| |
- Is Superfreakonomics author Levitt again denying the 'unequivocal' scientific evidence for global warming?
- Energy and Global Warming News for Noverber 9: Can offshore winds spin in U.S. market? Exelon boss thinks Senate will act on climate bill by spring; Climate bill will save households money — ACEEE
- Memo to PBS's NewsHour: You can do better than "carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas thought to contribute to global climate change."
- Global Ponzi scheme metaphor of the month
- Road to Copenhagenm, Part 5: Awesomely audacious leadership vs. nattering nabobs of negativism*
- Arctic ice reaches historic seasonal low; "We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere."
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 09:12 AM PST Is calling global warming a religion the same thing as denying global warming science? While the authors of Superfreakonomics, which is riddled with basic scientific errors, have started to issue some retractions, they continue to embrace self-contradictory denial of the basic science. In mid-October, economist Steven Levitt wrote a blog post titled, "The Rumors of Our Global-Warming Denial Are Greatly Exaggerated," which asserted:
Then in another red-herring-filled post from last month, "The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz," Levitt asserted that "we believe" it is "TRUE" that "The Earth has gotten substantially warmer over the past 100 years." And he writes of that statement — that "fact" — (and 5 others), "It is our impression that none of the six scientific statements above is at all controversial among climate scientists." Duh. In fact, the most recent survey of the scientific literature signed off on by every major government in the world, including the Bush Administration, concluded "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Unfortunately for the Superfreaks, their book is once again searchable on Amazon, so everyone can confirm it contains the following sentence — the very first one I criticize them for in my original debunking when I broke the story of their error-riddled book:
That is a staggeringly anti-scientific statement. It should be retracted. It should certainly not be repeated, as Levitt is now doing on his blog! Note that they didn't say something like "belief in climate solutions" is a religion." And they didn't even say, "the theory of human-caused global warming is a religion" — which, in any case, they presumably don't believe given that they say they believe rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon. No, to Levitt and Dubner, "global warming" itself is a religion. Except, of course, it isn't. Again, actual observations show that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The only reason I am bringing this up again is that Levitt has doubled down on this piece of anti-scientific nonsense. As a eagle-eyed reader pointed out, Levitt blogged last week:
So what is it, Levitt? You can't simultaneously claim you understand that warming of the climate system is an uncontroversial statement of scientific fact — and then keep repeating the claim that global warming and belief in climate change is a religion. As University of Chicago Geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert has charged, Levitt is guilty of "academic malpractice in your book." And for the record, climate change belief is not a religion even in the UK. It remains a scientific understanding there and everywhere else. The particular case and the ruling are convoluted — no doubt in part because the judge was the same one who issued that confused ruling on Al Gore's movie (see here). I would welcome any experts on British law posting here — and would certainly recommend reading the Guardian piece and an excellent dissection on Salon by Andrew Leonard. As the Guardian notes:
At least in Britain, science can apparently drive moral imperatives that are protected by the law. As the winner of the lawsuit put it:
Levitt, of course, is beyond such nuanced understanding. He made an anti-scientific statement in the book, and notwithstanding certain half-hearted walk backs, he clearly stands by the statement. Is calling global warming a religion the same thing as denying global warming science? You be the judge. |
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 08:37 AM PST
Can offshore winds spin a market for American-made turbines? Middle Eastern oil is one energy dependency. Another, looming in the future, could be a growing array of wind turbines, situated along the Eastern Seaboard, manufactured by European companies and feeding electricity to nearby American cities. That's what government and industry experts are trying to avoid — a new addiction. The effort here to roll out an offshore wind industry is accelerating, but major gaps are still stopping turbine builders from opening U.S. facilities that could supply East Coast states with homemade blades, towers and nacelles. Experts expressed confidence in the United States' ability to establish a strong offshore wind manufacturing sector, and also anxiety about the steps that aren't being taken to get there. The United States has yet to plant its first turbines in the seafloor, while Europe widens its lead, adding 1-megawatt every day on average, according to its industry group. Europe's offshore winds now produce a total of 1,471 megawatts, the amount of electricity produced by a very large coal-fired power plant. "If we don't get on the ball and do it, the Europeans are going to do it," Bob Thresher, a wind power expert with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said of turbine manufacturing. "They'll gain all the experience, and they get the privilege of selling us all their equipment. So sitting on our butts and doing nothing is just gonna cost us." To people like Thresher, the United States needs to hurry up and allow someone to build the first wind facility in the ocean. That, in all likelihood, would be Cape Wind, a 130-turbine project proposed 5 miles off the coast of Massachusetts. It has been stuck in regulatory quicksand for eight years — a signal that has not helped to attract manufacturers or financing sources. "They need to see there's a critical mass of megawatts that are sort of in the pipeline or committed," Greg Watson, the top renewable energy advisor to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, said of parts builders. "You're not going to make a commitment to build a manufacturing facility unless you have some sense that there's going to be a workload, or an anticipated number of projects." "We've had some frank discussions" with manufacturers, he added. "They might give you a quote that they need to see five or six more Cape Winds in the pipeline." Others say the bar is higher. Jim Lanard, managing director of Deepwater Wind, which has three offshore projects proposed in Rhode Island and New Jersey, said manufacturers want to see a decade-long outlook promising that 1,000 turbines will be installed. "Instead of sending our dollars to countries that export oil, we're now going to send our dollars to countries that export offshore wind equipment," Lanard warns. "It's billions of dollars being sent overseas. That's thousands of jobs." Exelon boss Rowe thinks Senate will act on climate bill by spring
Exelon Corp. Chief Executive John Rowe, speaking last week after Senate action on a cap-and-trade bill aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, sounded upbeat as ever. Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted the discussion, prompting Committee Chair Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to push through the so-called Kerry-Boxer bill on an 11-1 vote without a single Republican present. Democrats from Southern and coal-producing states got no chance to amend the measure, as they wanted, and the tactics alienated GOP moderates. Speaking before the Economic Club of Chicago, however, Rowe delivered the same sunny talk as ever, saying a consensus has emerged for a cap on carbon, and a market mechanism for regulating it. "At that level of generality, there is strong support for a bill," he said. "There is a very good chance we will see action either this fall or next spring." As the nation's top nuclear-power producer, Exelon has a lot to gain from cap-and-trade. But some stalwart supporters are starting to worry, as here, and its enemies here smell blood. Even the phrase "cap-and-trade" is being viewed as a political liability. Rowe is undaunted: "Most other solutions are simply more expensive for the economy than cap-and-trade," he said. "You have to put a cap on it, you have to put a price on it, and you get the marketplace to work." Or — as appears increasingly likely — the Environmental Protection Agency could be writing the rules for controlling emissions. And if that happens, forget about the "marketplace" working. Climate bill will save households money — ACEEE See study here. See also "New EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey: Consumer electric bills 7% lower in 2020 thanks to efficiency — plus 22 GW of extra coal retirements and no new dirty plants. Warming of Sino-Japanese ties with green fight Forty-two projects related to energy-saving and environmental protection were signed between China and Japan on Sunday. The effort to deepen cooperation in tackling environmental change and the economic downturn comes ahead of the climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month. Vice-Premier Li Keqiang called for cooperation on key projects and strengthening technological cooperation at the fourth Sino-Japan Energy-saving and Environment Protection Forum in Beijing Sunday. "Japan has a lot of experience in solving energy and environmental issues, while China has put years of effort into forming its energy saving industry. China's potential market and Japan's technology complement each other," said Xie Zhenhua, deputy minister of the National Development and Reform Commission. The two sides have worked together in building recycling eco-cities and personnel training, Xie said. About 300 Chinese experts were sent to Japan for training, while more than 300 Japanese experts came to China to help nurture local talent. The Chinese central government has arranged 58.1 billion yuan ($8.5 billion) to support 10 major energy-saving and emission reduction projects, including sewage treatment and industrial pollution control. China will also help qualified environmental-friendly companies expand their financing channels, Xie said. Masayuki Naoshima, Japan's minister of economy and trade, said in the near future Japan can assist China with water treatment and carbon emissions control. China pledged to "strengthen efforts in intellectual property protection" to create a healthy environment for technology transfers, said Chen Jian, deputy minister of commerce. API hires Sen. Durbin's nephew for government affairs post The American Petroleum Institute has hired Martin Durbin, a top lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, to be the oil industry trade group's executive vice president of government affairs. Durbin, who has worked for Democratic lawmakers, will have his hands full as the industry aims to influence — and in some cases thwart — congressional and White House energy initiatives. Durbin — the nephew of Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat — will join API next month. "I know he will proudly represent the interests of the thousands of companies and the millions of employees in the oil and natural gas industry, and stand up for policies that promote jobs and affordable energy," API President Jack Gerard said in a statement yesterday. Gerard, who once ran the chemical industry group, worked with Durbin there. API also issued a statement from Durbin: "I will work hard to ensure that policymakers in both houses and parties understand the industry's perspective on key policy issues, and that they appreciate the industry's many contributions to America's economy and society." Durbin is coming to API as lawmakers are considering climate and energy legislation that will have major implications for the institute's members. The group opposes the major House and Senate cap-and-trade bills, alleging they would raise fuel prices and cost jobs. Refiners in particular allege the plans provide an unfairly small number of free emissions allowances to the sector and warn that they would create a competitive advantage for foreign refineries and thereby increase reliance on imported fuels. At the same time, the group is fighting White House proposals to eliminate tax incentives for domestic production. The industry is also pushing the Interior Department to offer more offshore areas for leasing following the lapse of decades-long outer continental shelf leasing bans last year. China Pledges $10 billion to Africa China offered African governments a multibillion-dollar package of financial and technical assistance on Sunday, stepping up a courtship that already has gained Beijing wide access to oil and minerals across perhaps the most resource-rich continent in the world. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao pledged to grant African countries $10 billion in low-interest development loans over the next three years, to establish a $1 billion loan program for small and medium-size businesses, and to forgive the remaining debt on certain interest-free loans that China previously granted less-developed African nations. Besides the financial assistance, Mr. Wen also promised to form a partnership to address climate change in Africa, including the building of 100 clean-energy projects across the continent. Beijing will also remove tariffs on most exports to China from the least-developed African nations that do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and sponsor an array of other programs in health, education, culture and agriculture. The gestures are likely to further cement China's good relations with many African nations, and may help address rising concern in some quarters that China is merely replacing Europe as a colonial power. China's focus on extracting oil and minerals from Africa has drawn some criticism from African scholars, and labor and safety conditions at some Chinese-run mines and smelters have set off outcries by African workers. Some critics say that the flood of low-cost Chinese goods into African cities has displaced products once made by local workers. China lower risk than UK for green investors, claims Deutsche Bank Britain's claim to be a world leader in green energy investment has been called into question by an authoritative new study that will embarrass ministers as they prepare to launch an important climate change initiative tomorrow. A report from Deutsche Bank says that the UK does not have the right climate change strategy to attract international investment and is lagging behind other countries, such as Germany, France and China. Britain's energy strategy lacks the level of transparency and certainty required to encourage investment, according to Deutsche Bank's study on the best places to do business. It comes as ministers prepare to launch six draft national policy statements on energy and climate change policies tomorrow. "What investors want is transparency, longevity and certainty – TLC – in policy regimes to mobilise capital," said Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Bank's asset management division, which is based in New York. "Many major emitters such as the US and the UK do not have enough TLC in their policy frameworks. Our rankings show that China has a lower risk for climate change investors, as does Germany, but the research also shows that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, they have demonstrated their ability to deliver scale." The Department of Energy and Climate Change said its host of new initiatives to streamline planning and ensure the building of new infrastructure, such as clean coal plants, is proof of its positive commitment to moving to a low-carbon economy. "You will have seen [from] the recent announcement from RWE and E.ON about spending £15bn and creating thousands of jobs here in new nuclear plants that investment does seem to be coming," said a DECC spokesman. But Deutsche Bank says Japan and Australia are among the countries that represent lower risk profiles than the UK because they have more comprehensive and integrated government plans. |
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 07:29 AM PST So I'm watching an otherwise interesting story on "efforts to convert algae into clean fuel," by the otherwise very solid Tom Bearden of PBS's NewsHour. Then, boom, he drops the media's favorite wishy-washy hedge:
C'mon. I think we are at least one decade, if not two decades or more, passed a time when the words "thought to" are justified. Note to Beardon: Why exactly do you think it is called a greenhouse gas? This hedge remains all too common in the media — see Memo to Wall Street Journal: You can do better than "greenhouse gases, which are believed to contribute to climate change." As I wrote in that earlier post, this hedge is especially pointless and misinforming because of the second hedge — "contribute to." All but the most extremist deniers of the basic climate science accept that carbon dioxide contributes to global climate change. So perhaps the NewsHour might catch up with the scientific understanding and write some variation of:
And people wonder why the public is still underinformed on this subject. Related Posts: |
| Global Ponzi scheme metaphor of the month Posted: 09 Nov 2009 05:40 AM PST
Okay it doesn't have a lot to do with global warming directly, but for some reason, when I first read the story, I immediately thought of this: "Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?" |
| Road to Copenhagenm, Part 5: Awesomely audacious leadership vs. nattering nabobs of negativism* Posted: 09 Nov 2009 05:34 AM PST We are only just beginning to scratch the surface of the power of a positive vision of an abundant future… Rob Hopkins, "The Transition Handbook"
One would be wrong. What energy and climate security require — what the future of the American Dream demands — is audacious big-picture ideas that capture the imagination, stir the emotions, speak to the souls, rally the support and win the involvement of the American people. That's been lacking so far in the President's climate leadership. I suspect there is a sizeable segment of the American people waiting to be engaged, waiting to have their imaginations triggered, waiting to understand what a new energy economy looks like and what they can do to build it. I'm not saying that citizens can't act without top-down leadership. Indeed, as President Obama hinted recently in his "Grab a Mop" speech, there's fundamental unfairness, guaranteed stasis and more than a little buck-passing when we citizens stand on the sidelines, some expecting the White House to do everything, others protesting it is doing far too much. In regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, each of us is capable of grabbing a mop and mopping. It's as easy as turning off the lights. But there is tremendous motivation in knowing that we're part of a mop uprising, a society-wide mopping mission, with a common understanding of why we're mopping. Dedication to visions and common causes is what got us through World War II, landed us on the moon, secured the legal rights of women and minorities, and built the interstate highway system. The leader who first steps forward to communicate a clear vision of a sustainable world and who stirs us to act as a nation — he or she will be a leader for the ages. That's because the climate challenge isn't just about the weather. It's about a fundamental reordering of our species' relationship with nature. It's about ending an epoch of mankind as megalomaniac. It's about accepting our dependence on natural systems and other countries. If interdependence sounds like Gaia-speak, then think of the swine flu pandemic; the global recession; food riots; and climate change itself. It really should not take islands disappearing under the sea to convince us that no man is an island. If we must fight a war of ideas to win support for sustainable human society, then so be it. Unless America has lost its soul, that war would be no contest. On one side is the army of hope, fighting for a future that is more secure, moral and genuinely prosperous, where resource conflicts and extreme poverty are distant memories. On the other side is the Army of No, the foot soldiers of a "no-can-do" society, the paid purveyors of fear, the scalp-hunters and character assassins, rumor mongers, professional dividers and the false prophets of a "business as usual" world that no longer is possible. They use scare words like Hitler, socialism and taxes. They tell us that in a low-carbon society our showers will go cold, our beer will go warm, our jobs will disappear, and our energy bills will bankrupt us. None of that is true, of course, and it appeals to the worst in us. But we are still a can-do nation. We can build a low-carbon economy that is a low-cost economy. We can have hot showers and cold beer without heating up the atmosphere. We can send our kids off to college rather than sending them to die in oil wars. We can build a new economy and achieve a new and improved American Dream. It's damned un-American to suggest we can't. To accomplish those things, we need big changes motivated by big ideas we can understand and believe in. Here for an encore are a few I've proposed in the past: A National Clean Energy Surge: In a speech to a conference in Appalachia last week, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers proposed that the United States become the most energy-efficient nation on the planet. If the chief executive of the country's third-largest carbon polluter can embrace that big idea, then the White House and the rest of us surely can. President Obama pointed out during his campaign that 21 countries are more energy-efficient than the United States. We gave up our leadership long ago in key renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power. That doesn't bode well for our economy, our carbon emissions, or our international competitiveness. The President should set specific stretch goals to improve energy efficiency in every sector of the U.S. economy and to make America the world's leading consumer and producer of renewable energy. The Administration has taken a number of steps toward that goal, some small and some more significant: new efficiency rules for vehicles, major new funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program, a directive that new federal buildings require zero-net-energy by 2030, to cite just a few examples. President Obama should bundle up these efforts along with the money in the stimulus bill and the incentives contained in recent energy bills, for an unprecedented campaign that engages every red-blooded American in making our nation the cleanest and most resource-efficient on the planet. Energizing Rural America: Rural America has a central role to play in our sustainable future. It will be the nation's principal supplier of low-carbon energy. Farmers, residents and rural small businesses will flourish with new jobs, new income and new tax base from green energy production. Food and fiber will grow alongside wind farms and solar farms. Feedlots and landfills will capture methane to help power the rural economy. Farmers will grow feed-stocks for cellulosic ethanol on land considered marginal for conventional crops. Farm equipment will run on locally grown low-carbon fuels. Carbon-conscious tillage and forestry management will be a new source of farm revenues in a cap-and-trade economy. In Congress this year, prominent elements of the farm lobby have fought against this vision, worried that fuel and fertilizers will cost more when we put a price on carbon. But that would only be true if farmers continue relying on carbon-intensive fuels and products, fail to adopt more fuel-efficient equipment and agricultural practices, and decide not to offset higher fossil energy prices by capturing the new income opportunities in green energy. Even then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce annual net farm income only 0.9 percent in the short-term. That's a very small price to pay to avoid agriculture's real parched-earth scenario: climate-induced drought, extreme weather, changed growing patterns, and more pests and plant diseases. One year ago, the Presidential Climate Action Project gave Obama's team a policy agenda for rural America's dynamic role in a new energy economy. Among its ideas are re-missioning the Cooperative Extension Service, rural electrification programs and other applicable federal farm programs to retool rural communities and farms. In the past, rural areas have been the economically distressed stepchildren of the industrial economy. In the future, they will be the powerhouse of our new energy economy. The Future We Want: Despite the strange box-office appeal of apocalypse, we're in danger of becoming emotionally battered these days by Hollywood's versions of civilization's collapse. The Eleventh Hour, The Day After Tomorrow and now 2012 threaten to scare the living optimism out of the American people. Understanding the terrible consequences of inaction is important. Conservatives use fear as a tool to resist change; climate activists use it to urge change. The problem is, by focusing on collapse with too little counter-focus on what we can build, we are in danger of creating the future we fear. I believe we are poised for hope. We want hope. We hope for hope. Hope is what got President Obama elected; it should be the foundation on which he rallies us to build an historic legacy at this turning point in the American story. Fifty or 100 years from now, the history books will not say much about health care reform. They will have a great deal to say about what we did or did not do about climate change. We see trace evidence of our latent hope in the UN's Hopenhagen campaign, the America 2050 project of the Regional Plan Association in New York, and in the viral video of a yes-we-can speech by Drew Jones of the Sustainability Institute. There's The Future We Want, in which I and several colleagues will use state-of-the-art communications techniques to show the American people what a sustainable society will be like, and to involve them in designing it. Legally, the President of the United States has limited power, only what Congress has delegated, the courts have ruled or precedent has established. Emotionally, President Obama has enormous power to inspire. He has a special gift for that, but he has not yet fully used it to enlist us in building a sustainable 21st Century society. – Bill Becker * Thanks to the late William Safire for this newly appropriate phrase. List of Accomplishments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ william-s-becker/ dressing-for-copenhagen_b_325070.html Grab a Mop speech: http://www.grabamop.com/ Stretch goals: http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 05/ 02/ the-next-100-days-green-fdr/ #more-6201 Farm lobby: http://www.economist.com/ world/ unitedstates/ displayStory.cfm?story_id=14700744 PCAP ag policy agenda: http://www.climateactionproject.com/ docs/ pcap/ Chapter_5_Agriculture_11_10_08.pdf Hopenhagen: www.hopenhagen.org America 2050: http://www.america2050.org/about.html Drew Jones video: http://livingclimatechange.com/ index.php/ 2009/ 10/ simulating-climate-hope/ Future we want: www.futurewewant.org |
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 11:20 AM PST
The latest tracking of Arctic sea ice extent from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that we've hit the record low Arctic sea ice extent for this time of year. In a post last week, "Warm winds slow autumn ice growth," NSIDC noted "October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period."
As Reuters noted in their remarkable piece on Canadian cryosphere scientist David Barber, "Scientists link higher Arctic temperatures and melting sea ice to the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming." Duh. Here's more on what Barber found in a recent expedition:
Rotten ice — good term. That's what human emissions of greenhouse gases have done to the Arctic, covered it in rotten ice. Reuters photo caption: "Broken Arctic sea ice as seen from a window in from a U.S. Coast Guard C130 flight over the Arctic Ocean September 30, 2009."
For more on this well known positive feedback (see "What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?)
We should be paying close attention, since this positive feedback is linked to another, even more dangerous one (see "Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss"). I asked NSIDC director's Mark Serreze for a comment on this article, and he wrote me:
NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier also replied:
|
During his 10 months in office, President Barack Obama and his team have assembled 
| You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
