A fabulous Bill Maher explanation of why Global Warming is NOT a debate.
The University of Virginia has filed two new responses in its ongoing court battle fending off Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's politically-motivated witch hunt against climate scientist Michael Mann. UVA correctly alerts the court that crazy Cuccinelli's 'investigation' is “an unprecedented and improper governmental intrusion into ongoing scientific research” [PDF of filing].
Cuccinelli's relentless campaign to waste Virginia taxpayer money attacking Mann continues, despite a total lack of evidence of any wrongdoing on UVA's or Mann's part. Instead the row hinges entirely on Cuccinelli's zeal to pollute public discourse with his own climate denial, clogging the courts with a thinly veiled attack on academic freedom that the Washington Post labeled "a pernicious fishing expedition."
Barbara Yaffe's outrageous opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun argues that environmentalists ought to shift their focus in their rallying calls against the tar sands. Yesterday, the Pembina Institute, Equiterre and Environmental Defence made a united call to the Harper government to start being more stringent in its enforcement of environmental laws, and to do more to respect aboriginal treaty rights in Canada's tar sands.
The environmentalists' report, Duty calls: Federal Responsibility in Canada's Oilsands aptly argues that filthy tar sands development is on track to derail any and all of Ottawa's targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Duty Calls outlines Ottawa's responsbility for environmental management in the oil sands and explores what's at stake if Ottawa continues to neglect this responsibility.
Our political leaders have been more talk than walk in terms of managing the tar sands, but the Vancouver Sun's Yaffe argues that politicians must have their reasons. She refers to William Kimber of the Alberta-based Canada West Foundation, who argues that, as filthy as the Fort McMurray enterprise is, we can't dispute that it's fuelling the economy. It's the age-old, foolish 'economy vs. environment' positioning that is a non-starter when you consider that there would be no economy without the value of environmental resources.
What the Vancouver Sun fails to note is that the ongoing deregulation of the tar sands benefits Big Oil more than the residents of Alberta or the environment, and that's a serious problem in the long term, both for the environment and the economy. Failing to regulate the tar sands leaves the federal government exposed to ongoing and sustained legal challenges, and exposes the oil sands industry to tougher environmental restrictions in the international marketplace. Continued federal absence leaves Canadians vulnerable to the economic uncertainty resulting from tying the value of the Canadian dollar to the price of oil.
The Vancouver Sun also fails to highlight the tar sands' flagrant use of water, the toxic tailings ponds, and their role as the highest source of greenhouse gases in Canada. And these woes are only going to increase. According to the report, projects that have already been approved will see tar sands production increase to 4 million barrels a day. If all projects currently in the approval process proceed, we'll be looking at nearly twice that.
Joel Francis, a Marine Corps veteran and senior at Cal State Los Angeles, has issued a debate challenge to Koch Industries' billionaire CEO Charles Koch on his support for the disastrous Prop 23 attack on California's climate and clean energy progress.
Bankrolled with at least $1 million of Kochtopus funding, along with even larger amounts from Texas oil companies Valero Energy and Tesoro Corp. and Ohio-based Marathon Energy, Proposition 23 is on the ballot in California this November, and would set back California's ambitious efforts to fight climate change and create clean energy jobs.
Student leader Joel Francis challenges Charles Koch to meet him "anytime, anywhere in the state before election day" to explain why Koch is meddling with democracy in a state he doesn't even live in.
Watch Francis' debate challenge to Charles Koch:
Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration's plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.
The Tyee has an excellent piece exploring the joint lobbying efforts of the Canadian government and the oil industry to attack European climate legislation that would set a precedent that could eventually impact the development of Alberta's dirty tar sands.
While very little of Alberta's tar sands oil is currently exported to Europe (nearly all goes to the U.S.), the entrenched tar sands defenders in Canadian government and the oil companies who stand to profit from tar sands development are concerned that Europe's efforts to favor low-carbon fuel sources could influence other countries that also need to find ways to reduce global warming emissions - say the U.S. for instance.
That could spell disaster for the Alberta tar sands profiteers, since the tar sands are known to have a far greater carbon footprint than conventional oil, and certainly more than rapidly-growing alternative fuels.
The Center for American Progress released a comprehensive analysis and independent expert review examining the implications of the confirmed $833 million in corporate funding from Big Oil to energy research at universities over the last decade. The report examines 10 recent university-industry agreements involving as many as 43 companies, 13 leading universities, and two federal research labs.
Big Oil Goes to College: An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities explores the growing phenomenon of academic-corporate partnerships at universities, and the findings demonstrate why everyone ought to be concerned. As these partnerships are only likely to proliferate and expand, how universities manage knowledge for the public good - particularly research that has considerable ramifications for how we deal with the climate crisis - must be addressed.
Before Congress releases billions of dollars in federal funding for R&D of alternative and renewable energy and energy efficiency through these public-private partnerships, it should take a good look at the CAP report's findings and recommendations.
In a breathless update on the tawdry Wegmangate tale of plagiarism, mining promoter and amateur statisitican Stepehn McIntyre (proprietor of Climate Audit) has tried to distract from the case at hand by imagining an earlier instance of plagiarism, allegedly committed by Edward Wegman's victim, Raymond Bradley.
For those just catching up, the blogger Deep Climate and his research partner John Mashey have produced a document that shows just how extensively the once-respected statisitician Wegman cribbed from one of his apparent victims (Ray Bradley) in a report that Wegman produced for Congress. Mashey argues that Wegman's errors and plagiarism were more than merely unprofessional: he says that they constitute a barefaced and illegal effort to mislead Congress. George Mason University is currently investigating the plagiarsim charges.
McIntyre has chosen to run interference on that complaint not by actually defending Wegman (whose shoddy work seems increasingly indefensible) but by attacking Ray Bradley, one of the authors of the iconic "hockey stick graph" that Wegman had been hired to attack. McIntyre points out in his post that Bradley had earlier used a series of figures from a 1976 book by H.C. Fritts and, according to McIntyre, provided inadequate credit.
This, however, seems less like plagiarism and more like an effort to build good science on a solid foundation.
If you missed it, the Yes Men spent the day yesterday rendering (even more) ridiculous a new Chevron ad campaign that purports to show an oil company acting responsibly. There's a great Fast Company account of how events unfolded here.
I have to say, each time the Yes Men pull one of these counter campaigns, I find myself longing for the content to be true - wishing that an oil company (in this instance) really would own up to its failings and indicate a real willingness to move on. Naive in the extreme, I know, but if the bad guys can live in denial, why can't I enjoy the occasional delusion?
The New York Times editorial today focuses on the influence of Dick Cheney's brand of denialism to explain the fact that none of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate accept the scientific consensus that human activities are largely responsible for climate disruption.
The editorial "In Climate Denial, Again" notes that GOP candidates this election season are "re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy."
The current crop of fact-challenged candidates running on the GOP ticket range from the outright deniers like Nevada candidate Sharron Angle to the "wiggly" position demonstrated by the likes of California's Carly Fiorina - a favorite of the billionaire Koch brothers - who remains "unsure" about the scientific foundation confirmed by all of the world's top scientific institutions.
According to the Times, "all are custodians of a strategy whose guiding principle has been to avoid debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence — or at least by diminishing its importance. The strategy worked, destroying hopes for Congressional action while further confusing ordinary citizens for whom global warming was already a remote and complex matter."
The Times editors guess that former Vice President Dick Cheney "has to be smiling" about the lock-step denial and confusion campaign continued by this crop of Republican candidates.
An editorial in the Calgary Herald praises the latest report from Britain's Royal Society entitled "Climate Change: A Summary of the Science". Though the Royal Society's report is anything but skeptical of the science of climate change and the tangible impacts it will have on populations, the Calgary Herald inappropriately cites the reputable organization's report in an effort to deny climate change and attack climate legislation that would hurt their bottom line.
In response to the misperceptions held by some media and members of the public about climate change (despite the overwhelming scientific consensus), the Royal Society produced a definitive guide to the science of climate change that summarizes the current scientific evidence on climate change. It highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some room for further investigation to improve confidence, and where substantial uncertainties remain. Far from claiming that there is any lack of consensus that climate change is happening, the report demonstrates, in layman's terms, where the science is established, and where more scientific work is still needed.
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science. Thanks to our dedicated readers, the DeSmog project counters the seeds of climate confusion.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. The Desmog project is our answer to industry PR spin.
Thank you for all you do. Please donate what you can. Whether its $10 or $100 every bit helps.
Powered by PayPal
