Trump hires advisers with fossil fuel ties

Last month, Donald Trump added Brooke Rollins and Kathleen Hartnett-White to his economic advisory council. Rollins is president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), while Hartnett-White has worked for the TPPF and the CO2 Coalition (formerly the George C. Marshall Institute), all of which are part of the “web of denial” receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Hartnett-White told POLITICO in an interview that rather than listen to the conclusions of the world’s foremost climate science experts as summarized in the IPCC reports, she favors a commission that would develop an “alternative scientific methodology” and would include the voices of the less than 3% of climate scientists who reject the consensus on human-caused global warming. 

She believes “the sun had a powerful role” in global warming. However, the sun has had an overall cooling effect on global temperatures over the past 60 years, as the IPCC reports have shown. She also loves fossil fuels and seems entirely opposed renewable energy and efforts to cut carbon pollution.

Read more...

1 comments

---

BBC climate coverage is evolving, but too slowly

Posted on 12 September 2016 by dana1981

For years, the BBC has been criticised for the false balance of its climate change coverage. And for years, the BBC has apparently been doing “ongoing work” to fix it. So far, however, this ‘reform’ has been more like a triumph of the middling. Yes, the BBC may broadcast less outright misinformation, but as a scientist and a citizen, I still feel let down by its continually careless handling of climate denial - most recently two weeks ago. This nod to mediocrity is a disservice to science, to public trust, and to the biggest news story in the world. And it is a huge, missed opportunity.

As a young PhD graduate working on climate change solutions, I am confronted daily by a world where the warnings of science are undercut by Fox ‘News’ and its ilk. It is a very different world to the trustworthy BBC broadcasts of David Attenborough and the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures that I grew up with, which helped inspire me to become a scientist. But as a recent BBC News segment by Science Editor David Shukman sadly reminded me, those worlds can too easily collide.

Shukman’s broadcast was an interesting one. An important perspective on the “political battle over the future of fuel” in the swing state of Ohio, and its implications for U.S. energy policy. I transcribed it here. It was all pretty benign until, halfway through, something in Shukman’s narration caught my ear (emphasis mine):

The problem with coal comes when you burn it. It releases carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming. Donald Trump saysthat isn’t a problem. But Hillary Clinton says it is, and she’s offering a greener future instead ...

While the debate rages over whether climate change is a threat or not…

Shukman’s accompanying BBC blog post beats the same drum, outlining the candidates’ “starkly different visions of global warming”:

The Democratic Party contender says she believes in the science of climate change. By contrast, the Republican candidate talks down the threat of rising temperatures.

As harmless as they sound, words like “blamed”, “debate”, and “believe” - without careful context - are the currency of public confusion. “Who, exactly, blames carbon dioxide for global warming?” we are forced to wonder. Clinton? Liberals? Scientists? And who disagrees? Trump? Other politicians? Some scientists too? Most importantly, who’s right in this blame game?

For the record, carbon dioxide is not “blamed” for global warming - it “causes” it. That is the unequivocal scientific consensus the world over.

Read more...

19 comments

---

2016 SkS Weekly Digest #37

Posted on 11 September 2016 by John Hartz

Story of the Week

Lest we loose sight of the fact that manmade climate change impacts more than just the Earth's atmosphere...

Global warming is making the oceans sicker than ever before, spreading disease among animals and humans and threatening food security across the planet, a major scientific report said.

The findings, based on peer-reviewed research, were compiled by 80 scientists from 12 countries, experts said at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Hawaii.

"We all know that the oceans sustain this planet. We all know that the oceans provide every second breath we take," IUCN director general Inger Andersen said at the meeting, which has drawn 9,000 leaders and environmentalists to Honolulu.

"And yet we are making the oceans sick."

The report, Explaining Ocean Warming, is the "most comprehensive, most systematic study we have ever undertaken on the consequence of this warming on the ocean", co-lead author Dan Laffoley said.

Global warming making oceans sick, spreading disease in humans and animals, scientists warn, ABC News (Australia) , Sep 12, 2016

SkS Highlights

Using the metric of comments posted, the most popular of the articles posted on SkS during the past week are:

• Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs by Jessika E. Trancik (The Conversation UK)
• Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization by Dana Nuccitelli (Climate Consensus - the 97%, Guardian)
• Researching climate change communication at George Mason University by John Cook

Toon of the Week

 

Read more...

25 comments

---

2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #37

Posted on 10 September 2016 by John Hartz

Sun Sep 3, 2016

• U.S. and China Ratify Paris Agreement, Upping Pressure on Other Nations by John H Cushman Jr. InsideClimate News, Sep 3, 2016
• Melting Glaciers Are Wreaking Havoc on Earth’s Crust by Jenny Chen, Smithsonian, Sep 1, 2016
• Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun by Justin Gillis, New York Times, Sep 3, 2016
• A Strange Thing Happened in the Stratosphere by Patrick Lynch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Sep 2, 2016
• Trump Tests Climate Change Denial Against Public Opinion, Real-World Impacts by Greg Dotson & Erin Auel, Think Progress, Sep 2, 2016
• Hurricane Season Is Heating Up. So Is the Planet. Coincidence? by John Schwartz, New York Times, Sep 2, 2016
• Dakota Pipeline Was Approved by Army Corps Over Objections of Three Federal Agencies by Phil McKenna, InsideClimate News, Aug 30, 2016
• Lawmakers approve new climate plans to help California's disadvantaged communities by Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times, Aug 31, 2016

Read more...

0 comments

---

The Madhouse Effect, a review

Posted on 9 September 2016 by Andy Skuce

This is a re-post from Critical Angle

Climate scientist Michael Mann has teamed up with cartoonist Tom Toles to write TheMadhouse Effect: How Climate Change Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics and Driving Us Crazy. It’s an excellent book, well-written, authoritative on the science, revealing on the politics and laced with the wit of many superb cartoons. Buy a copy for the climate science doubter in your family. They will be drawn in by the cartoons and may well be unable to resist dipping in to the text.

Michael Mann has previously written The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, about how he was hounded for writing a paper that featured the striking hockey-stick graph. He also authored Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change with scientist Lee Kump. At the same time that he turns out first-class books, Mann is a prolific research scientist and has an active presence on social media. You can only wonder how he does it all.

Tom Toles is a Pullitzer-Prize winning cartoonist who works for the Washington Post. His main focus is politics, but his cartoons have often featured climate science and the absurd lengths that many American politicians go to in avoiding the facing up to the reality of global change.

Writing about scientific subjects like climate change for the non-specialist is not easy and authors have to walk a fine line. Many readers expect scientists to be detached about the implications of their work, but that would make their message less engaging, less human. The science needs to be explained in ways that the average person can understand, but oversimplification can gloss over some of the important complications. And treatments of the topic can so so easily be depressing and dull. The Mann/Toles team have succeeded in bringing their talents together to overcome these problems. The writing is excellent  and the cartoons add a much-needed satirical perspective.

Read more...

7 comments

---

Climate change and other human activities are affecting species migration

Posted on 8 September 2016 by John Abraham

One of the reasons climate change is such an important topic is that it will affect (and already is affecting) the natural biological systems. Both plants and animals will have to respond to the changing climate. In some cases, this means adapting to higher temperatures. In other cases, the changes may be alterations in the precipitation, length of growing season, availability or resources, or other influences. 

While some animals can adapt, others will have to migrate. Obviously migration can be apparent in mobile animals that will move to maintain a more or less similar climate to that to which they are accustomed.

But animal and plant movement does not occur in just a changing climate. It also has to navigate changes to the landscape that humans create. For instance, increased land allocation to agriculture or urbanization can create barriers for free migration. So, what scientists really want to know is how these two factors (climate change and land use change) will collectively affect the patterns of animal and plant movement.

A study that actually was published a few years ago but is only now getting press looked at this issue. The publication was authored by Julian Olden and his colleagues from the University of Washington and the Nature Conservancy. What they researchers found was very interesting. The study was published in the journal Ecology Letters and is titled Projected Climate-Driven Faunal Movement Routes.

First, they projected changes in the distribution of climatically suitable zones for projected future climates. They considered nearly 3,000 vertebrate species. Using a computer model, the projected how and when the species would migrate and they tracked the migration routes. The study incorporated a resistance to movement based on the amount of human alteration to the landscape. The analysis was similar to how the flow of electrons through a wire circuit is calculated. In fact, electronic circuit theory formed a basis for the calculations.

From their analysis, the authors identified several locations in North and South America that will be crucial for species movement in a changing climate. Large movements are expected in the southeastern US, the Amazon region, and parts of Brazil. Some of the areas where migration is expected have intact biological regions. Others, in particular the southeastern US and Brazil, have pathways that are heavily impacted by human activities, which may create a barrier to the migration routes.

In the study, the team of scientists first identified what they term “climatically suitable” conditions for each of the species under a changing climate scenario. They plotted routes for the species from areas that were projected to be unsuitable to these suitable areas. The routes were plotted so that they avoided the most heavily human-impacted regions. They then plotted the paths on a map for easy of visualization.

Some concrete and specific examples were provided. For instance, in the southeastern US, species are projected to move northward into the southern Appalachian Mountains. In South America, species are expected to migrate from central Argentina in the Pampas, Sierras de Cordoba, and Andes. The authors identified 14 biological regions and calculated the average direction of movement across each biome. Great visualizations are shown of paths of migrations, for instance, in the southeastern US.

Vector image of migration patterns, southeastern USA. Illustration: Lawler et al. (2013), Ecology Letters.

Read more...

1 comments

---

Researching climate change communication at George Mason University

Posted on 7 September 2016 by John Cook

Next January, I’ll be relocating to the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. For a Brisbane boy who has never lived outside of Australia, moving to walking distance from Washington, DC is a big call. Two factors influenced this life-changing decision.

First, since I initially learnt about psychological research into debunking, my approach to climate communication has been guided by social science. When I started my research fellowship at GCI at The University of Queensland, my two-pronged approach was to research how to better communicate science, while putting that research into practice. 

As we communicated the scientific consensus on climate change, I also ran psychological experiments into the efficacy of consensus messaging. While we’ve debunked over 190 climate myths, we’ve also published the Debunking Handbook, a summary of psychological research into misinformation. Our MOOC on climate science denial is informed by a synthesis of cognitive psychology, inoculation theory and educational research.

What attracted me to MASON'S Center for Climate Change Communication (or 4C) was their approach to climate communication: a mix of theoretical research combined with practical outreach. They’re not ivory tower boffins - they directly engage with the public, putting into practice their research into the psychology of climate change.

Second, I was also enticed by the collaborative research environment at 4C - a center of scientists and students conducting academic research into the psychology of climate communication. The potential for future lines of enquiry springing from that community is quite exciting.

So after long, thoughtful conversations with my family plus focused research into how to source Vegemite in the U.S., I made the life-changing decision to relocate to the USA. Over the last five years that I’ve been at The University of Queensland, the Skeptical Science team has achieved impact far beyond our expectations, being highlighted by Senators, Presidents and Prime Ministers. My hope is that working at 4C will take our societal impact to another level.

Read more...

19 comments

---

Conservative media bias is inflating American climate denial and polarization

Posted on 6 September 2016 by dana1981

A new study by a team of sociologists at Oklahoma State University has found political polarization on climate change is growing in the United States. Today’s Republicans are less likely than they were a decade ago to accept that the effects of global warming have begun, that humans are responsible, and that there is a scientific consensus on these questions. Democrats and independents are slightly more likely to answer these questions correctly today than a decade ago.

Global warming views by party controlling for education and era. Illustration: Dunlap et al. (2016)

Climate change is now more polarizing in the US than abortion or gay marriage. At the same time, climate denial has become the norm among Republican policymakers, as they’ve grown increasingly anti-environment. As the study notes:

What was once a modest tendency for Congressional Republicans to be less pro-environmental than their Democratic counterparts has become a chasm—with Republicans taking near-unanimous anti-environmental stances on relevant legislation in recent years, especially 2015.

Read more...

25 comments

---

Range anxiety? Today's electric cars can cover vast majority of daily U.S. driving needs

Posted on 5 September 2016 by Guest Author

By Jessika E. Trancik, Associate Professor in Energy Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Electrifying transportation is one of the most promising ways to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, but so-called range anxiety – concern about being stranded with an uncharged car battery – remains a barrier to electric vehicle adoption. Is range anxiety justified given current cars and charging infrastructure?

It’s a question my research group and I addressed in a paper published in Nature Energy, by taking a close look at this problem with a new model.

Specifically, we asked: When looking down on the geographic area of the U.S. from a bird’s-eye view, how many personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced with a low-cost battery electric vehicle (EV), even if daytime charging isn’t available? Our analysis is, to our knowledge, the most expansive yet detailed study to date of how current and future-improved electric vehicle technology measures up to people’s energy-consuming behavior.

We found nearly 90 percent of vehicles on the road could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today. What’s more, this number is remarkably similar across very different cities, from New York to Houston to Los Angeles. That is, there is a high potential for electrification of cars in both dense and more sprawling cities in the United States.

To realize this potential, however, the needs of prospective electric vehicle drivers have to be met on all days, even high-energy ones, such as days that require long-distance travel.

Two key innovations can enable this. The first is to predict the days on which drivers are likely to exceed the car’s range, which our model is designed to do. And the second is institutional or business-model innovation to provide alternative long-range vehicles on those high-energy days. For example, conventional cars, and eventually low-carbon, long-range alternatives, might show up at a user’s door at the click of a button. This need may last for some time even as battery technology improves and charging infrastructure expands.

Vehicle range is not a single number

An electric vehicle’s range is typically thought of in terms of a fixed number, but the number of miles covered on a single charge changes with factors including driving speed and style, and outdoor temperature. To understand the range of a car, we need to look beyond the car itself to how people are behaving.

Over the last four years in my research group, we’ve built a model (called “TripEnergy”) of the second-by-second driving behavior of people across the United States, how they are likely to use heating and cooling systems in their cars, and how various electric and conventional vehicles would consume energy if driven in this way.

General Motors is developing the all-electric 2017 Chevrolet Bolt, which is designed to have a driving range of about 200 miles. General Motors

Read more...

35 comments

---

2016 SkS Weekly Digest #36

Posted on 4 September 2016 by John Hartz

SkS Highlights

Look for an important announcement by SkS founder, John Cook, on Tuesday of this week.

Toon of the Week

 

Read more...

2 comments

---

2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #36

Posted on 3 September 2016 by John Hartz

Sun Aug 21, 2016

• US EIA: Natural Gas CO2 Emissions Surpassing Coal Emissions by Aisha Abdelhamid, Clean Technica, Aug 27, 2016
• To combat climate change, these scientists are turning CO2 into rock, PBS News Hour, Aug 23, 2016
• Seals help scientists get to the bottom of Antarctic changes by Robert McSweeney, Carbon Brief, Aug 23, 2016
• Can progress on climate change keep up with its quickening pace?, Op-ed by Tom Styer, Washington Post, Aug 26, 2016 
• Climate science debates find their place in the Sun by Robert Matthews, The National (AUE), Aug 28, 2016 
• Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column by Graham Readfearn, DeSmog, Aug 26, 2016
• Electric airplanes (batteries included) by Bob Silberg, JPL/NASA Global Climate Change, Aug 23, 2016
• Hurricane Gaston Reforms in Atlantic Ocean by Phil Helsel, NBC News, Aug 28, 2016

Read more...

2 comments

---

Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds

Posted on 1 September 2016 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from DeSmogBlog by Graham Readfearn

American voters and politicians are now more polarized than ever before across all aspects of climate change  — from the cause, to the science and the impacts — a major new analysis has found.

Campaigns funded by vested fossil fuel interests and pushed by a network of ideological think tanks, many linked to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, have helped to widen the gap, pushing Republican politicians, elites and voters away from action on greenhouse gas emissions.

Tracking Gallup opinion poll surveys going back to 2001 and congress voting patterns from 1970 onwards, the analysis authors warn that as the November election approaches, Americans are faced with a stark political choice.

The analysis is published in the respected journal Environment and comes from sociologists Associate Professor Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University, and PhD researcher Jerrod Yarosh also at Oklahoma.

The researchers found the widest gaps between Democrats and Republicans come when they are asked about the causes of climate change and if the media exaggerates the seriousness of the issue.

While virtually all climate scientists and the world's leading scientific academies have long agreed that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change, only about half Republicans accept the science.

A Republican controlled Congress, the article says, would be a “huge step backward in our nation’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and could also undermine international cooperation, especially if Republican nominee Donald Trump won the Presidency.

“Whether, and how, individual Americans vote this November may well be the most consequential climate-related decision most of them will have ever taken,” the authors conclude.

Stark Choices

Dunlap told DeSmog the choice facing US voters was glaring.

Read more...

20 comments

---

Coordinator of UK Ocean Acidification Research Attacks The Spectator for 'Willfully Misleading' James Delingpole Column

Posted on 31 August 2016 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from DeSmogBlog by Graham Readfearn

The Spectator is one of the oldest English language magazines on the planet, established in London in 1828.  Chances are if you’ve never read it, you’ve probably heard of it.

The Marine Biologist magazine, on the other hand, was only launched in 2013. With no disrespect to the good people there, chances are you’ve neither heard of it, read it or are aware of its very existence.

But earlier this week the Marine Biologist’s website published an eviscerating 2,500-word analysis of an April column that had appeared in The Spectator.

The column, written by climate science denier and polemicist James Delingpole, had tried to claim the science linking the burning of fossil fuels to the acidification of our oceans was “fatally flawed”.

Marine life, claimed Delingpole, had “nothing to fear” from ocean acidification.

Published back in April, Delingpole strung together what must, to some, have seemed a compelling narrative.

He had citations, “experts” and more scientific terminology than you could shake a stick at (or a copy of Marine Biologist, if you had one handy).

The problem?

“Almost everything that could be factually wrong, is wrong,” wrote Dr Phillip Williamson, on the website of your new favourite magazine, the Marine Biologist.

Blow-by-Blow Debunking

Williamson, based at the University of East Anglia, is the science director of the UK government-funded Ocean Acidification Research Programme. He responded to Delingpole’s 1,200 words with 2,400-words of his own — a blow-by-blow debunking pulling apart each argument and technique Delingpole had used.

Williamson’s analysis shows how Delingpole had employed many of the tricks and failings of climate science denialists. 

He had cherry-picked data. He chose to rely on “experts”, such as fossil fuel advocates and climate science denialists Craig Idso, Patrick Moore and Matt Ridley, who had no genuine expertise in marine science.

The genuine experts Delingpole did cite, wrote Williamson, were misrepresented.

One of those experts was Dr Howard Browman, of the Institute of Marine Research in Norway, who Delingpole claimed had published “a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject” and had come to a damning conclusion that many studies were flawed.

Except six weeks before, Browman had told DeSmog that his views on the issue, reported in The Times, had actually been misrepresented.

Williamson told DeSmog that he had tried, and failed, to get The Spectator to publish his views, telling editor Fraser Nelson that Delingpole’s piece had been “willfully misleading”. He told DeSmog:

Delingpole's statement ‘Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification’ summarises his view.  But that assertion is as incorrect as the opposite, purported claims that he quotes and dismisses: for example, that ocean acidification will “turn our oceans into a barren zone of death”. 

The whole article is based on that false dichotomy, between unidentified alarmists and scientifically-naïve optimists who also happen to be climate change deniers and sceptics.  It may seem boring to say that the truth lies between the two, but it does.

Read more...

3 comments

---

An update on methane emissions from fracking (in the US)

Posted on 30 August 2016 by gws

A relatively large number of research publications has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature since we last updated our readers on fracking and methane, CH₄, emissions. We cannot discuss them all here. However, in summary, it can be concluded from these papers that EPA is very likely underestimating fossil fuel related methane emissions in its greenhouse gas inventory, anywhere between 30% and 100%, possibly even more. Meaning, in order for the US to effectively lower its greenhouse gas emissions, it also needs to get fugitive methane emissions under control.

The EPA inventory

The US administration has reacted to the new data, and EPA issued a number of regulatory actions. In addition, EPA has begun to update its inventory. However, a look at the inventoried totals …

… and the “energy” related emissions …

Read more...

4 comments

---

California has urged President Obama and Congress to tax carbon pollution

Posted on 29 August 2016 by dana1981

Last week, the California state senate passed Assembly Joint Resolution 43, urging the federal government to pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax:

WHEREAS, A national carbon tax would make the United States a leader in mitigating climate change and the advancing clean energy technologies of the 21st Century, and would incentivize other countries to enact similar carbon taxes, thereby reducing global carbon dioxide emissions without the need for complex international agreements; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature hereby urges the United States Congress to enact, without delay, a tax on carbon-based fossil fuels; and be it further Resolved ... That all tax revenue should be returned to middle- and low-income Americans to protect them from the impact of rising prices due to the tax

Copies of the Resolution were sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and to all members of Congress representing California. The document specifically calls for the type of revenue-neutral carbon tax advocated by the grassroots organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Studies have shown that a rising carbon tax with all revenue returned to taxpayers would have a modestly beneficial impact on the economy, while cutting carbon pollution at faster rates than current policies.

California exerts its climate leadership

California has become the US leader in tackling global warming. 10 years ago, the state passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring that its greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 be no higher than 1990 levels. California achieved that goal in 2010, 10 years early, and is among the lowest per-capita carbon polluting states. 

On the same day last week, the state legislature also passed a bill expanding the Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring a 40% cut in California’s carbon pollution from 1990 levels by 2030. In other words, California isn’t just calling on the federal government to take action on climate change; the state is leading the way.

It remains to be seen whether any climate legislation can survive in the current toxic partisan political climate of Washington DC. However, a revenue-neutral carbon tax has the best chance due to its bipartisan appeal. Its requirement that carbon polluters pay for the costs of their pollution appeals to the political left, while its free market, small government approach appeals to the political right. 

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is hard to dislike

By returning 100% of the taxed revenue to American households, the policy blunts the rising costs of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. In fact, studies project that a majority of Americans would receive a rebate larger than their increase in energy bills; only those who use the most fossil fuel energy would see costs rise more than the rebate.

Read more...

4 comments