Your not-so-impossible mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a headline that better reflects the actual content of today’s NY Times article, which redebunks long-debunked disinformer Richard Lindzen.

Headlines are important because research shows that most newspaper readers don’t get much beyond them. And NY Times headlines sweep across the internet through twitter, facebook, news aggregators and search engines.  Probably 10 to 50 times as many people see the headlines as read any substantial portion of the story.

So when the New York Times publishes a front-page piece eviscerating Dr. Richard Lindzen and his “discredited” theory — the NYT’s word — that the cloud feedback could somehow save us from catastrophic global warming, it ought to have a better headline than “Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters.”

Even worse, the heavily-trafficked front page of the NY Times website has this teaser for the piece:

Again, far more people are going to read this teaser — written by the editors, not the reporter — than actually read the story. What they are going to come away with is the notion that climate skeptics aka deniers aka disinformers have legitimate arguments that might “save us.”

Obviously nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to the discredited Dr. Lindzen. As the article notes:

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

The reporter, Justin Gillis, has done a fine job here. What could be clearer than “most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited”?

But why should a reader have to wade through many, many paragraphs to learn that this “last bastion” is nothing more than a “Potemkin village”? Again, “bastion” is a very strong image that should not be applied to something as flimsy as the house of cards that is Lindzen’s discredited theory.

Indeed, the recent scientific literature includes multiple studies that conclude clouds are likely to be an amplifying feedback, not one that reduces impacts:

• Science: “Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming” — an amplifying feedback (sorry Lindzen and fellow disinformers)
• Major Science study: Observations confirm “the short-term cloud feedback is likely positive”
• Journal of Climate: New cloud feedback results “provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity

Lindzen himself has been debunked by some of the leading climate scientists in the country (see Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is “seriously in error”). Climatologist Kevin Trenberth said in 2010 of one paper co-authored by Lindzen that the flaws “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”

This is hardly the first time the NY Times has ruined a good climate story with a lousy headline — see “Crappy Headline” Ruins New York Times Story on Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather. In that case, the headline was “Scientists See More Deadly Weather, but Dispute the Cause.” The author of that piece, John Broder called it a “crappy headline.”  He said of the two scientists he spoke to and quoted — NOAA’s Thomas R. Karl and NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth — “they don’t dispute the cause.” Doh!

I get that even the NY Times is under pressure to write headlines that will appeal to the most people, headlines that suggest controversy and dispute. But such headlines are inappropriate for articles whose actual content does not reflect controversy and dispute. It is time for the paper to review its headline policy, at least on climate, and, I think, give reporters some sort of a veto power.

We’ve seen the lousy headlines. What headline would you suggest?

One final point. The other reason that only slashing greenhouse gas emissions — not having your head in the clouds — can “save us” is that there are many, many more documented amplifying feedbacks poised to kick in if we keep taking no action:

• NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100
• Stunning Peatlands Amplifying Feedback: Drying Wetlands and Intensifying Wildfires Boost Carbon Release Ninefold
• The destruction of the tropical wetlands
• Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
• Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
• The desertification-global warming feedback

To add your voice to the petition calling on Discovery Communications to stop the self-censorship of climate science, click here.

by Brad Johnson

When the Discovery Channel aired “On Thin Ice,” its Frozen Planet episode documenting changes in the Arctic, it conveniently left out human causes. The show’s producer told the New York Times she didn’t want people saying “don’t watch this show because it has a slant on climate change” – illustrating everything wrong with the conversation around climate change in America. This afternoon, I and other members of Forecast the Facts delivered a petition to the Discovery offices with 10,000 signatures demanding the organization correct this unscientific self-censorship:

We are deeply disappointed by your decision not to explain the science, and human causes, of global warming in the “On Thin Ice” episode of the Frozen Planet series. As the world’s leader in environmental programming, your decision sends a dangerous message to media companies around the world — that it is better to censor yourself than risk criticism by global warming deniers. We call on you to immediately acknowledge this error and to conduct a review of all Discovery programming decisions to ensure no such self-censorship happens again.

As I and other members of Forecast the Facts, scientists Steve Scolnik and Clarence Maloney, entered the Discovery headquarters in Silver Spring, MD, we were greeted by a security officer in the vestibule. Corporate Security Manager David Sterner told us that no-one in communications, production, or viewer relations was or would be available to accept the petition, nor were we welcome even into the main lobby. However, he did personally guarantee that the 10,000 signatures and the letter addressed to Discovery chairman John Hendricks would be delivered on our behalf.

It is an essential fact that burning fossil fuels is the cause of the melting poles. As Bill McKibben noted, “On Thin Ice” is no different than a documentary on the ravages of lung cancer that censored mention of cigarettes. The pursuit of profit is not a valid excuse for the censorship of science. Neither is the fear of reprisal from well funded polluters.

Faced with a gross failure of leadership on climate pollution by those in power, average citizens are mobilizing to demand honesty and action. But they’re not the only ones. Today also marks the start of the inaugural science policy conference of the American Geophysical Union, a response by the leading organization of earth scientists to the increasing disconnect between the facts of science and the decisions made by politicians and corporations. The central topic of today’s sessions? The rapidly changing Arctic.

Brad Johnson is campaign manager for Forecast the Facts.

To add your voice to the petition calling on Discovery Communications to stop the self-censorship of climate science, click here.

by Jessica Goad

A recent study from the Environmental Protection Agency showing that chemicals from hydraulic fracturing had contaminated groundwater has just been validated by an independent hydrology expert.

The impact of natural gas drilling — particularly hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — on drinking water and groundwater has been heavily debated. It has also been one of the most serious PR issues for the oil and gas industry.

In December 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency found official evidence that poisonous chemicals from fracking had contaminated water near drill rigs in Pavillion, Wyoming. That study has now been backed up by an independent expert. In a report released today, commissioned by several environmental groups, Dr. Tom Myers writes that:

After consideration of the evidence presented in the EPA report and in URS (2009 and 2010), it is clear that hydraulic fracturing (fracking [Kramer 2011]) has caused pollution of the Wind River formation and aquifer… The EPA’s conclusion is sound.

Myers then details the Pavillion area’s unique geology and water pathways, as well as the shoddy construction of the wells that likely contributed to water contamination.  He also outlines a number of ways that EPA can improve on its analysis and continue to collect critical data.

When EPA released the draft findings last December, the natural gas industry and its elected allies were quick to pounce and attacked it as “scientifically questionable,” “reckless,” and lacking  “a definitive conclusion.”

Importantly, Myers notes in his report that:

The situation at Pavillion is not an analogue for other gas plays because the geology and regulatory framework may be different.

Nevertheless, it is a reminder for politicians like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who continue to claim that there has “never been one case — documented case — of groundwater contamination.”

However, the lack of public data makes it difficult to gather evidence of drinking water contamination.  As New York Times reporter Ian Urbina noted in an investigation last August, researchers often are:

…unable to investigate many suspected cases because their details were sealed from the public when energy companies settled lawsuits with landowners.

The oil and gas industry is exempt from portions of a number of environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Coal activists in Boston put fake stickers on the face of Bank of America ATMs.

Many of America’s largest banks have clear policies on the need to address climate change.

However, while many of those institutions are investing heavily in renewables and efficiency, they’re also helping finance coal plants and destructive mountaintop removal operations.

Investment banks have played a central role in driving growth of clean energy over the last decade. But can these banks claim that they are engaging in true “environmental finance” if they are handing out money to an industry that is one of the greatest threats to our climate?

A new report card issued today by the Sierra Club and the Rainforest Action Network ranks the nation’s leading banks on their exposure to the coal industry. The results aren’t good. Almost all the grades are D’s, and no bank on the list gets better than a C- on financing coal projects.

The graders sifted through environmental finance policies, social responsibility reports, and annual reports to get a solid picture of how each bank prioritizes sustainability and integrates coal in its portfolio. After evaluating the banks on their exposure to coal, the graders gave each institution an opportunity to provide more information. If appropriate, the grades were adjusted accordingly. But those adjustments didn’t dramatically improve any of the evaluations:

The policies reviewed in this report reveal that there is no lack of words spent by banks on how to deal with the climate and environmental health risks of the coal industry; what is lacking are serious policies that are implemented in earnest. Continuing to be a major financier of coal is not going to save banks’ hard-won reputations, support their long-term financial stability or protect our climate.

So how do the portfolios of the nation’s top five financial backers of coal  — the so-called “filthy five” — match up with their stated positions on climate change? We’ve compared them below by matching each bank’s public statement on climate change with the public information gathered in the report card.

• Bank of America climate statement: “Global climate change represents one of the greatest challenges faced by our society. How we address this challenge today will have important impacts on current and future generations.”
• Bank of America coal portfolio: Between January of 2010 and March of 2012, the institution brokered 44 transactions for coal-burning power plants or mountaintop removal operations. Bank of America is an underwriter for more than 43 percent of mountaintop removal coal mined in Appalachia.
• JP Morgan Chase climate statement: “As a global company, JPMorgan Chase recognizes the international consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is proud to be a major participant in the global market for emission reductions established by the Kyoto Protocol.”
• JP Morgan Chase coal portfolio: Between January of 2010 and March of 2012, the institution brokered 42 transactions in the coal industry. The organization has substantially reduced activity in American mountaintop removal; however, the company is the leading underwriter for the global coal industry.
• Citibank climate statement: “Climate change poses significant risks to the global economy that require urgent action. The burning of fossil fuels to meet energy needs, loss of forests, and other activities are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.”
• Citibank coal portfolio: Between January of 2010 and March of 2012, Citi brokered 40 transactions in the coal sector. Citi has recognized the “adverse environmental impacts” of mountaintop removal, but still remains a top financier of projects. The company has also implemented “carbon principles” to evaluate coal projects; however, the graders conclude there is no evidence that these principles have stopped or slowed the bank’s financial activity for carbon-intensive projects.
• Morgan Stanley climate statement: “Morgan Stanley recognizes that the climate is changing and that emissions from human activity are one of the leading factors requiring immediate attention. We are aware of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
• Morgan Stanley coal portfolio: Between January of 2010 and March of 2012, Morgan Stanley brokered 33 transactions in the coal sector. The institution created a new internal standard for evaluating mountaintop removal projects, causing it to drop six transactions in recent years. Morgan Stanley has also supported a price on carbon. However, it still remains a very active investor in both coal generation and mountaintop removal.
• Wells Fargo climate statement (pdf): “Environmental finance represents an opportunity for the entire global economy – an opportunity to stimulate growth, employ eager minds and address some of the world’s most pressing problems.
• Wells Fargo coal portfolio: Between January of 2010 and March of 2012, Wells Fargo brokered 26 transactions in the coal sector. The institution said in a recent report that it would “disassociate itself” from mountaintop removal mining; however, the report card points out that Wells Fargo has increased its exposure to mining companies in this sector by 35% in the last year.

This is a crude comparison. But the trend is clear. Even while America’s largest banks make bold statements about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are still heavily engaged in the climate-polluting coal sector.

by Lisa Hymas, reposted from Grist

We had lots of questions for acclaimed biologist and conservationist Edward O. Wilson when he dropped by the Grist office recently while touring to promote his latest book, The Social Conquest of Earth.

But Wilson directed the toughest question of the day back at us: Why aren’t you young people out protesting the mess that’s being made of the planet?

As we squirmed in our seats, Wilson, 82, continued: “Why are you not repeating what was done in the ‘60s? Why aren’t you in the streets? And what in the world has happened to the green movement that used to be on our minds and accompanied by outrage and high hopes? What went wrong?”

We didn’t have great answers, so we’re going to turn the questioning on you, dear readers: Why aren’t you out in the streets? And if you are, where, why, and who else is out there with you? Should more of us be staging ’60s-style protests? Can online activism or lobbying in the halls of power make just as much of a difference, or more? Tell us what you think in comments below.

Now back to the questions we asked Wilson about his life’s work and his new book. Over the course of his long career as a professor at Harvard, he’s conducted pioneering research on ants, written seminal books on sociobiology and biogeography, published ant-centric fiction in The New Yorker, and led major efforts to preserve global biodiversity. His new book traces human morality, religion, and arts to their biological roots, and turns traditional Darwinism on its head, arguing that social groups and tribes are the primary drivers of natural selection.

Q. The title of your book has the word social in it. Social has become a buzzword for online networking, this new way of forming groups. Are you on Facebook? Are you using the internet to look at the way groups behave?

A. No, others are doing that.

We are entering a new world, but we’re entering it as Paleolithic brains. Here’s my formula for Earth’s civilization: We are a Star Wars civilization. We have Stone Age emotions. We have medieval institutions — most notably, the churches. And we have god-like technology. And this god-like technology is dragging us forward in ways that are totally unpredictable.

We have not gotten beyond the powerful propensity to believe our group is superior to other comparable groups. However, we are draining away the instinctual energy from nationalism — that’s a big help. I think we’re seeing the beginning of the draining away from the dreadfully dissolutive, oppressive institutions of organized religion. Seeing what’s happening is part of the reason for the Tea Party and the populist revolt now that has kidnapped the Republican Party. There’s a resentment about the old bonds and the old groups dissolving and new groups being formed.

Q. Have you seen concern about biodiversity decline over the last decade? A lot of energy seems to be going toward climate change and not as much toward biodiversity.

Read more

by Shauna Theel, via Media Matters

A recent study of satellite data found that nighttime land temperatures in the immediate vicinity of wind turbines in Texas have increased relative to nearby areas without turbines. Conservative media outlets, including Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh and Jim Hoft, are distorting the research to claim that wind farms “cause global warming” and Fox News’ morning show concluded “wind ain’t working.” But the study’s lead author said via email that this coverage is “misleading.”

The researchers, led by Liming Zhou, said it is “[v]ery likely” that “wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” The turbines pull down warm air, increasing land surface temperatures, which already have “a larger day-night variation” than the surface air temperatures featured in daily weather reports.

The authors further noted that “this analysis is from a short period,” from 2003 to 2011, and is “over a region with rapid growth of wind farms,” west-central Texas, so it is likely that their estimate of a “nighttime warming effect” is higher than “in other locations and over longer periods.”

This piece was originally published at Media Matters for America and was republished with permission.

See also the Washington Post’s “No, wind farms are not causing global warming,” which quotes Stanford’s Mark Jacobson on the subject:

Read more

by Michael Conathan

Before Christopher Columbus’s grandparents were born, early European explorers from the Vikings to the Basques had already discovered an untold wealth of fish in the corner of the northwest Atlantic now known as the Gulf of Maine. Here, the proximity of seemingly limitless stocks of cod that could be readily salted, dried, and transported back across the ocean helped establish communities that laid the groundwork for our modern-day society.

Today there is no more iconic profession in eastern New England than fishing. From the “Ocean State” of Rhode Island, to the Sacred Cod that has hung in the Massachusetts House of Representatives chamber since 1784, to the lobster that epitomizes coastal Maine, fish are integral to New England’s culture and economy.

Today this fishery—which was once so robust, legend says, that fishermen could haul in a healthy catch just by dropping a weighted basket over the side of a skiff— is struggling to recover from decades of overfishing.

Coastal communities throughout New England rely on fishing as a fundamental source of employment, revenue, and cultural identity. And interest in this fishery expands beyond the shores from Eastport, Maine, to Point Judith, Rhode Island. As consumers become ever more educated about their seafood—trying to balance factors such as local sourcing, environmental impacts of different fishing gear, mercury and heavy metal content, and overall sustainability—reestablishing one of the world’s most productive fisheries is of interest to more people than ever before.

This report begins by summarizing management of the northeast multispecies fishery, which is more commonly known as the New England groundfishery and whose participants are referred to as groundfishermen. (These terms will be used throughout this report.) The fishery is comprised of 15 bottom-dwelling species of fish such as haddock, flounders, and the iconic cod, which in some cases are further divided into distinct populations known as “stocks.” Atlantic cod, for example, is managed as Gulf of Maine cod, Georges Bank cod, and Georges Bank cod east.

The document details a sea change that occurred when the groundfishery shifted to a management system known as sector management, or simply “sectors,” at the beginning of the 2010 fishing year. It then provides an overview of looming challenges facing the fishery including the state of fisheries science, how to monitor and oversee the fishery in a cost-effective manner, and how to prevent socioeconomic upheaval in traditional fishing communities during the transition to a new management system intended to end the recent history of overfishing in the region.

The report concludes with recommendations for improving both the management of the fishery and the relationships among fishery stakeholders, which are critical to the fishery’s future.

Read more

by Kiley Kroh and Rebecca Leber

Two years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP is reporting profits of $5.9 billion for the first quarter of 2012.

That’s an 18.5 percent dip compared to the first quarter of last year; however, it’s a major reversal from 2010. After claiming a loss that year, BP quickly rebounded in 2011, recording a profit of $25.7 billion.

Even as the company sells off assets to pay billions in damages for the 2010 disaster, it is already pursuing drilling plans again in the Gulf of Mexico:

A round-up of the top climate and energy stories. Please post other links below.

Critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, which usually arrive in late March or early April to graze on shrimplike plankton in New England, began arriving before Christmas, as water temperatures hovered several degrees above normal, dispersing only recently. [Washington Post]

Scientific studies are misrepresented all the time. But now and again the distortions get particularly bad. That was the case Monday, when Fox News ran the headline, “New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming.” A number of other media outlets did the same thing. And it’s… not true at all. [WashPost]

Opinion: “As a conservative Republican who very much understands the need to reduce and control our spending, it may seem strange that I understand and accept that climate change is impacting my home, state and country.” [Press Citizen]

In the clammy depths of a southern Illinois coal mine lies the largest fossil forest ever discovered, at least 50 times as extensive as the previous contender. [New York Times]

Over the weekend, baseball announcer Tim McCarver became the source of ridicule when he blamed global warming as a reason for the increase in home run totals in recent years. But it was the criticism of McCarver rather than McCarver’s comment that was over the top. [Washington Post Weather Gang]

While polls show the economy as the top concern of voters, a review of political attack ads suggests a different issue dominates: energy. [Bloomberg]

BP is planning to start three new oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico this year. The launch of the new rigs will bring the number of BP rigs in the Gulf to eight – more than the oil giant had before the devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster three years ago. [Guardian]