“¦ please remember what the nation’s top climate scientist has said:

“¦ the most serious effects will be visited upon the young and the unborn, the generations that bear no responsibility for the problem.

Read more

Cartoonist Tom Toles has two environmentally-themed cartoons today.  The first is “Arrows of time”:
Read more

The state that stands to suffer the most from human-caused climate change has elected leaders who want to stop efforts to avoid its inundation (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100“).  That’s true of the Governor and presidential hopeful (see “Jindal tries to block climate change regulation“).  And It’s true of GOP Sen. Vitter who tried to block climate change response centers.

In their final debate on Thursday night, Vitter and his challenger Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) grappled with global warming, which threatens Louisiana with destruction through sea level rise, strengthened storms, heat waves, and drought.  Brad Johnson has the story and the video the reveals the sharp contrast between these two candidates on the issue  that should be of greatest importance to Louisiana voters.

Read more

Our guest blogger today is Van Jones.

New polls are showing that the majority of Californians reject Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative — funded by Texas oil companies — that would effectively repeal the state’s landmark clean energy and environmental protection laws.

What the polls do not show and what few news outlets are covering, is the striking diversity of voices that are demanding clean energy, and rejecting the false notion that protecting the planet and our public health will hurt the economy.

Read more

False equivalence mars the ‘why can’t we all get along?’ message

I attended the entire pre-election ‘rally’ by comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert today.  If the health and well-being of the nation and countless future generations, including my daughter, weren’t at risk in the election Tuesday, one could revel in the entertainment.

But Stewart aspires to be more than an entertainer.  While he was clearly trying to walk a fine line here and not be overtly politically, the fact is it’s long, long past time to pick sides.  The political message basically equated Tea Party extremists and people like Limbaugh and Beck on one side with people on the other side who have sometimes pointed out the extremism of the Tea Party, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

Sorry, Jon, but Matthews ain’t Palin or O’Donnell.  Olbermann ain’t Beck.  Not even close.

It is precisely the kind of false equivalence that Jon Stewart skewers on his show.  More than anything else, the rally’s whole, “why can’t we just all get along through compromise and reason”  message reminded me most of Barack Obama circa 2008 or is that circa 2009 or is that circa now?

Read more

For two weekends in a row, this new CP feature has garnered 99 comments.  I’m hoping we can get to triple digits in this thread.

Read more

This is God’s green earth and we ought to respect it.

Faced with relentless attacks on his vote for clean energy legislation, Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) slammed his critics for questioning climate science and doing the bidding of special interests who are destroying the environment.  Brad Johnson has the story and the video.

Read more

This week Joel Francis, a senior at Cal State Los Angeles and a Marine Corps veteran, flew to the Wichita, Kansas headquarters of Koch Industries.  His mission was to knock on Charles Koch’s door, and demand he defend his involvement in Prop 23.  CAP’s Jorge Madrid has the story.

“If you are going to try to hurt the economy of a state you don’t even live in, then you ought to have the courage to explain yourself in person” said Francis.

Read more

Faced with relentless attacks on his vote for clean energy legislation, Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) slammed his critics for questioning climate science and doing the bidding of special interests who are destroying the environment. In a recent debate with challengers Republican Todd Young and Libertarian Greg Knott, Hill explained why he supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have limited greenhouse pollution, put billions of dollars into a clean energy economy, and created new jobs in Indiana.

Young, a signatory of the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge, has argued that climate science is “a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues.” During the debate, Young took a less confrontational stance, saying that “there are people of goodwill on both sides of the issue.” Hill overcame scattered jeers from the audience when he accurately responded that the “science is overwhelming”:

The science is overwhelming. There is no question that man is contributing to climate change. No question about it. The science is overwhelming. Look, folks: this is God’s green earth and we ought to respect it. We ought to do what is right for our environment. This bill is what’s right for our environment. This is God’s green earth and we ought to protect it. For years, we have tried to pass legislation and the special interests always bought it out. If this is so bad, why did Ronald Reagan himself do the same thing with sulfur when he was President of the United States? Same cap-and-trade bill. No difference. Same bill. This is not what people have portrayed it to be. It’s the special interests again using their money influence to make sure that their interests are protected and not our environment. [APPLAUSE]

Watch it:

In May, 2010, the National Academies of Science reported to Congress that “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change” because global warming is “caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.”

Meanwhile, polluters have spent $247 million this year alone to shape public opinion in their favor, including $69.5 million on defending pollution and attacking clean energy reform.

Unfortunately, the world needs to take firm action about the threat of manmade climate change within the next decade….   Realistically, there may be no chance to educate the general public in depth about the science so quickly. Meanwhile, a well-funded and effective professional disinformation campaign has been successful in sowing confusion, and many people mistakenly think climate change science is unreliable or is controversial within the expert community. Thus, the more urgent task for us scientists may well be to give the public guidelines for recognizing and rejecting junk science and disinformation. If students today, who will be adults tomorrow, can understand and apply these guidelines, they may not need a detailed knowledge of climate change science. To that end, I offer the following six principles.

Climatologist Richard C. J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.  Although I did my thesis research at Scripps, we’ve never formally met.

Somerville helped organize the must-read 2007 Bali Climate Declaration, in which more than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientist explained why we must limit total warming to no more than 2°C.

He sent me a new essay published online with open access in Climatic Change, “How much should the public know about climate science?“  He notes that recent research shows “global emissions of greenhouse gases must peak and decline within the next decade if global warming is to be limited to a level that avoids severe climate disruption” (see figure below).

Given the success of the most effective, immoral, and self-destructive disinformation campaign in US history, scientists need to focus their messaging on a handful of key points.  Somerville offers six:

Read more

Global Geothermal Capacity Will Grow 78% by 2015

In its recently released Sixth Edition of the Geothermal Report, ABS Energy Research concludes that although 2009 was a very difficult year for the geothermal industry, the market will continue to grow over the next five years.

Read more

So far, the San Francisco Giants are pounding the Texas Rangers in the World Series.  As a Yankee fan — there, I said it, but I was born and raised in a small town in New York — I wouldn’t normally care much who wins.

But there is a delicious coincidence in this series that might get you rooting for the Giants, as California’s 350.org headquarters explains:
Read more

Hansen and Ruddiman debunk RI GOPer’s false claims

State Rep. John Loughlin, the Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, is part of the radical anti-science, pro-pollution movement that is a core plank of Tea Party ideology.  Brad Johnson has the story, which I follow with a reposting of Politifact’s thorough debunking of Loughlin’s disinformation.

When asked why he signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge at an October 19 debate, Loughlin launched into a falsehood-drenched rant about climate science:

Read more

Halliburton and BP knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

We’ve long known that the three underlying causes of BP’s Titanic oil disaster were Recklessness, Arrogance, and Hubris.  Back on May 9, I noted that an expert reviewer found the well’s cement seal “was probably faulty” and inadequately tested (to save money).  Now we have a better handle on the proximate cause, thanks to a new report from the presidential commission investigating the disaster.

And it should surprise no one Halliburton that the energy giant formerly run by Dick Cheney is culpable (see “BP oil disaster is Cheney’s Katrina“).  As the NYT editorializes today:

Read more

State Rep. John Loughlin, the Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, is part of the radical science denial movement that is a core plank of Tea Party ideology. When asked why he signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge at an October 19 debate, Loughlin launched into a falsehood-drenched rant about climate science:

I’m not a scientist, but I did work for NASA. And when I was at NASA we had a scientist who I actually did some of the press release work for by the name of Dr. James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen released a peer-reviewed paper in the ’70s that talked about global cooling. And then it’s only later that he’s kind of gotten the conversion to global warming. The IPCC had the leaked emails, I think there’s no scientific consensus. And I think it’s foolhardy to link tax policy to science when there is really not a scientific consensus on global warming at this point. . . .

I’m saying really the earth is warming, but it’s not conclusively caused by man. It’s not conclusive. I mean 94 percent of the carbon emissions which you so want to get rid of are caused by nature.

Watch it:

PolitiFact has soundly debunked Loughlin’s conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, interviewing Dr. James Hansen himself, who said quite simply that Loughlin “is speaking nonsense.”

Americans for Prosperity has repeatedly complained that their “No Climate Tax” pledge has nothing to do with questioning the science, even though AFP regularly questions the science. Speaking at a screening of (Astro)Turf Wars, AFP VP of Policy Phil Kerpen dismissed his organization’s climate denial as just being “off message.” In reality, AFP and Loughlin’s denial that fossil fuel pollution is destroying our climate serves the interests of the oil and gas companies who fund them.

“I believe global climate change is real,” Loughlin’s opponent, David N. Cicilline, retorted:

I believe we have a responsibility to address it and do whatever we can to protect our environment and develop and produce clean energy. I believe it is an opportunity for America to lead the world again in the production and development of clean energy. When Rep. Loughlin is out publicly talking about global climate change, he mocks it, that it’s not serious. This is a serious issue. We have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, to address global climate change that is caused by pollution. There is broad scientific consensus on this.

“This is not just something you believe in! This is not like the Easter Bunny!” Loughlin interrupted.

To the crowd’s applause, Cicilline retorted: “No, it’s science.”

A new study by a Duke University-led team of climate scientists suggests that global warming is the main cause of a significant intensification in the North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH) that in recent decades has more than doubled the frequency of abnormally wet or dry summer weather in the southeastern United States.

The NASH, commonly referred to as the Bermuda High, is an area of high pressure that forms each summer near Bermuda, where its powerful surface center helps steer Atlantic hurricanes and plays a major role in shaping weather in the eastern United States, Western Europe and northwestern Africa.

That’s from the Duke University news release for a new study in the Journal of Climate.

In a September 2009 post, “Hell and High Water hits Georgia,” I noted that, “as climate scientists have predicted for a long time, wild climate swings are becoming the norm, in this case with once-in-a-century drought followed by once-in-a-century flooding.”  And in fact, the flooding was more like a once in 500 year event.

Now a team of scientists has quantified the rise in extreme wet and dry summer weather — and finds global warming is likely the main cause.  The release continues:

Read more

Utah Senate GOP candidate Mike Lee: A government shutdown “May be absolutely necessary”

Earlier this week, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”  Now more Republicans have crush the always-dubious notion that we might see some sort of post-partisan compromise on energy or any other government-funded strategy to create jobs or protect the health and well-being of our children. ThinkProgress has the story. Read more

In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said he believes politicians in Washington need to fight the “people that have polluted the world, who have enriched themselves in doing that,” and defend climate action, as California is now doing. Schwarzenegger has joined with California’s cleantech community, the climate movement, and economic justice groups to “wipe out Proposition 23″³ “” the oil-funded initiative to kill the state’s landmark global warming legislation, AB 32.

Brad Johnson has the story — and must-see video — of a man who epitomizes the term ‘climate hawk‘:

Read more

Scientific American defends their online poll, while FAIR and a former editor join the critics

Climate skeptics reach a new low. Their goal: Don’t let scientists influence policy, period.

That’s Andrew Leonard, one of the must-read columnists at Salon.  He takes the opportunity of the lame Scientific American online poll to eviscerate one of the nonsensical arguments fashionable among the anti-science crowd.

As an aside, if you check out the poll results now, the disinformers have clearly driven their faithful lemmings to it in droves.  With almost 7 times as many respondents, an even higher fraction have now voted for the nonsense, self-destrucive positions, including the one Leonard dismantles:

Read more

In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said he believes politicians in Washington need to fight the “rich people that have polluted the world” and defend climate action, as California is now doing. Schwarzenegger has joined with California’s cleantech community, the climate movement, and economic justice groups to “wipe out Proposition 23″ — the oil-funded initiative to kill the state’s landmark global warming legislation, AB 32. He believes that politicians who support our soldiers who are “risking their lives to defend this country” should “stand up against the oil companies.” Those who have instead conceded to the flood of dirty cash from polluters — at least $69.5 million in ads alone this year — are “disgusting” “wimps”:

What would help is if we are now successful in beating back the Texan oil companies, the same players that have been there for decades ruining everything. You know, trying to get rid of our light rail in 45 cities. And so now the important thing is we push back, wipe out Proposition 23. And in doing that, it will be one of the first times in a long time where oil companies — rich people that have polluted the world, who have enriched themselves in doing that — have been pushed back. And it will be that momentum.

We need to go to Washington and say, “Look what happened. You, because oil companies have spent money against you, they have threatened you, you backed off the energy policy and the environmental policy in Washington.” What wimps. No guts. I mean, here, you idolize and always celebrate the great warriors, our soldiers, our men and women who go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they’re risking their lives to defend this country, and you’re not even willing to stand up against the oil companies? I say, “That’s disgusting.” You promised the people you’d represent them. You didn’t promise the people you’d represent the oil companies and the special interests.

Watch it:

Schwarzenegger is right — America needs more climate hawks.