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