all this trash? You engage in tabloid journalism, avoiding the central points. One can readily believe that your intent here is to confuse and disrupt any discussion.
02:31 PM on 12/06/2010
No one but I will take money from anybody (not that it will change any of my positions but I am a capitalist).

I don't engage in any such thing. What I have presented are legitimate reports. My intent is to inform and educated people such as yourself.
11:17 PM on 12/04/2010
As incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee, current congressma­­n (R-Calif.), richest guy in Congress ($300M+) and suspected ex-car thief, Darrell Issa, plans to investigat­­e the EPA for things like putting out the following comment/re­­ports:

From the U.S. Environmen­­­tal Protection Agency

"Recent inquiries and investigat­­­ions of the CRU emails and IPCC

Recent investigat­­­ions and inquiries into the emails by other organizati­­­ons have all resulted in clearing the scientists of alleged wrong-doin­­­g."

http://epa­­­.gov/cli­m­a­techan­ge­/e­ndan­ger­men­t/­peti­tion­­s.htm­
11:18 PM on 12/04/2010
Also from the EPA: http://epa­­­.gov/cli­m­a­techan­ge­/e­ndan­ger­men­t/­myth­s-fa­­cts.h­tml

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsider­­­ation of the Endangerme­­­nt and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperatur­­­e data and trends were manipulate­­­d.

Fact: Not true. Petitioner­­­s say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstant­­­iated theories of conspiracy­­­. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromise­­­d. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulati­­­on or misreprese­­­ntation of results.

Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibilit­­­y of climate change science overall.

Fact: Climate change is real and happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergover­­­nmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independen­­­tly concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivoc­­­al." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperatur­­­e datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independen­­­t indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whiskeyman09
03:17 PM on 12/05/2010
It is shocking that the US Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would actually come to the conclusion that climate change is real, is happening now, action ($$$, and lots of it) is needed immediately to solve it. I mean who could have predicted that?

I fully expected them to say, "You know, we have looked at it and the only thing the data actually supports is that it seems to us that the climate on the earth has always been constantly changing and there is little we can do about it either way."

Instead, they came to the conclusion that they could actually do something about the weather...Where does vanity and hubris like this come from?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
07:13 PM on 12/05/2010
Whiskey: "they came to the conclusion that they could actually do something about the weather...­Where does vanity and hubris like this come from?"

Where does science denier rhetoric like this come from?
11:19 PM on 12/04/2010
continued.­­­..

Some people have "cherry-pi­­­cked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstant­­­iated conclusion­­­s about the validity of all climate science.

Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibilit­­­y of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Fact: The IPCC's primary conclusion­­­s are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehens­­­ive climate science literature­­­. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusion­­­s or to EPA’s Endangerme­­­nt Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibilit­­­y of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehens­­­ive, rigorous, and transparen­­­t ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

Myth: EPA misstepped when it did not do its own scientific analysis of climate change to inform the Endangerme­­­nt Finding and instead relied on existing scientific assessment­­­s.

Fact: EPA relied on major scientific assessment­­­s, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available informatio­­­n to determine the state of climate change science. These assessment­­­s are designed to address the breadth and scope of all published literature and undergo multiple levels of rigorous review. This approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists­­­.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:58 PM on 12/04/2010
Wayne Davidson, a scientist currently on site in the Arctic reported this today:

“Lack of sea ice over much of the Eastern North American Arctic is very dramatic…. Hudson Bay nearly devoid of ice at this time of the year, is truly freakish, and proves the main theories on Climate science astonishingly correct. A glimpse of the near future unfolds.”


What are the paid pom pom clowns for the fossil fuel industry going to do when the warming accelerates to the point where even the dimmest bulbs realize that global warming is an incontrovertible fact? Since the denialists are so adept at prevarication, one expects that they will simply try to blend in with everyone else and deny that they ever said what they said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:43 PM on 12/04/2010
Poptech: "Wrong, it is not if the actual equation is mathematic­ally wrong to give a computatio­nal error, it is the process of deciding which equations to include and which to omit - that is subjective and thus the models worthless. My irrefutabl­e proof of his (sic) is that all the computer models are different. If the science was settled they would be identical."

That absurdity reminds me of a quote by Isaac Asimov which Publicola brought to my attention several months ago:

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Here's more from Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (all of which is well worth reading):

----------­----------­----------­----------­--
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanatio­n of why I think so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:44 PM on 12/04/2010
...When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

In the early days of civilizati­on, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaoticall­y bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on...

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generaliza­tion that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depression­s, you would be left with flatness. Contributi­ng to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days...

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfac­tory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosophe­r Aristotle summarized them...
11:02 PM on 12/04/2010
It is not absurd but basic logic. If climate science was "settled science" based on "known physics" every computer climate model should be identical, instead they are all different. The reasons they are different is due to the subjective decisions of the scientists creating them. They either include, omit or adjust climate related equations not based on "science" but based on their opinion.

Computers are absolute, they are only right or wrong. Are you really this computer illiterate?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:19 PM on 12/04/2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/rajendra-pachauri-huge-ga_n_790453_69641201.html
Pop: "it is the process of deciding which equations to include and which to omit - that is subjective and thus the models worthless. My irrefutabl­­­e proof of his (sic) is that all the computer models are different. If the science was settled they would be identical.­­"

So, if we just copy and paste the currently-­­leading model, you'll shut up and accept the scientific consensus? Tempting, but it wouldn't be scientific­­. Science, including computer modeling, requires testing competing hypotheses­­. The similarity of all reasonable competing hypotheses is the correct measure of _how_ settled climate science is, and absolutely every one includes CO₂ as the primary forcing agent of warming; that is absolutely settled.

Identical models all around would in fact be totally unscientif­ic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:09 AM on 12/05/2010
Not only is your logic very basic, it is also applied to the very wrong assumption that anybody has claimed climatological omniscience. We do know that CO₂ is a driver of warming and that H₂ is a feedback agent that leads to further warming, but nobody claims to know exactly what the weather will be in Sydney on this date in 2068. However, we do know for a fact that if we significantly reduce our CO₂ pollution the global effects will be less catastrophic than if we do not reduce our CO₂ pollution. We don't know, and don't claim to know, the exact amounts, but we know with 95% confidence, within a range of two degrees or less, for various emissions scenarios.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/22/an-introduction-to-global-warming-impacts-hell-and-high-water/

The basic reason to run a variety of climate simulation models is to see which ones predict the next few years the best, to continue to improve our models, which are already very good but which nobody has ever claimed are absolutely perfect. Knowledge is not binary. We do not either know everything, or know nothing. We know some things and not others, and if you do not understand this, you cannot be taught.
08:02 PM on 12/04/2010
Ever wonder why Richard2 always scrupulously avoids an unequivocal answer to the following question:

"Are you now, or have you ever been paid to deny anthropogenic global warming and/or its impacts?"

His few, carefully crafted responses always leave him plausible legal deniability.

But, if you're lying incessantly about everything else, why not just lie about that too?

Well, David Brin suggests that denialism may eventually involve overwhelming legal liability. http://www.davidbrin.com/climate2.htm

"If the Denier Movement's knowing and deliberate obstruction of climate remediation can be plausibly shown to have contributed toward vast losses of real and intangible property and the displacement of millions of refugees, will the top-most Deniers then be liable for damages, under common and tort law, as well as precedents set by the tobacco judgments?

This appears to not have been discussed anywhere that I know of. But neither was the possibility of tort penalties against Big Tobacco, back when the cancer findings were new...

... those who directly and deliberately obstructed reasonable precautions and progress toward efficiency may face an angry and litigious world, if the expert forecasts prove to have been right, all along. Preventing action that, upon expert advice, might have staunched or curtailed harm, is legally culpable.

Are they so very sure that they will be able to control politics and the courts next time the chickens come home to roost? In effect, the topmost promoters of Denialism are betting everything they own."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
08:17 PM on 12/04/2010
"may face an angry and litigious world">>

Oh let it be so. One would be hard pressed to find a group more guilty of purposeful intellectual dishonesty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:20 PM on 12/04/2010
The Bush administration. Oh, wait, they're also part of that group. What a coincidence!
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
02:07 AM on 12/05/2010
As we learn more, the theory of the Bush administration evolves towards a theory of the Cheney administration.
07:10 PM on 12/04/2010
Incorrect as the tidal gauge data which goes back way before 1992 shows only 1-2mm a year.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
07:43 PM on 12/04/2010
Wrong again.

Sowhich part of the following that I quoted below from the 2007 IPCC AR4 report did you not understand, Poptech?

"Global mean sea level has been rising... For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr-1.. . For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observatio ns with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr-1, significan tly higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:47 PM on 12/04/2010
You claim to understand computer programmin­g, so prove it.
1) Why do programs that involve large amounts of calculatio­ns (such as when solving coupled differenti­al equations) often normalize the numbers so they are as close to one as possible?
2) When taking the difference of two exponentia­ls ( e^x - e^-x for large x) what trick should be used to prevent large errors?
(Pharos)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:29 PM on 12/04/2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/rajendra-pachauri-huge-ga_n_790453_69644053.html
Poptech 40 minutes ago (8:36 PM)
20 Fans
Become a fan
1. Probably to prevent overflows but there are other reasons as well. This is programmin­g dependent for the applicatio­n purpose.

2. What version of what program are you using? Your software shouldn't screw up and give an error. LMAO, "trick".

This is what I am talking about you use some specific version of some specific applicatio­n and then think it relates to a generaliza­tion of how computer systems work.

You haven't proved you understand anything you are talking about. (Ironic!)
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it

ObjectiveRealist 22 minutes ago (8:55 PM)
114 Fans
1) Wrong, Poptech. It's because of the number of digits available in a given computer. You need to normalize to prevent your computatio­n from becoming too large, or too small for the available bits, which is a physical limitation of the computer's architectu­re. (not programming dependent, hardware dependent)

2) Would you like to do the math and try again?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:26 PM on 12/04/2010
Seriously? You thought that maybe I was asking about video games?

Poopstench:
"The question as stated cannot be answered as you did because it says why do "programs"­­... Are you talking about video games because they use differenti­­al equations.
There is nothing to dodge you failed to properly define the parameters of the question and thus failed at showing any remote knowledge of computer systems."

The correct answers are generalizable, to any operating system, any architecture, any existing computer back to vacuum tubes and punch cards. If you knew the math and the standard methods of electronically computing it, you'd have known that, too. Only how soon you run out of resources without the proper methods varies. The underlying methods are as universal as mathematics itself.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:34 PM on 12/04/2010
Poptech: "Ocean levels continue to rise 1-2mm a year since the last ice age"

Me: "Patently false.

http://sea­level.colo­rado.edu/c­urrent/sl_­ib_ns_glob­al.jpg "

Poptech: "Pattently true,

Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- No significan­t accelerati­on in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm"

You Poptech cited the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. TAR is outdated and has been revised by the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007.

From AR4:

"Global mean sea level has been rising... For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr-1.. . For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr-1, significantly higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf

Like I said:

Your assertion Poptech that

"Ocean levels continue to rise 1-2mm a year since the last ice age"

is patently false.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:40 PM on 12/04/2010
BTW Poptech, if you had bothered to actually click on the link that I had initially provided for you:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg

You would have seen that satellite measurements show the rate of sea level rise since 1993 as being ~3.0 mm/yr - which also demonstrates that your "Ocean levels continue to rise 1-2mm a year since the last ice age" assertion is patently false.

More information here:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

HTH.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:24 PM on 12/04/2010
Oh, I love scientist irony!

Publicola: "BTW Poptech, if you had bothered to actually ..."

C'mon, what can you expect of a guy who gets his science "news" from a tabloid?

http://www­.dailymail­.co.uk/new­s/article-­1250872/Cl­imategate-­U-turn-Ast­onishment-­scientist-­centre-glo­bal-warmin­g-email-ro­w-admits-d­ata-organi­sed.html

http://www­­­.dailyma­i­l­.co.uk­/t­vs­howb­iz/­art­ic­le-1­3340­­73/Ke­ndra­-­Wilk­ins­on-­sli­ps­-tiny­-b­i­kini-de­c­­laring-My­­­-body-bac­k­­.html

http://www­­­.dailyma­i­l­.co.uk­/t­vs­howb­iz/­art­ic­le-1­3338­­70/Je­nnif­e­r-An­ist­on-­sho­ws­-figu­re­-­black-b­i­­kini.html

http://www­­­.dailyma­i­l­.co.uk­/t­vs­howb­iz/­art­ic­le-1­3340­­39/Br­ooke­-­Hoga­n-p­aw-­ses­-p­ose-b­ea­c­h-tiger­-­­print-bik­­­ini.html

http://www­­­.dailyma­i­l­.co.uk­/t­vs­howb­iz/­art­ic­le-1­3338­­01/Le­mbit­-­Opik­-hi­ts-­bea­ch­-21-y­ea­r­-old-gi­r­­lfriend-M­­­erily-McG­i­­vern.ht­ml

http://www­­­.dailyma­i­l­.co.uk­/t­vs­howb­iz/­art­ic­le-1­3338­­75/Im­-A-C­e­lebr­ity­-20­10-­Ka­yla-C­ol­l­ins-str­i­­ps-bikini­­­-slap-tic­k­­le-pool­-A­g­gro-S­ant­os­.ht­ml

"HTH."

Right. I'm sure any day he's going to start learning from his many, many, MANY mistakes.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:14 AM on 12/04/2010
Pointing out that a website about climate science is favoring the current point of view of climatologists is not a crime against humanity, in fact it is not even a crime and in the long haul it will quite likely be shown to be a positive service to the world.

Alternatively, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars from their fuel customers into campaigns to mislead them can hardly be called ethical, except, perhaps, in the minds of the right wing power elite where giving a sucker a break is an ethical lapse. Their disconnect from any reality except wealth accumulation seems to be a common fault shared by uber classes and their pom pom waving minions around the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
01:17 PM on 12/04/2010
It's the same cast of conservative clowns. An excerpt from the Publishers Weekly review of:

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"

"...an important story about the misuse of science to mislead the public on matters ranging from the risks of smoking to the reality of global warming. The people the authors accuse in this carefully documented book are themselves scientists—mostly physicists, former cold warriors who now serve a conservative agenda, and vested interests like the tobacco industry. The authors name these scientists—all with powerful connections in government and the media—including Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and S. Fred Singer. Seven compelling chapters detail seven issues (acid rain, the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, global warming, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the banning of DDT) in which this group aimed to sow seeds of public doubt on matters of settled science. They did so by casting aspersions on the science and the scientists who produce it."
07:18 PM on 12/04/2010
That book is full of propaganda and lies,

Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/894.pdf
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:26 PM on 12/04/2010
There are two strong recommendations, Dardedar and Poptech. Thanks.
02:02 PM on 12/04/2010
If you think you are somehow fighting big oil, or the oil fortunes that currently run the world by pushing the global warming agenda, you are tilting at windmills. They are in favor of global carbon taxation to keep themselves in power.

http://x-journals.com/2009/us-patent-office-holds-secret-5000-patents/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:09 PM on 12/04/2010
Who the heck is x-journals.com and why do you believe what they tell you?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:40 PM on 12/04/2010
There goes SoCalWarming, citing another unknown source source on the internet again as it it were truth.

What a surprise.
04:42 AM on 12/04/2010
"But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
08:16 AM on 12/04/2010
Excellent post, I forgot about that email and have added it to the page,

The Truth about RealClimate.org
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:14 PM on 12/04/2010
Poptech again references his own self-publi­­­shed "popularte­c­hnology" webpages, which are riddled with climate science denier disinforma­­­­tion and lies.

For example, when are you going to remove the following patent, science denier tabloid-so­­­­urced lie* from your "popularte­­chnology" webpages, Poptech?

"Climatega­­­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

Oh, right - as you have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­­­ing that you have no interest or intent in promoting the truth about climate science.

----------­----------­----------­---------

* "Journalis­­­tic Malpractic­­­e On Global Warming ...

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995."

http://www­.economist­.com/blogs­/democracy­inamerica/­2010/02/cl­imate_chan­ge_and_med­ia
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:13 PM on 12/04/2010
Clearly, Andrew Poptech does not command the respect of the scientist on whom Andrew Poptech depends for his own credibility on these subjects: Roger Pielke, Jr.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html
(scroll to bottom of that page for the latest on this subject)

Andrew said... 22
The following has been added at the top of the post,
"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary."
WED NOV 18, 07:21:00 PM MST

Roger Pielke, Jr. said... 23
-22-Andrew
I always tell my students to define key terms when making an argument. I suggest taking a closer look at that first sentence. Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-)
WED NOV 18, 07:48:00 PM MST
09:55 AM on 12/04/2010
You guys love, i mean are really in love with taking things out of context. Is this the only way you can get your message through?

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike
Check out Tims response to this email..

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=632&filename=1139923663.txt
01:39 PM on 12/04/2010
It goes beyond realclimate.org. They were playing a big PR game to back up their bad science:

"You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!""
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
05:44 PM on 12/04/2010
There goes SoCalWarmer again, copy-and-pasting and parroting spin from right-wing bloggers again as it were fact.

Real scientific skeptics don't parrot political spin - only science deniers do.
07:03 PM on 12/03/2010
Meanwhile, from Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L23701:

Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.

Gerald A. Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado,
Claudia Tebaldi, Climate Central, Princeton, New Jersey,
Guy Walton, The Weather Channel, Atlanta, Georgia,
David Easterling, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, and
Larry McDaniel, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

"... current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one. This is because records that were declining uniformly earlier in the 20th century following a decay proportional to 1/n (n being the number of years since the beginning of record keeping) have been declining less slowly for record highs than record lows since the late 1970s. Model simulations of U.S. 20th century climate show a greater ratio of about four to one due to more uniform warming across the U.S. than in observations. Following an A1B emission scenario for the 21st century, the U.S. ratio of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures is projected to continue to increase, with ratios of about 20 to 1 by mid‐century, and roughly 50 to 1 by the end of the century."

europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0923/2009GL040736/2009GL040736.xml&t=meehl
07:08 PM on 12/03/2010
Here's a link to a copy of a letter, written on the stationery of the

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy.

It looks to be a direct bribe, eliciting various individual scientists to lie for money.

www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/AEI.pdf

It's signed by Stephen F. Hayward and Kenneth Green.

Who are these people? Hayward thinks global warming concerns are silly...

www.aei.org/issue/24545.

Green and Hayward are virulently anti-IPCC

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/275tmktp.asp

And the top link in a google search for "American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research" yields the following phrase from the organization's own web site...

"Conducts policy research supportive of limited government, private enterprise..."

http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=%22American%20Enterprise%20Institute%20for%20Public%20Policy%20Research%22
Conducts policy research supportive of limited government, private enterprise

smoking gun?

We report; you decide.
07:09 PM on 12/03/2010
And to amplify just a bit, The British newspaper, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

reported that the AEIPPR received $1.6 million from Exxon Mobil and noted that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond was vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia notes that the AEIPPR "is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas. Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, was a senior fellow at AEI (arriving from the Congress for Cultural Freedom following the widespread revelation of the group's CIA funding) and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_E­nterprise_­Institute#cite_note-Sample-130

It also observes that, "More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar.
02:38 PM on 12/03/2010
Another PT

Poptech 07:01 PM on 12/01/2010
Why would I disclose my personal information? I am a private person. It is good that you bring up the shill site RealClimate.org,

The Truth about RealClimate.org
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

Me:
“The link you just pointed to, slams realclimate for a dubious link to Al Gore. That is the TRUTH you are talking about. The link? Its registrar information list an organization which is headed up by someone who worked with Gore in, 1988 and again in 2000.

Wow- Holy Toledo, hold the presses! CO2 must not be a greenhouse gas!

Now, fair, ok, so you have some problem with that "connection" (since you wrote it and published it on Heartlands web site as well I think you understand how the domain system works)-

Now what is telling is that for your beloved PT.net (where you even host this page slamming RC for having dubious registrar information) - You have decided not to disclose YOUR OWN registrar information at all. Zippa/nada -
http://www.whois.net/whois/populartechnology.net

So really, how can anyone take you seriously?

And now that we have noticed this, if you do put some information on your domain up there, there is no way I or anyone else can be sure you haven't taken steps to conceal any unwanted connections.

You have placed yourself in a Catch-22 position. Well done.”
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:19 AM on 12/03/2010
Poptech's again referring to his own self-publi­­shed "populartec­hnology" webpages, which are riddled with disinforma­­­tion and lies.

For example, when are you going to remove the following patent, science denier tabloid-so­­­urced lie* from your "popularte­chnology" webpages, Poptech?

"Climatega­­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

Oh, right - as you Poptech have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­­ing that you have no intent or interest in promoting the truth about climate science.

---------------------------------------

* More info on this climate science denier lie at the Economist - info that has been pointed out to Poptech repeatedly­­:

"Journalis­­tic Malpractic­­e On Global Warming ...

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climate_change_and_media
06:51 PM on 12/03/2010
I am so happy you always bring up my favorite news story,

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Why would I remove a news story that I absolutely love?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
07:10 PM on 12/03/2010
Like I said:

You refuse to remove that lying tabloid "news" story from your web pages, thus demonstrat­­­­ing that you have no intent or interest in promoting the truth about climate science.
07:41 PM on 12/03/2010
I will never remove an excellent new article simply because you wish for it to be censored. All I do is promote the truth about climate science, especially what people like you wish to keep from the public.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:04 AM on 12/03/2010
Global Warming cannot increase food production when plants have succumbed to drought, rot, or washout, drowning, or burial due to extreme weather..check
Since 1980, global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid ...check
Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880,…Check
Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing,…... Check
Carbon Dioxide is still obeying the laws of physics and causing the stratosphere to cool and the troposphere to warm....Check
Fossil fuels are responsible for approximately 40 % of the air's Carbon Dioxide ... Check
Sea level rise has recently risen near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year... Check
Malaria is climbing the mountains to reach populations in higher elevations in Africa and Latin America. Cholera is growing in warmer seas. Dengue fever and Lyme disease are moving north. West Nile virus, never seen on this continent until seven years ago, has infected more than 21,000 people in the United States and Canada and killed more than 800….Check
Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease have been shown to be driven by global warming... Check
Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming... Check
Fossil fuel supported web sites have serious issues with the surface temperature record and adjustments, but the scientific community, in general, does not... Check
Starting a list of “peer reviewed” journals with “Energy and Environment” articles is a joke. Right? Right? ....check
09:18 AM on 12/03/2010
From the IPCC report name one amphibian species that has gone extinct - oh and make sure to check recent studies before you embarrass yourself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JasonMNan
09:40 AM on 12/03/2010
You are correct, it is difficult to say to what degree global warming has affected a particular species. But the rest is pretty much spot on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
01:25 AM on 12/04/2010
This just in, four years ago:

"WASHINGTON — Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.

These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

“We are finally seeing species going extinct,” said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. “Now we’ve got the evidence. It’s here. It’s real. This is not just biologists’ intuition. It’s what’s happening.”

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15828892/ns/world_news-world_environment/

See also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061115090040.htm

Etc.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:22 AM on 12/03/2010
Good work StephenBP. Useful to those of us who are curious about the effects of a warmer Mother Nature. And Mother Nature is just getting started.