Category Archives: Climate Change

Warming Oceans, Trump, Cat Litter

Spread the love

A potpourri of miscellany:

Human Caused Climate Change and the Oceans

It is great to see our local political non-print non-TV news agency, MNPost, covering an important climate change story with local connections. I’ll be writing John Abraham’s research up myself shortly.

An intriguing and important-sounding new research paper caught my eye on Sunday, with its finding that the world’s oceans have been warming at a much faster pace than is generally recognized.

Because seawater holds more than 90 percent of the excess heat that arrives from the sun but, thanks to greenhouse gases, isn’t promptly returned to space, that conclusion seemed to fall somewhere between stunning and alarming. Because it had been published in Science Advances, a journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, its credibility was clear.

Also, I can’t tell you what it is, but some very important new research is about to come out, also on climate change, that I’m chomping at the bit to write up. Probably within the next week or so.

Donald Trump

Did the Fed do something The Donald did not want it to do? If so, how will The Donald react? Oddly, there are no tweets about this to date. Perhaps Trump, Putin and Bannon are working out an executive order.

Some good news, maybe: Increasingly, Congressional Republicans are pushing back on the crazy, not letting Trump get away with being himself.

This too, wherein John McCain tears Rand “The Freedom” Paul a new one on the ground that Paul is in Putin’s pocket:

Speaking of Trump, I had a bad experience with cat litter today. For the fourth time in a row, I went to our local Target to get “The World’s Best Cat Litter,” only to find they are out. While standing there, forelorn, in the Mother Ship, I checked on Amazon, and low and behold it is possible to get cat litter delivered to your door on a periodic basis, at a pretty good discount. (might need to have Amazon Prime)

Children interrupting or otherwise annoying very serious adults


Spread the love

Crew: Mark Steyn Was Abusive and Obnoxious

Spread the love

Mark Steyn is well known to readers of this blog as the intentionally obnoxious Canadian version of Rush Limbaugh who is being sued by our friend and colleague Michael Mann, author of the recent “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy,” for defamation. Steyn is also the author of a terrible book attacking all the climate scientists. Steyn has gone after a lot of pro-science people, including me, and I heard a rumor that he likes to crush kittens. OK, maybe he doesn’t crush kittens, but he is explicitly and intentionally (I assume), as part of his act, an unmitigated ass.

Recently, he started a show on CRTV, which is a right wing on line radio show of some kind. Then, they canned him. Then, he sued to keep the show on while a breach of contract suit was proposed, giving as the reason for the stay that he felt obligated to protect the show’s employees, who would be hurt but ending it.

Then, the show’s employees came out and said what they think about Steyn.

Of Steyn’s implied relationship to his employees, “It’s bullshit, frankly. They all hate him,” says one perso in the know.

These employees claim that Steyn ruined the show by being a jerk to everyone, verbally abusing them, calling them names, etc. He had them run personal errands, and misappropriated CRTV funds on personal purchases.

The Daily Beast has the story, well documented and clearly laid out, here.

Steyn has been the subject of discussion on this blog numerous times:

  • Mark Steyn’s Latest Trick
  • <li><strong><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/12/22/mark-steyn-the-dc-appeals-court-and-congress/">Mark Steyn, The DC Appeals Court, and Congress</a></strong></li>
    
    <li><strong><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/">Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick</a></strong></li>
    
    <li><strong><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/17/mark-steyn-and-judith-curry/">Mark Steyn and Judith Curry</a></strong></li>
    

    Spread the love

    Judith Curry Is In With The Koch Brothers

    Spread the love

    I’m only just digesting this, but it appears that Judith Curry, climate scientist turned anti-climate change activist (more or less) has joined the Koch Brothers front group “Cause of Action“.

    How do we know this? Because she has filed an Amicus Brief (2017.01.25 Mot. for Leave to File, Nos. 14-cv-101 14-cv-126 (D.C.))( on behalf of the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the case of Mann vs. Those Guys, with council at Cause of Action Institute.

    Go read the brief. It is pretty nasty.

    Also related, this: 2017.01.25 Br. of Amicus Dr. Judith A. Curry Nos. 14-cv-101 14-cv-126 (D.C.).

    Have at it.


    Spread the love

    The Best and Most Current Climate Change Books

    Spread the love

    Time to make sure you are stocked up and up to date on your climate science books. First, you will need reference materials throughout the holiday season, because Uncle Bob is going to challenge you more stridently than usual. Climate change deniers have taken over the US government. You are on the run. Underground. Up against the wall. So, you need to be ready. Uncle Bob is coming for you.

    Second, you may want to give a few climate change related books away for the holidays. Know any science or social studies teachers? Maybe a nice book for Uncle Bob’s wife? Ha, that would be funny. Anyway, you’ll want to do that.

    There are four books I recommend as gifts for anybody, but also, for your own enjoyment.

    The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy by climate scientist Michael Mann and Washington Post political cartoonist Tom Toles is one of the most current, and in many ways, the most fun, of the climate books. The authors go right after the science deniers, but not at the expense of a lot of excellent explanation of the science itself, and the overall political situation. The cartoons are great, the text is engaging.

    Also richly illustrated, but in a totally different way, and by one of the same authors, is Dire Predictions, 2nd Edition: Understanding Climate Change. Michael Mann shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC and the other scientists for their work on climate change. That process involved the production of the Scientific Basis for Climate Change IPCC report, which is redone every several years, and includes all the science behind the broad consensus. Dire Predictions represents that science in a fully understandable way, and adds additional material on the other aspects of the problem: Policy. This is a basic on the shelf text you need in your home, and that your kid’s science teachers need in their classrooms.

    Not a climate change book but essential, and that I’ll put right here for you to consider: The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, Shawn Otto’s latest popular yet scholarly work on the effort to destroy science, is a must read. Climate science isn’t the only science under attack. This book covers it all.

    Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment by Paul Douglas and Mitch Hescox is specifically written for your Uncle Bob, is Uncle Bob is a conservative Evangelical Christian. Paul is the country’s top meteorologist-communicator who happens to be a conservative (he claims) Evangelical Christian. Paul wrote the science in this book and it is real science, no holding back. Mitch is an Evangelical Christian guy who supplies the scriptural-religious part of the story. The book, obviously, is about how if you are an Evangelical Christian you should not be a dick about climate change.

    Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know® by Joe Romm is unique among climate change books. Romm looks at the actual personal impacts of climate change, in the near and longer term future, on typical Americans. Think about it for a second. Many Americans who live in the north plan to eventually retire to warmer, southerly climes. Is that a good idea, with global warming and sea level rise happening? Are you sure that shorefront (or near shorefront) property on the Gulf Coast is a good idea right about now? What about your investment portfolio, what with changes happening in the energy industry and uncertainty in other areas? This is the book that covers that.

    Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics by Dana Nuccitelli attacks climate science denialism by rushing right through the battle lines into enemy territory and deconstructing their bogus tripe. This is like the Guns of Navarone, where the guys sneak pas the Nazis and boow up their stuff, but with models. Just how have those alternative ideas and predictions, made over the last several years by climate change deniers, done, compare to the mainstream science? Well, read the book and find out. But I’ll bet you can guess.


    Spread the love

    Happy Labor Day. Who’s Not Doing Their Job?

    Spread the love

    Laborers generally do their jobs, because if they don’t they get fired. But there are entire professions where people are not doing their jobs and the rest of us suffer.

    Jacob Wetterling was abducted and murdered two and a half decades ago. The guy who did it was known to the cops then, and he had done things like this before, and those thinks were known about. There are all kinds of reasons they should have busted him even before Jacob was murdered, but they weren’t doing their job. Turns out that when you look across the country and across decades, you can find FAR more examples of cops not doing their jobs, either being outsmarted or just being lazy or who knows what, than you can find example of them doing their jobs. This Labor Day is not for them.

    The press. We all love the press, and respect the press, and wouldn’t know what to do with out the press, bla bla bla. But we now understand that the wars in Iraq would have likely been avoided had the press been doing its job then. The press is now grading Donald Trump on a curve, treating his presidency in such a way that it legitimizes racism and white supremacy. That is the press not doing the sacred job they seek reference for. I suspect that if you look across history you will find lots of great examples of the press doing a great job. But there will be more examples of the press falling down on the job. If the press was really doing its job with respect to Donald Trump, Trump would have been in prison decades ago. This Labor Day is not for them.

    Weather reporters. So many of them have been for so long in denial of climate science, passing on doubt to the average American, using their position of trust to spread lies. We have had a harder time pushing people and institutions in the general direction of reality with respect to climate change because of weather reporters not doing their jobs. This Labor Day is not for them.

    There are exceptions to all these cases. You know who you are, and you don’t need lip service from me. You are in the game already, criticizing your colleagues. Or should be. This labor day is for you, a little. But mostly it is for the people who have jobs that if they fail at, even a little, they get fired, demoted, or abused.

    So here it is. An extra day off. Use it well. Do something fun. Then get back to work or you’re fired!


    Spread the love

    A New North American Clean Energy Plan

    Spread the love

    Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto, have made a joint announcement. As reported by NPR:

    President Obama and his counterparts from Canada and Mexico are preparing to unveil an ambitious new goal for generating carbon-free power when they meet this week in Ottawa.

    The three leaders are expected to set a target for North America to get 50 percent of its electricity from nonpolluting sources by 2025. That’s up from about 37 percent last year.

    Aides acknowledge that’s a “stretch goal,” requiring commitments over and above what the three countries agreed to as part of the Paris climate agreement.

    The news reports and press information about this event note that the US currently produces about a third of its energy from non fossil fuel sources. Mexico produces less than 20% of its power this way, and Canada is at about 81%. A big part of this shift will involve shutting down coal plants and expanding wind and solar. However, this mix, as well as the proposed 50% of “clean energy,” may include biofuels, which are very limited in their effectiveness in combating climate change, Nuclear, which is diminishing in its importance, and possibly “carbon capture” which is not an energy source and not likely to have much impact because it essentially doesn’t work at any meaningful scale because of physics.

    So, we will need to see some clarification in this area.


    Spread the love

    Brexit, Climate Change, No Drama Obama

    Spread the love

    Two related, but contrasting, items on Brexit.

    The climate change connection to Brexit is unclear and mostly negative. It is simply true that we benefit from international unity when addressing a global problem, and the EU is a powerful forward looking entity that could address climate change more effectively than the collection of individual nations in the EU otherwise might. With the UK out of the EU, AGW may be somewhat harder to address.

    Or, maybe not so much. The EU is still only one entity among several dozen, so having this small shift may not be that big of a deal.

    But the Brexit-Climate Change link with respect to intergenerational politics is important and interesting. Dana Nuccitelli nails this down writing in The Guardian. See the graph above.

    Dana talks about the similarity of difference across generations in attitudes about Brexit as well as climate change, and shows how these patterns, similar in both cases, are tied to the phenomenon of “intergenerational theft.” The ascending generation prefers expansion, ballooning of economic systems, putting off dealing with long and even medium term consequences. The younger generation takes it in the neck.

    The problem is of course that younger generations will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make today for much longer than older generations. Older generations in developed countries prospered as a result of the burning of fossil fuels for seemingly cheap energy.

    That’s all true and important.

    But I was also interested to hear President “No Drama” Obama’s remarks on Brexit. He sees this a more of the pressing of a pause button on a process that is not going to be stopped, and less of a cataclysm.

    Is he right? Or is he just trying to put off panic?

    Here are his remarks:

    What do you think?


    Spread the love

    Diablo Canyon nuclear plant will shut down

    Spread the love

    This is bad news and good news, but mostly good news. No matter what you think of nuclear energy (and I’m one of those people who give it a stern look and remain suspicious), it does tend to produce electricity with the addition of much less fossil carbon into the atmosphere than, say, burning coal. So, we probably don’t want to see a wholesale reduction in the use of nuclear energy too quickly, and we may even want to see some new plants built.

    The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is the only working nuke plant in California, and it is famously located in an earthquake-rich locality. The plant was upgraded to withstand a 7.5 earthquake, but earthquakes occasionally happen that are stronger than that. There has only been one earthquake of that magnitude in Southern California since good records have been kept, and that was in 1952. But still….

    Diablo Canyon is historically important because the whole idea of building a major nuclear plant in an earthquake zone catalyzed the anti-nuclear movement, and that reaction probably helped to avoid further such construction, and helped nudge the plant operators to upgrade the earthquake readiness of this plant from handling a 6.75 magnitude quake to a 7.5 magnitude quake. There have been six quakes in that range of magnitude in the region in the historic record.

    A quick word about earthquakes. Really large earthquakes are actually pretty uncommon in Southern California; other areas, such as the Pacific Northwest have very few quakes but when they happen they can be huge, easily enough to Fuki up a plant like Diablo Canyon. See Earthquake Time Bombs by Robert Yeats for more on that. Nonetheless, being built to withstand a 7.5 earthquake doesn’t necessarily mean that a smaller quake won’t cause problems, or weaken structures that are then more vulnerable to subsequent strong quakes.

    Anyway, the following is from a press release from Friends of the Earth, describing how the plan is to replace the energy coming from Diablo Canyon with non fossil carbon fuels. And that, of course, is the extra good news.

    BERKELEY, CALIF. – An historic agreement has been reached between Pacific Gas and Electric, Friends of the Earth, and other environmental and labor organizations to replace the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with greenhouse-gas-free renewable energy, efficiency and energy storage resources. Friends of the Earth says the agreement provides a clear blueprint for fighting climate change by replacing nuclear and fossil fuel energy with safe, clean, cost-competitive renewable energy.

    The agreement, announced today in California, says that PG&E will renounce plans to seek renewed operating licenses for Diablo Canyon’s two reactors — the operating licenses for which expire in 2024 and 2025 respectively. In the intervening years, the parties will seek Public Utility Commission approval of the plan which will replace power from the plant with renewable energy, efficiency and energy storage resources. Base load power resources like Diablo Canyon are becoming increasingly burdensome as renewable energy resources ramp up. Flexible generation options and demand-response are the energy systems of the future.

    By setting a certain end date for the reactors, the nuclear phase out plan provides for an orderly transition. In the agreement, PG&E commits to renewable energy providing 55 percent of its total retail power sales by 2031, voluntarily exceeding the California standard of 50 percent renewables by 2030.

    “This is an historic agreement,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “It sets a date for the certain end of nuclear power in California and assures replacement with clean, safe, cost-competitive, renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage. It lays out an effective roadmap for a nuclear phase-out in the world’s sixth largest economy, while assuring a green energy replacement plan to make California a global leader in fighting climate change.”

    A robust technical and economic report commissioned by Friends of the Earth served as a critical underpinning for the negotiations. The report, known as “Plan B,” provided a detailed analysis of how power from the Diablo Canyon reactors could be replaced with renewable, efficiency and energy storage resources which would be both less expensive and greenhouse gas free. With the report in hand, Friends of the Earth’s Damon Moglen and Dave Freeman engaged in discussions with the utility about the phase-out plan for Diablo Canyon. NRDC was quickly invited to join. Subsequently, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility partnered in reaching the final agreement. The detailed phase out proposal will now go to the California Public Utility Commission for consideration. Friends of the Earth (and other NGO parties to the agreement) reserve the right to continue to monitor Diablo Canyon and, should there be safety concerns, challenge continued operation.

    The agreement also contains provisions for the Diablo Canyon workforce and the community of San Luis Obispo. “We are pleased that the parties considered the impact of this agreement on the plant employees and the nearby community,” said Pica. “The agreement provides funding necessary to ease the transition to a clean energy economy.”

    Diablo Canyon is the nuclear plant that catalyzed the formation of Friends of the Earth in 1969. When David Brower founded Friends of the Earth the Diablo Canyon was the first issue on the organization’s agenda and Friends of the Earth has been fighting the plant ever since. This agreement is not only a milestone for renewable energy, but for Friends of the Earth as an organization.


    Spread the love

    Climate Or Bust: Sanders and Clinton Should Step Up Now

    Spread the love

    This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright.

    Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She

    is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day.


    It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

    As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

    Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

    Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

    His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

    “What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

    Notice what is missing?

    The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

    Climate change.

    Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

    Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

    Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

    Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

    Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

    It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

    It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.


    *Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

    “Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source


    Spread the love

    Putting the “Ex” in “Exxon”: AGU asked to dump big oil sponsorship

    Spread the love

    It is all about the honest conversation. And the dishonest conversation.

    Corporate Funding of the Research Endeavor: Good

    Corporations have an interest in research. They use this research for profit or to minimize liability. Some corporations have their own researchers, some provide grants to scientists to conduct research, and some fund activities that might not be thought of as research, but really are. For example, the publication fees for peer reviewed journals, funds to pay for scientists to attend conferences, and funds to support a scientific conference are paying for an important part of the research endeavor.

    It is not always the case that a conflict of interest arises when a corporation pays for research. In a former life, I was an administrator for a moderately sized research funding entity. We had “member” companies that paid annual dues that were rather high. In return for those dues, we provided experts who would show up and give talks. This was a total rip-off to the companies, because they also had to pay for the travel costs of the experts, but that is not why they contributed. These were Japanese companies, and the experts were all economists. The point was to distribute the money to young scholars — graduate students, post docs, and junior faculty — for whatever research projects they needed money for. The projects had to be real research, but they did not have to be on anything in particular. The results were generally put into a free and open access publication series (along with other research) and we would ship off copies of the publication to all the member companies. Nobody was paying anybody to produce any particular result, but the research was sometimes (but often not) valuable to those companies. For example, some Japanese companies, including at least one that paid us dues, had developed a great new way to manage warehousing of parts. It saved money and reduced waste. One of the research projects we funded looked at that system, compared it to other systems, and recommended how it might be applied elsewhere. In another project, one of the firs studies to ever look at putting some kind of price on carbon was carried out. None of the companies that funded this research had any interest, for or against, this concept.

    In the old days, AT&T funded Bell Labs. It still exists today, and I have no idea how it works now. I’m told by people who worked there back in the mid 20th century that it was a place where funding came in from the mother company to allow scientists to do more or less what they wanted to. Numerous important inventions that we use today came out of Bell Labs, and the people who worked there even won a bunch of Nobel Prizes. That was probably another example of industry funding research for the purpose of finding out new stuff, and little or no nefarious intent was attached.

    Conferences are typically funded by a combination of grants from institutions (like the National Science Foundation, etc.), conference fees (which can be rather hefty) charged to participants, and grants from interested commercial parties. For example, a company that makes microscopes might kick in some money for a biology conference. They may also be represented in the part of the conference where private companies (or institutions with a product) can set up booths (that they pay for), like a trade conference.

    Those private companies may well have an interest in the outcome of the research being performed by the various scientists who attend the conference. Maybe they want to sell the scientists a gadget to use in their lab. Maybe they want to use the research to advance their corporate mission, such as better ways to produce or deliver a product. Most of the time they probably just want people to like them, or to recognize their names.

    So far, there is not much wrong with that, either.

    Corporate Funding of the Research Endeavor: Bad

    But sometimes private corporations have different kind of interest. They don’t just want to get more information and knowledge about the areas where science overlaps with their corporate mission. They don’t just want to be seriously considered as a source for some matériel or equipment that scientists use. What some corporations want to do, sometimes, is to influence the outcome of scientific research, for their own interests, in ways that require that the science itself be adulterated in some substantial way. They want to see the dissemination of results that may be bogus but that serves their financial interests, or they may want to repress results that would lead policy makers, legislatures, the public, or the scientific community, to criticize, eschew, or even stop one or more of their profitable activities.

    This is a sufficiently important problem that one of the largest (possibly the largest, depending on how one defines things) scientific organizations related to the study of Planet Earth, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), has a policy about this. As part of their “organizational support policy,” the AGU says,

    AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.

    Organizational partners are defined as those that make an annual financial commitment to AGU
    of $5,000 or more.

    Why not accept the money? Doesn’t it make sense to take the money and then have lots of money and stuff, and ignore the wishes of potentially nefarious actors in this game?

    I knew a guy once, only barely (a friend of the father of a friend). He was a major research scientist at a major institution, and he invented a technology for seeing things that are very small, which had applications in a wide range of research and praxis, including materials science and medicine. But his methodology involved the development of technology that one might use to make a terrible but effective weapon. He received a lot of his funding from those who might fund such things, and this allowed him to do his work without having to spend much money on grant proposals. But, he claimed (in his retirement), he never intended his work to be used to make a terrible weapon. Furthermore, he knew, privately, from his own research that it never could be. What he was doing would simply not work in that context. But he never mentioned that to his funders. He just took the money, and used it to save lives.

    Well, one of the reasons one might not want to take money from sources with nefarious intent (and here we assume developing a terrible weapon is nefarious, though one could argue differently, I suppose) without ever advancing said nefarious goal, is that it is actually unethical. But one could counter argue that the savings of lives and advancement of civilization and such outweighs the ethics, or more exactly, that it is appropriate to develop situational ethics.

    That is an extreme example, but in some ways, parallel to what a major organization like the AGU would be doing if they knowingly accepted money from major corporations who intended to encourage, develop, disseminate, or otherwise use for their own interests any kind of fake science or anti-science. Why not take the money and run? Partly, one assumes, because it isn’t exactly kosher.

    Another reason is that if one takes anti-science money, one may end up advancing anti-science agendas even if one does not want to. The very fact that an anti-science entity (a corporation or foundation funded by a corporation) funds a major legit conference is a way of saying that the corporation itself is legit. It is a way that a scientific organization can advance anti-science even if it doesn’t want to.

    Scientist Tell AGU To Drop Exxon Sponsorship

    You all know about the Exxon maneno. Exxon, aka ExxonMobil, has recently been exposed as having repressed scientific information that indicated that we, our species, would ultimately need to change our energy systems in order to keep fossil fuels in the ground, else face dire consequences. Decades ago, when the science already indicated that this was a problem, Exxon independently verified that we needed to keep the fossil fuels in the ground, then shut up about it, because it was, and is, in their corporate interest to take the fossil fuel out of the ground.

    I wrote about the Exxon kerfuffle back when it first broke, here. In that post, I provided a thumb-suck analysis comparing what Exxon knew about climate change then, and what the IPCC and NASA know about it now. They are pretty much the same, with respect to global surface warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gas pollution from burning fossil fuels such as those extracted and sold by Exxon.

    Over a month ago, scientists Ploy Achakulwisut, Ben Scandella, Britta Voss asked the question, “Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?” They noted,

    The impacts of Exxon’s tactics have been devastating. Thanks in part to Exxon, the American public remains confused and polarized about climate change. Thanks in part to Exxon, climate science-denying Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level remain a major obstacle to U.S. efforts to mitigate climate change.

    And thanks in no small part to Exxon, climate action has been delayed at the global level; as the international community began to consider curbing greenhouse gas emissions with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Exxon orchestrated and funded anti-Kyoto campaigns, including participation in the Global Climate Coalition. The latter was so successful at shifting debate that the George W. Bush administration credited it with playing a key role in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

    So, now there is a letter signed by many top scientists asking the American Geophysical Union to make ExxonMobile an Ex-contributor to the conference. According to the Natural History Museum,

    more than 100 geoscientists sent the following letter to the President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) – the world’s largest association of Earth scientists – urging the association to end its sponsorship deal with ExxonMobil. The oil giant is currently under investigation by the New York and California Attorneys General for its long history of climate denial campaigns.

    Many notable scientists have signed on, including the former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies James E. Hansen, the former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Harvard Professor James J. McCarthy, Harvard Professor and author of Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes, and Michael Mann– Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

    The letter is the most recent example of a growing trend of scientists stepping out of their traditional roles to urge science institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel companies.

    As part of the press release announcing this letter, Michael Mann (author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, and Dire Predictions, 2nd Edition: Understanding Climate Change) noted, “While I recognize that it is a contentious matter within the diverse AGU community, I just don’t see how we can, in good conscience, continue to accept contributions from a company that has spent millions of dollars over several decades funding bad faith attacks on scientists within our community whose scientific findings happen to be inconvenient for fossil fuel interests.”

    InsideClimateNews has a timeline of what happened with Exxon, here.

    AGU’s president, Margaret Leinen, wrote on the AGU’s blog, that “The AGU Board of Directors will take up the questions raised in this letter at their upcoming meeting in April, and prior to that will carefully review the information that has been provided, and any additional information that becomes available in the meantime. We will consult with our various member constituencies as well other stakeholders prior to the Board meeting. In addition, the Board will look more deeply into the question of what constitutes verifiable information about current activities.”

    InsideClimateNews notes that this campaign “…is part of a growing trend of scientists’ protesting efforts by fossil fuel companies to undermine climate science. Last year, for instance, dozens of researchers urged Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York to cut ties with David Koch of Koch Industries.” See this post at InsideClimateNews for more information about the Exxon-AGU problem, and the broader movement.

    As I noted at the beginning, this is all about the honest conversation. I’ve talked about this before. So often, the conversation, usually public and policy-related, is not about the science at all, but about other things, and the science itself gets thrown under the bus. My understanding (limited, I know) of the criminal justice system is that if a prosecutor knows about exculpatory evidence, they are required to provide it to the court or defense, thus possibly negatively affecting their own chance of success, but at the same time, doing the right thing. One would think that in science, institutions or individuals who know about evidence important in understanding some scientific problem, that they are ethically obligated to make that information available with reasonable alacrity. If all those involved in the large scale and complex conversations about climate change and energy had as a central ethical theme a commitment to accuracy, openness, and to the process of mutual aid in advancing our understanding of the topics at hand, it wouldn’t matter who gave money to whom, because that money would not be linked to efforts to repress knowledge or to produce and disseminate misinformation.

    And, certainly, such corporations should not be attacking the science or the scientists, or funding other organizations that do. Contributing to a valid scientific organization like the AGU does not make up for such behavior.

    Had that been the way things worked fifty years ago, by now, Exxon-Mobile and other fossil fuel companies would have shifted their corporate activities away from fossil fuels. They would be phasing out coal, oil, and natural gas, and developing clean energy solutions. They would not have stuck themselves with vast stranded assets that they now have a corporate responsibility, no matter how immoral or antiscientific, to develop. There is an idea that corporations are primarily responsible to their stockholders, and this widely accepted but highly questionable “ethic” has been applied to justify, it seems, a significant departure from the pursuit of knowledge and the application of that knowledge to managing human problems and protecting our precious planet. This is a fundamental flaw in how we do things, and it is the reason AGU has to but the “ex” in Exxon as a sponsor.

    Scientists’ Letter to the American Geophysical Union

    Here is the letter:

    Dear Dr. Margaret Leinen,

    We, the undersigned members of AGU (and other concerned geoscientists), write to ask you to please reconsider ExxonMobil’s sponsorship of the AGU Fall Meetings.

    As Earth scientists, we are deeply troubled by the well-documented complicity of ExxonMobil in climate denial and misinformation. For example, recent investigative journalism has shed light on the fact that Exxon, informed by their in-house scientists, has known about the devastating global warming effects of fossil fuel burning since the late 1970s, but spent the next decades funding misinformation campaigns to confuse the public, slander scientists, and sabotage science – the very science conducted by thousands of AGU members. Even today, Exxon continues to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators and attempts to block pro-renewable energy policies. Just last year, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson downplayed the validity of climate models and the value of renewable energy policies.

    The impacts of Exxon’s tactics have been devastating. Thanks in part to Exxon, the American public remains confused and polarized about climate change. And thanks in part to Exxon, climate science-denying members of Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level remain a major obstacle to US efforts to mitigate climate change.

    The research disciplines of Earth sciences conducted by AGU members are diverse, but they are united by their shared value of truthfulness. AGU states that its mission and core values are to “promote discovery in Earth science for the benefit of humanity” and for “a sustainable future.” Indeed, AGU has established a long history of scientific excellence with its peer-reviewed publications and conferences, as well as a strong position statement on the urgency of climate action, and we’re proud to be included among its members.

    But by allowing Exxon to appropriate AGU’s institutional social license to help legitimize the company’s climate misinformation, AGU is undermining its stated values as well as the work of many of its own members. The Union’s own Organizational Support Policy specifically states that “AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.” We believe that in fully and transparently assessing sponsors on a case-by-case basis, AGU will determine that some, including ExxonMobil, do not meet the standards of this policy. We therefore call on you as the President of AGU to protect the integrity of climate science by rejecting the sponsorship of future AGU conferences by corporations complicit in climate misinformation, starting with ExxonMobil.

    While we recognize that some of AGU’s scientific disciplines are deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry, we are also increasingly aware of the tension within our community regarding how we should respond to the urgency of climate change as individual scientists and as institutions. It is time to bring this tension into the light and determine how an organization such as AGU should approach the major challenges of today to ensure that we truly are working for the benefit of humanity. In particular, as the world’s largest organization of Earth scientists, if we do not take an active stand against climate misinformation now, when will we?

    Yours respectfully,

    AGU members:

    Robert R. Bidigare, PhD, AGU Fellow, University of Hawaii

    Cecilia Bitz, Professor, University of Washington

    David Burdige, Professor and Eminent Scholar, Old Dominion University

    Kerry Emanuel, Professor, MIT

    Peter Frumhoff, PhD, Director of Science and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists

    Richard H. Gammon, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington

    Catherine Gautier, Professor Emerita, University of California Santa Barbara

    Charles Greene, Professor, Cornell University

    James E. Hansen, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University

    Charles Harvey, Professor, MIT

    Roger Hooke, Research Professor, University of Maine

    Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor, Stanford University

    Dan Jaffe, Professor and Chair, University of Washington Bothell

    Michael C. MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute

    Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor, Penn State University

    James J. McCarthy, Professor, Harvard University

    James Murray, Professor, University of Washington

    Naomi Oreskes, Professor, Harvard University

    Nathan Phillips, Professor, Boston University

    Christopher Rapley, CBE, Professor, University College London

    Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California San Diego

    Pattanun Achakulwisut, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Becky Alexander, Associate Professor, University of Washington

    Theodore Barnhart, PhD Student, University of Colorado/INSTAAR

    Yanina Barrera, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Dino Bellugi, PhD Candidate, University of California Berkeley

    Jo Browse, Postdoctoral Research, University of Leeds, UK

    Adam Campbell, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Otago

    Chawalit Charoenpong, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

    Sarah Crump, PhD Student, University of Colorado Boulder

    Daniel Czizco, Associate Professor, MIT

    Katherine Dagon, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Suzane Simoes de Sá, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Michael Diamond, PhD Student, University of Washington

    Kyle Delwiche, PhD Student, MIT

    Sarah Doherty, Associate Professor, University of Washington

    Liz Drenkard, Postdoctoral Researcher, Rutgers University

    Emily V. Fischer, Assistant Professor

    Priya Ganguli, Postdoctoral Fellow

    Gretchen Goldman, PhD, Lead Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists

    Meagan Gonneea, Postdoc

    Jordon Hemingway, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

    Hannah Horowitz, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Irene Hu, PhD student, MIT

    Lu Hu, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University

    Eric Leibensperger, Assistant Professor, State University of New York at Plattsburgh

    Marena Lin, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Simon J. Lock, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Andrew McDonnell, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks

    Bruce Monger, Senior Lecturer, Cornell University

    Daniel Ohnemus, Postdoctoral Researcher, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

    Morgan O’Neill, Postdoctoral Fellow, Weizmann Institute of Science

    Cruz Ortiz Jr., PhD Student, University of California Santa Barbara

    Jonathan Petters, Research Fellow, University of California Santa Cruz

    Allison Pfeiffer, PhD Student, University of California Santa Cruz

    James L. Powell, PhD

    Christina M. Richardson, MS Student, University of Hawaii Manoa

    Ignatius Rigor, Senior Principal Research Scientist, University of Washington

    Paul Richardson, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Oregon

    Erica Rosenblum, PhD Student, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

    Ben Scandella, PhD Student, MIT

    Neesha Schnepf, PhD Student, University of Colorado at Boulder/CIRES

    Amos P. K. Tai, Assistant Professor, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

    Robert Tardif, Research Scientist

    Katherine Travis, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Britta Voss, Postdoctoral Fellow

    Andrew Wickert, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota

    Kyle Young, Graduate Student, University of California Santa Cruz

    Xu Yue, Postdoctoral Associate, Yale University

    Emily Zakem, PhD Student, MIT

    Cheryl Zurbrick, Postdoctoral Associate, MIT

    .

    Other concerned geoscientists:

    Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, CBE, Professor, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

    Helen Amos, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University

    Antara Banerjee, Postdoctoral Research Scientist

    Emma Bertran, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Skylar Bayer, PhD Student

    Thomas Breider, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University

    Stella R. Brodzik, Software Engineer, University of Washington

    BB Cael, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

    Sophie Chu, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

    Archana Dayalu, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Gregory de Wet, PhD Student, University of Massachusetts Amherst

    Christopher Fairless, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

    Mara Freilich, PhD Student, MIT

    Wiebke Frey, Research Associate, University of Manchester, UK

    Nicolas Grisouard, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

    Sydney Gunnarson, PhD Student, University of Iceland/University of Colorado Boulder

    Sam Hardy, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

    David Harning, PhD Student, University of Colorado Boulder

    Sophie Haslett, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

    Richard Hogen, Aerospace Thermodynamic Engineer, United Launch Alliance

    Anjuli Jain, PhD Student, MIT

    Harriet Lau, PhD Student, Harvard University

    Cara Lauria, Masters Student, University of Colorado Boulder

    Franziska Lechleitner, PhD Student, ETH Zu?rich

    Michael S. Long, Research Scientist

    John Marsham, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK

    Catherine Scott, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Leeds, UK

    Rohini Shivamoggi, PhD student, MIT

    Victoria Smith, PhD, Instrument Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, UK

    Gail Spencer, Environmental Specialist, Washington Department of Ecology

    Melissa Sulprizio, Scientific Programmer, Harvard University

    Rachel White, Postdoctoral Associate, University of Washington

    Leehi Yona, BA, Senior Fellow, Dartmouth College

    Yanxu Zhang, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University


    Spread the love

    The John Droz Letter

    Spread the love

    The following is a repost of a Facebook Post by Michael Mann. I don’t think this needs any comment from me. The original is here.

    Begin Repost

    Several colleagues have notified me of the following email that has been sent to a presumably broad group of researchers and academics by John Droz of the ?#?Koch?-funded American Tradition Institute (?#?ATI?) (read about Droz here).

    The email forwards a sign-on letter from ?#?GeorgeMarshallInstitute? chair and ?#?climatechange? denier ?#?WillHapper? (read about Happer here) asking colleagues to support the Lamar Smith (R-TX) witch-hunt against NOAA scientists (my The New York Times op-ed on the matter is here).

    The email and letter are reprinted below, along with the list of initial signatories, which reads like a who’s who of climate change contrarianism, with many of the most notorious industry-funded climate change deniers listed.

    Begin forwarded message:

    From: “John Droz, jr.” XXXXX

    Date: January 15, 2016 at 10:17:56 AM PST

    Subject: Scientific Integrity of Government Agencies

    To: XXXXX

    NAME,

    I’m very selective in what I publicly endorse — but I’m very supportive of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Below is can email I’m passing on from Dr. Will Happer, who is asking that you cosign an important letter (attached). If you choose to do that (as I have) please email Dr. Happer directly (by clicking on his name). He is planning on submitting the material by January 22nd.


    NAME,

    I am writing you to ask if you would consider joining other scientists in supporting the attached letter to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. A list of those who have already agreed to be co-signers is attached.

    The intent is to help the Committee, chaired by Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas. They are trying to combat the charge that they have declared war on Science — when all they have done is try to fulfill their mandate to assure that federal agencies (like NOAA) follow the law, especially with respect to “influential scientific information,” and “highly influential scientific assessments.”

    NOAA, EPA and other agencies have always violated this requirement to some degree, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, but violations over the past few years are of unprecedented scope and gravity. An example of the sort of propaganda to which this House Committee has been subject can be found here.

    I hope you will let us use your name, with your preferred “tag line” (similar to those on the attached list). If there are other good technical people that might be interested, please pass this onto them.

    Best wishes,

    Will Happer

    Princeton


    Initial Signatories:

    ALEXANDER, Ralph B, PhD Physics, University of Oxford, former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of book, Global Warming False Alarm, Canterbury Publishing, 2012

    ANDERSON, Charles R, Ph.D., Physics, Case Western Reserve University; Sc.B., Physics, Brown University; Founder and President of Anderson Materials Evaluation, Inc., previously Senior Scientist at Lockheed Martin Laboratories – Baltimore and Research Physicist in the Department of the Navy; 43 years’ experience using particle beams, gamma rays, x-rays, ultra-violet light, visible light, and infra-red radiation to characterize materials.

    ARMSTRONG, J. Scott, Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, One of the world’s leading experts on forecasting, he has also published 19 papers on the scientific method.

    ASHWORTH, Robert A., Vice President of ClearStack Power LLC, Chemical Engineer with over 50 scientific papers published.

    BARRANTE, James R., Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT; author of book Global Warming for Dim Wits: A Scientist’s Perspective of Climate Change, Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 2010.

    BASTARDI, Joe, Bastardi, Chief meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics

    BATTIG, Dr. Charles G, M.S. E.E.; M.D, Life member IEEE, American Society of Anesthesiologists; President, Piedmont Chapter, Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment;. Policy advisor, Heartland Institute

    BELL, Larry: Launched the research and education program in space architecture at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.

    BELLER, Denis Beller, PhD, Lt. Col, USAF, retired (first tenured uniformed professor in the then–70-year history of the USAF Institute of Technology) co-author of seminal Foreign Affairs essay The Need for Nuclear Power, Jan/Feb 2000 (with Pulitzer Prize-winner Richard Rhodes), former Research Prof. of Nuclear Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas

    BENARD, David J, Ph.D Physics (University of Illinois, 1972) Co-inventor of the oxygen-iodine chemical laser

    BERRY, Edwin X, PhD, Physics, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, Memberships: American Meteorological Society, AMS, Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180, American Physical Society.

    BEZDEK, Roger. Ph.D, Economics, President, MISI; former research Director in ERDA and DOE and Senior Advisor, U.S. Treasury Department. Author of 6 books and 300 papers published in scientific and professional journals.

    BLETHEN, John, Ph.D, physics, Stanford University, 1974, McGill, Nevada

    BOHNAK, Karl, WLUC-TV6 NBC & FOX U, Chief Meteorologist

    BRESLOW, Jan L, M.A. Physical Chemistry Columbia University, Doctor of Medicine Harvard Medical School, Fredrick Henry Leonhardt Professor Rockefeller University, Member National Academy of Sciences, Member National Academy of Medicine, Member German National Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina), published more than 250 original peer reviewed research papers

    BRIGGS, William, Statistician with specialty in evaluating the goodness and usefulness of models.

    BROOKS, Scott, Electronic-Electomechanical Engineering, Albuquerque, NM

    BRUMM, Douglas B, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus), Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan; Life Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

    BUTOS, Wiliam N, George M. Ferris Professor of Corporation Finance & Investments Department of Economics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106

    CAMPANELLA, Angelo, Ph.D., Physics and Electrical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 55+ year experience in infrared physics, military electronics, and applied physics.

    CARLIN, Alan, PhD Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology; senior analyst and manager, USEPA, 1971–2010; author or co-author of about 40 publications; author of Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy, 2015, Stairway Press.

    CATANESE, Carmen, M.S., Ph.D. in physics (Yale University), Retired Exec. VP, The Sarnoff Corp (SRI),Author of 12 peer-reviewed articles in science and engineering , Holder of 12 issued US patents

    CHRISTENSEN, Charles R., PhD Chemistry, California Institute of Technology. Retired Research Physicist, U.S. Army Missile Command. Seven Patents and numerous journal publications in optics and optical materials.

    COLEMAN, John, BS, University of Illinois, Former Professional Member of the American Meteorological Society, Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year (1982) of the American Meteorological Society, Founder of “The Weather Channel”, original Meteorologist on ABC “Good Morning, America”, TV Meteorologist for 61 years on stations in New York, Chicago, San Diego, etc.

    CONDON, William F., Ph.D., Electroanalytical Chemistry, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry (analytical and environmental), Southern Connecticut State University.

    CROWE, Donald R, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida; licensed Professional Engineer (P.E., Florida); Consulting Construction Executive; over 40 years’ experience in construction, product engineering, manufacturing, and information technology.

    CUNNINGHAM, Walter; MS Degree in Physics; Physicist, RAND Corp; Astronaut, Apollo 7; Founder, Earth Awareness Foundation, 1970; Advisory Board, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (5 years); Writer and Lecturer on the global warming issue.

    D’ALEO, Joseph, AMS Fellow, CCM, Chair of Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, Former Professor of Meteorology/Climatology, Lyndon State College, Co-founder the Weather Channel, Chief Meteorologist, WSI, Weatherbell Analytics

    D’ALONZO, Raphael P, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Retired – the Procter & Gamble Company, former Department Head, Data Management.

    DeLONG, James V., J.D., Harvard Law School, mcl; former Research Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States; former Senior Analyst, Program Evaluation Office, U.S. Bureau of the Budget; author of numerous articles on administrative law, regulatory, and environmental issues, including Climate Issues and Facts (Marshall Institute, 2015), A Skeptical Look at the Carbon Tax (Marshall Institute 2013), and Out of Bounds and Out of Control: Regulatory Enforcement at the EPA (Cato Institute 2002).

    DOIRON, Harold H, PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Vice President, Engineering

    (retired) InDyne, Inc. Houston, Texas, Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team of retired NASA Apollo Program scientists and engineers. Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    DOUGLASS, David, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester.

    DOYLE, Jeffrey M, PhD Resource Economics Michigan State University, President, Thermoeconomics

    DRIESSEN, Paul K: BA, geology and ecology, Lawrence University; JD, environmental and natural resource law, University of Denver; author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death, Miracle Molecule: Carbon Dioxide, Gas of Life, and other books; author of many articles and reports on energy, mining, climate change, sustainable development, malaria control and other topics; senior policy analyst, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality.

    DROZ, John Jr. Physicist. Energy expert with over 35 years of environmental advocacy.

    DUNN, John Dale, MD JD, Policy advisor Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL, and American Council on Science and Health, New York City, Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas, Clinical Instructor, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. Lecturer and writer on human health effects of air pollution and climate as well as environmental law and air pollution science for 25 years.

    EASTERBROOK, Don: Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. He has studied global climate change for five decades, has written three textbooks and a dozen other books, published more than 185 papers in professional journals, and has presented 30 research papers at international meetings in 15 countries.

    ENDRIZ, John Endriz, BS. (Engineering, MIT), PhD (Eng., Stanford, U), Retired VP, SDL, Inc

    ENSTROM, James E., PhD, Physics; MPH, Epidemiology; Research Professor/Researcher (retired), UCLA School of Public Health, and President, Scientific Integrity Institute, Los Angeles; Life Member, American Physical Society; Founding Fellow, American College of Epidemiology; extensive scientific expertise on health effects of air pollution.

    EVERETT, Bruce, Faculty Tufts University’s Fletcher School, over forty years of experience in the international energy industry.

    EVERETT, Robert, Electrical Engineer, Retired President of the MITRE Corporation

    FAGAN, Matthew J, PhD, B.Sc(Hons) Nuclear Physics. Founder and president of FastCAM Inc. with 17 robotic technology patents and published patent applications in the US.

    FORBING, Irv, PhD in oral surgery, MS in bacteriology, College of Physicians and Surgeons in San Francisco.

    FRANK, Neil, Ph.D., meteorology, Florida State University, Former Director National Hurricane Center and former Chief Meteorologist KHOU TV, CBS Houston. member, American Meteorological Society

    FRANK, Patrick, Ph.D. Chemistry, Stanford University. More than 60 peer-reviewed publications, including several assessing uncertainty in the surface air temperature record and in climate model air temperature projections.

    FRICKE, Martin Ph.D.: Nuclear physicist; Senior Fellow of the APS; elected to the APS Executive Panel on Public Affairs (POPA); nuclear physics research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Corporate Officer of seven R&D companies; Extraordinary Minister of Catholic Diocese of San Diego.

    FULKS, Gordon J, PhD Physics, The Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research at the University of Chicago. Five decades of experience studying physical, astrophysical,and geophysical phenomena for universities, government agencies, and private clients.

    GAMBLIN, Rodger L, Former VP Mead Corporation. Inventor. Author or coauthor on 46 U.S. patents.

    GAMOTA, George Ph.D.: Physics; former professor University of Michigan, Fellow of the APS; Fellow of the AAAS; Senior Member of the IEEE; elected to the APS Executive Panel on Public Affairs (POPA); Founding Director of Research, Department of Defense; Corporate Board member and Executive at several R&D companies; former Bedford Chief Scientist MITRE Corporation.

    GERHARD, Lee C, PhD., Senior Scientist Emeritus, Univ. of Kansas, Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey (Ret.), meteorology background. Extensive published research in both geology and climate change. Honorary member, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Association of American State Geologists and others. Member Russian Academy of Natural Science (US Br.), Kansas Geologist license #1. Former Getty Professor of Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines.

    GERLACH, Ulrich H., PhD Relativistic Astrophysics, Princeton University, Professor of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

    GERONDEAU, Christian, engineer and scientist,graduated from ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE in PARIS,an energy expert,the author of many books on climate matters, two of them available in English: “CLIMATE,THE GREAT DELUSION ” and “ UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE LIARS”.

    GIAEVER, Ivar, Applied BioPhysics, Inc., Nobel Prize in Physics, 1973

    GLATZLE, Albrecht, Agro-Biologist, Dr. sc. agr. (Hohenheim University, Germany), Director of Research of INTTAS (retired), Loma Plata Paraguay Asociación Rural del Paraguay (ARP), Society of Range Management, US Grassland Society of Southern Africa, Fellow of the Tropical Grassland Society of Australia (AUSTRALIA)

    GOSSELIN, Pierre, Mechanical Engineering, author of the blog, http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.PhRMBOBJ.dpbs (GERMANY)

    GOULD, Laurence I, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, Past Chair (2004), New England Section of the American Physical Society, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, Past Chair (2004), New England Section of the American Physical Society

    GRAY, William M., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1961-present). Ph.D. Meteorology from U. Chicago. Tropical meteorology specialist – initiated Atlantic seasonal hurricane prediction.

    GREGORY, WILLIAM D., PhD, PE, Registered Patent Agent (US); BS(physics) Georgetown University; PhD(physics), MIT; Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering and Health Sciences, and former Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Senior Member IEEE, Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi; author on 100+ peer reviewed articles, inventor on 100+ US and foreign patents; currently Chair of the Board and Chief Science Officer, NovaScan LLC, developer of cancer detection devices.

    HAPPER, William is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Princeton University, former Director of the Office of Energy Research Director of Research, U.S. Department of Energy, Member National Academy of Sciences

    HAYDEN, Howard C, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut. Editor and Publisher, The Energy Advocate, now in 20th year of publication.

    HENNIGAN,Thomas D, Environmental and Forest Biology, Associate Professor of Biology, Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, Georgia, Ecological Society of America.

    HESS, Michael L, BS Computer Information Systems, Raytheon Senior Field Engineer, Retired, U. S. Army, CW3, Retired, Florida State University

    HIGGINBOTHAM, Richard, DoD Retiree, Past Member of the Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council’s Environmental Regulatory Committee MBA form American Graduate University, Covina, CA.

    HUGHES, Terence J., Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences and Climate Change, University of Maine. A half-century career studying the interaction of global climate with continental ice sheets, past, present, and future, focused on inherent instabilities in ice sheets that facilitate their rapid gravitational collapse.

    HUMLUM, Ole, Professor of Physical Geography, Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo (NORWAY)

    IDSO, Craig: Founder and Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

    KARAJAS, John, retired geologist, specialist stratigrapher and sedimentologist who, as a result has gained a wide-ranging understanding of the geological history of planet earth and its climatic history.

    KAUFMAN, John, Retired, Faculty of Cornell University 1973–191976 & Michigan State University 1976–1981, Research Agronomist

    KEEN, Richard A., Ph.D. Climatology/Geography, University of Colorado, Emeritus Instructor of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado, Author of 7 books and numerous reports and scientific papers on Climate and Meteorology. NWS climate change, Observer for Monsanto (retired as Science Fellow) 1981–2002 & Agrium 2003–2007.

    KENDRICK, Hugh, Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan; former Director, Plans & Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, US.DOE; retired VP SAIC.

    KAISER, Klaus L.E., Dr. rer. nat. (Technical University Munich, Germany), Research Scientist (retired), Natl. Water Research Institute. Author/coauthor of numerous scientific papers, author of numerous popular public press articles, author/editor of several books, Canadian

    KNOX, Robert S, Ph. D., Physics and Optics, U. of Rochester,1953.Professor of Physics Emeritus, U.of Rochester, fellow, American Physical Society; charter member, American Society for Photobiology.

    KRAMM, Gerhard, Dr. rer. nat.(Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany), Research Associate Professor of Meteorology (retired), author and co-author of numerous papers on meteorology and textbook co-author.

    LANGNER, Carl G, PhD, Retired senior staff engineer for Shell E&P Technology Co, author or co-author of 31 patents along with numerous industry papers, member NAE

    LAPOINT, Patricia A, Ph.D. Professor of Management, Author of several articles on wind energy

    LEGATES, David R, Ph.D., Climatology, U of Delaware, 1988, Professor, University of Delaware, Member: AMS.

    LEHR, Jay Ph.D. Science Director, The Heartland Institute, author or co-author of 35 science books relating to water, energy and the environment.

    LESSER, Jonathan A, PhD, President, Continental Economics, Inc. Sandia Park, NM

    LESTER, David H, Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, retired consultant in Environmental Analysis and Nuclear Technology, former Asst. Vice-President SAIC, San Diego, CA, Currently Chairman of the Board of Go-Nuclear.

    LINDSTROM, Richard E., Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics of Phase Changes, Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut

    LINDZEN, Richard: emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Member of National Academy of Sciences, author of numerous papers on climate and meteorology

    LIPMAN, Everett, Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

    LUPO, Anthony R, Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri

    LYNCH, William t, IEEE Fellow, Former Director at Semiconductor Research Corporation, Former Dept. Head of VLSI Device Technology at Bell Laboratories, Former member of the U.S. Nuclear Emergency Team #1, and a nuclear and radiation effects specialist

    MACDONALD, James, M.S. Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Retired Chief meteorologist, Travelers Research Center Weather Service, Hartford, CT. 35 years weather forecasting experience.

    MALKAN, Matthew, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA. He received his PhD in Astronomy from Caltech. He is the lead author or co-author of over 350 peer-reviewed articles.

    MANGINO, Martin J, Ph.D., Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Research Director, VCU Trauma Center, President, Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE), Richmond

    MARTINIS, John, Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa

    Barbara.

    MARSH, James A, Professor of Immunology (emeritus), Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University

    MCCALL, Gene, Ph. D., former chief scientist of Air Force Space Command and former chair of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.

    MISCOLCZI, F. M., PhD, Astrophysics, Earth Sciences, Former NASA Senior Principal Scientist. Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

    MILLER, Dennis D, Ph.D, Professor of Economics, Holder of the Endowed Buckhorn Chair in Economics, Baldwin Wallace University, Berea, Ohio.

    MILLOY, Steven j, MHS (Biostatistics), JD, LLM. Founder & publisher,JunkScience.com.

    MITCHELL, Dennis M. -Certified Public Accountant( Louisiana) and Qualified Environmental Professional( IPEP), Honorary Lifetime Member International Air & Waste Management Association

    MONCKTON, Christopher,

    MOORE, JOHN H., Ph.D. Economics, University of Virginia; Deputy Director, National Science Foundation, 1985–1989; President, Sigma Xi, 1998–1999; President, Grove City College, 1996–2003

    MOORE, Patrick, Ph.D., Co-founder and 15-year Director of Greenpeace, B.Sc. (Honours) Biology and Forestry, Ph.D. Ecology, Co-Chair US Clean and Safe Energy Coalition 2006–2012, Chair for Ecology, Energy, and Prosperity of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 2015. Director, CO2 Coalition.

    NAGEL, Mechthild, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Center for Gender and Intercultural Studies at the State University of New York, College at Cortland, has written on ethical issues of water rights in South Africa

    NEWTON, Michael Newton, Professor Emeritus, Forest Ecology, Oregon State University.

    NIKOLOV, Ned, Ph.D., Physical Scientist (with expertise in atmosphere-ecosystem interactions, vegetation remote sensing, fire-weather forecasting and climate dynamics), USDA Forest Service.

    NICHOLS, Rodney, former President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences; Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Executive Vice President of The Rockefeller University, R&D manager Office of the Secretary of Defense.

    NUSGEN, Dr. Ursula, MSc MRCPCH FRCPath, (the MSc relates to Tropical Pediatrics) Consultant Microbiologist, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

    O’KEEFE, William O’Keefe, President, Solutions Consulting, former CEO George C Marshall Institute, and for Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute.

    OSBORN, Jeffery BM, BS Geology, University of Kansas, Petroleum Engineer, Memberships in American Association of Petroleum Geologists for 34 years, and in other scientific societies.

    PARISH, Trueman, PhD Chemical Engineering retired former Director of Engineering Research, Eastman Chemical Company.

    PAYNE, Franklin Ed, M.D. Doctor of Medicine, Associate Professor of Family, Medicine (Retired), Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA.

    PERRY, Charles A, PhD, Hydrologist and Solar Physicist, formerly of USGS (retired)

    PLIMER, Ian PhD, FGS, FTSE, FAIMM, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne (Australia). Co-editor of Encyclopedia of Geology, author of Heaven and Earth (2009), How to get expelled from school (2011), Not for greens (2014) and Heaven and Hell (2015), (AUSTRALIA).

    PROMBOIN, Ronald L., Ph.D. (Economics), Stanford University, Former professor of Finance and Economics, University of Maryland University College.

    PRUD’HOMME, Rémy, Harvard Law School, PhD economics Un. of Paris, Formerly Deputy-Director Environment Directorate OECD, Prof emeritus Univ of Paris, Visiting Professor MIT, Most recent book: Warmism as an Ideology – Soft

    Science, Hard Doctrine (FRANCE)

    QUENEAU, Paul B, Adjunct Professor, Colorado School of Mines; Principal Metallurgical Engineer and President, The Bear Group, PB Queneau & Associates Inc.

    QUIRK, Thomas W. D.Phil. Nuclear physicist and former Fellow of three

    Oxford Colleges. Published papers on methane, ocean changes, wind power, nuclear fuel cycle and psychology, behavioural economics and climate

    change (AUSTRALIA)

    RIGANATI, John P., PhD Electrical Engineering, retired Vice President Sarnoff Corporation, former member Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, cofounder The Journal of Supercomputing & IEEE Computation in Science and Engineering, 70 publications.

    RITTAUD Benoît, Ph.D: mathematics, Paris–13 university, Sorbonne-Paris-Cité, associate professor, essayist. Most recent book: The Exponential Fear (La Peur exponentielle, Paris, PUF, 2015), (FRANCE).

    ROGERS, Norman: founder of Rabbit Semiconductor Company, member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

    ROMBOUGH, Charles T, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Founder and President of CTR Technical Services, Inc., a nuclear consulting firm, Manitou Springs, Colorado.

    RUTAN, Burt, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne.

    RUST, James H, PhD, Professor of nuclear engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology (retired), Atlanta, Georgia

    SCAFETTA, Nicola, Ph.D, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Science, University of Naples Federico II, Italy, Former research scientist of Physics at Duke University. 87 Publications in complex systems and climate change (ITALY)

    SCHMITT, Harrison, Geologist, Astronaut, Former U.S. Senator, Former Chair NASA Advisory Council

    SHAVIV, Nir J, Professor of Physics, Chairman, Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (ISRAEL)

    SHEAHEN, Thomas P, B.S. and Ph.D. in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research career in energy sciences, including Demand-Side Management (Energy Conservation); author of book Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity; measured infrared absorption by CO2 and H2O.

    SINGER, S. Fred, PhD. Emeritus Prof of Envir Sciences, U of VA. Founding director, US Weather Satellite Service; former Vice Chm, Nat’l Advis Comm

    on Oceans and Atmosphere. Fellow, AAAS, AGU, APS, AIAA. Founding chm of NIPCC. Co-author of NYT best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming

    SOON, Willie, Scientist.

    SPENCER, Roy W, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

    STEWARD, H. Leighton: Geologist, environmentalists, and Chairman of Plants Need CO2.org.

    TAYLOR, George, Ph.D. Computer Science, U.C. Berkeley

    TESDORF, Nicholas, B.Arch.(Hons) Architecture, Architect, F.R.A.I.A. A.R.I.B.A., Sydney NSW / London England , University of Melbourne (AUSTRALIA)

    TRIMBLE, Stanley W, Emeritus Professor, UCLA. Over the past 42 years, author, coauthor, or editor of 9 books on environmental issues in water including ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROLOGY (2013, 2015) and THE ENCYLOPEDIA OF WATER SCIENCE (2007), plus about 100 scientific papers, many published in SCIENCE.

    VALENTINE, Brian G, US Department of Energy, Associate Professor of Engineering ,University of Maryland at College Park

    VAN LOON, Harry, PhD, Meteorology and Climatology, formerly of NCAR

    VARENHOLT, Fritz, Ph.D., Professor of the University of Hamburg, Department pf Chemistry, former Senator of the State of Hamburg, Germany, author of the Book, The neglected sun, CEO of the German Wildlife Foundation.

    VELASCO HERRERA, Victor Manuel, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Institute of Geophysics, Space Science (GERMANY)

    THOMPSON, David E., PhD Mechanical Engineering, Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, the University of Idaho. Published Design Analysis, Mathematical Modeling of Nonlinear Systems (Cambridge Press, 1988).

    WALLACE, Lance, PhD Astrophysics, 100 publications, mostly on human exposure to environmental pollutants, founding member of International Society of Exposure Science and International Society for Indoor Air and Climate (ISIAQ), member of AAAS and AAAR.

    WEINSTEIN, Leonard, ScD, Aerospace Engineering, B.Sc Physics. Former NASA Senior Research Scientist and former Senior Research Fellow, National Institute of Aerospace, retired after 51 years research. Associate fellow AIAA, Recipient of AIAA Engineer of the year, and numerous other awards.

    WERNER, Samuel A, Curators’ Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Missouri and Guest Researcher, Neutron Physics Group, NIST, Fellow APS, AAAS, NSSA

    WHITSETT, Bob, Ph.D., geophysicist, ret. Former Special Projects Manager, CGG American Services

    WOLFE, Danley B., PhD – Chemical Engineering (Ohio State University, tau beta pi), MBA – University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (beta gamma sigma); energy and chemicals research and business management; management consultant, President – Chem Energy Advisors

    WOLFRAM, Thomas, physicist, former Chairman of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Fellow of the American Physical Society, and retired Director of Division of Physical Technology,Amoco Corporation.

    WOOD, Peter, President, National Association of Scholars.

    WYSMULLER, Thomas, (NASA Ret.) 2013 “Water Day” chair, UNESCO-IHE (Delft, NL); 2015 “Sea-Level presenter” at http://www.waterconf.org (Varna, Bulgaria); 2016 Sea-Level chair at Symmetrion, (Vienna, Austria), Founding member, NASA TRCS Climate Group, Johnson Space Center (Houston, TX).

    YOUNG, S. Stanley, PhD, Statistics and Genetics, CEO of CGStat, Adjunct Professor of Statistics, North Carolina State University, University of British Columbia and University of Waterloo, Fellow of American Statistical Association and AAAS, 3 patents; over 60 papers; six “best paper” awards.

    ZYBACH, Bob, PhD, Environmental Sciences, Historical ecologist with long-term research focus on Pacific Northwest catastrophic wildfires and reforestation history, more than 200 popular articles, editorials, presentations, reports and media interviews.


    Spread the love

    Attacking Climate Science and Scientists

    Spread the love

    You are a scientists and you are doing two things.

    First, you have finished a preliminary study and submitted a grant proposal based on your evolving idea about something, and you have just submitted a related paper to a peer reviewed journal. Well, OK, that’s a bunch of things, but they are all related to the temporal stream of the research you are expected to do as a member of the academic community.

    Second, you are having conversations with your mentor, your colleagues, others, about this research in which you are traveling up and down various alleyways searching for answers to outstanding questions, ways to refine your methodology, approaches to explaining complex things. Most of the time, just when you think you might have cornered an answer, it turns out to be just another question briefly disguised as a result. But, the whole time, you are having this conversation and it is fruitful and productive, and helps your research move forward.

    Suddenly, Nefarious Guy, who is the antagonist in this story, appears on the scene. The first thing Nefarious Guy does is to force you to release the data from your preliminary study, and to put a copy of the peer reviewed paper you’ve submitted on the internet. The result? Some bogus dood at another institution gets hold of your preliminary study, publishes the result under his own name. Meanwhile, the journal contacts you and says they are rejecting your paper. They want new, as yet undistributed results taking up the precious pages of their journal, and your paper is no longer new, since it is all over the internet. The last four years of work is now severely damaged. Your tenure committee is not impressed with your excuses. Your career is damaged. Later, when you give a talk to some high school kids on what is like to be a scientist, a youngster asks, “What advice would you give to someone like me, who really wants to be a scientist?” You are compelled, ethically, to tell her to start off by making friends with a lawyer and not having very high expectations for her career.

    But Nefarious Guy did not end his antics there. He also got hold of many of those conversations you’ve been having with your colleagues. You see, those conversations, in conformity with the way the modern world works, have largely been via email, and these emails have been acquired and made public. Now, Nefarious Guy and his minions have been mining these emails and putting bits and pieces of them out there, stripped of their actual context and embedded in a stream of lies about how the research was done and what the motivations of the researcher “really” are.

    This dishonest misrepresentation of the honest conversations you’ve had does not damage your career, because all the other scientists and academics, including the granting agencies, can see right through Nefarious Guy’s exploits. But his actions do something worse. They damage science itself, because they become part of the public discourse, and the public is generally gullible, often looking for a reason to complain anyway, and do not understand the nature of what has happened.

    Nefarious Guy is a stand in for any number of politically motivated science deniers who wish to damage the scientific process, discredit the widely held scientific consensus on climate change, and punish individual scientists for being honest and truthful.

    One such individual is Congressman Lemar Smith of Texas. Michael Mann, a climate scientist who has been subjected to some of this sort of nefarious activity, recently wrote an Op Ed in the New York Times that talks about Smith’s assault on climate science.

    Mann notes that Smith “has long disputed the overwhelming scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are changing the climate. Now he is using his committee chairmanship to go after the government’s own climate scientists, whose latest study is an inconvenience to his views.”

    Last month, Smith subpoenaed climate scientist Kathryn Sullivan of NOAA demanding the release of those honest convo emails and other similar documents pertaining to climate change related research published in Science. The study produced results most inconvenient. Essentially, it was a detailed look at the data showing that the famous #FauxPause in the rise of global surface temperatures was indeed faux.

    NOAA told Smith to take a hike. Smith doubled down. More than once. It is important to note that no one is denying access to data, methods, or results. The entire scientific community is appalled at Congressman Smith’s requests and his implications that these scientists are up to something. The information Smith needs to prove himself wrong are available. This is nothing but an expeditionary move to damage science and some of the scientists who do that science.

    Mann notes that Smith has tried to do this sort of damage before, sometimes with success.

    Mann concludes,

    While there is no doubt climate change is real and caused by humans, there is absolutely a debate to be had about the details of climate policy, and there are prominent Republicans participating constructively in that discourse. Let’s hear more from these sensible voices. And let’s end the McCarthy-like assault on science led by the Lamar Smiths of the world. Our nation is better than that.

    The New York Times gave Smith right of reply, in which he doubles down yet again, asserting that “federal employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have altered temperature data to try to refute an 18-year plateau in global temperatures…” He insists that satellite data refute the idea that warming has continued. That satellite data to which he refers is the cooked up unpublished and unreviewed, known-to-be-faulty bogus result of a couple of science deniers. Well, it is published, in a blog post, but not in the peer reviewed literature.

    No wonder so many Americans distrust Congress. Both houses.


    Spread the love

    Climate Science Legal Defense

    Spread the love

    I thought I’d share this update from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

    We have much to be grateful for at CSLDF – this year, we became an independent 501(c)(3) organization, provided legal services to 30+ researchers, and took on some of the worst groups attacking climate scientists.  Thank you for your support!  We truly couldn’t have done it without you. 
     
    Unfortunately, assaults on climate scientists continue.  Most notably, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has launched an investigation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claiming that NOAA “alters data to get the politically correct results they want.”  Rep. Smith has targeted a NOAA study, and the NOAA scientists behind the study, which found that recent temperature increases were greater than earlier studies indicated – contradicting Rep. Smith’s belief that global warming has “paused.”  NOAA provided Rep. Smith with much of the information he sought, but it has rightfully refused to hand over scientists’ private emails because protecting internal deliberations is essential for fostering free scientific discourse.  Rep. Smith has not responded well.  For more on this, please read our post at the Columbia Climate Law blog.
     
    Similarly, the fossil-fuel industry funded Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit this month, claiming that open records laws give them the right to access the personal correspondence of George Mason University professor Dr. Ed Maibach, an expert in climate change communications.  We fully expect that this lawsuit will be exposed as meritless – as have similar lawsuits before – but sadly, seeking scientists’ emails is an increasingly popular way to harass, intimidate, and attempt to discredit researchers. 
     
    Unfortunately, legal attacks on the climate science community happen on a regular basis.  To help as many scientists as possible, we will again be offering free one-on-one consultations with an attorney at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in San Francisco, from December 14 to 18.  Details available here
     
    Please consider donating to help us protect climate scientists from legal attacks.  As always, your support is greatly appreciated.  


    Spread the love

    What do you think about Hillary Clinton’s climate plan?

    Spread the love

    Hillary Clinton just came out with her climate change plan. Here it is.

    Hillary Clinton’s Vision for Modernizing North American Energy Infrastructure

    Flipping a light switch, adjusting the thermostat, or turning a car key in the ignition brings predictable results—the light goes on, the temperature changes, the car starts. But where the energy for those everyday tasks comes from has changed dramatically in recent years, due to massive gains in renewable energy and a boom in domestic oil and gas production. And the amount of energy required to perform those tasks has fallen thanks to historic advances in efficiency.

    Our policies and infrastructure have not kept pace with recent changes to the American energy system. American communities have endured toxic pipeline spills and deadly rail explosions as the amount of oil produced and transported across the country has expanded. Our existing natural gas distribution network is increasingly antiquated and in need of repair, while new networks must be built to serve parts of the country still dependent on more polluting propane and fuel oil for heating and cooking.

    Our electrical grid needs upgrading to harness new technology that reduces energy costs and increases consumer choice, and to address the growing threat of cyberattack. And we must invest in the new infrastructure that will make the transition to a clean energy economy possible, keep energy affordable and reliable, meet both base load and peak demand, protect the health of our families and our climate, and drive job creation and innovation.

    This work starts at home, but we can’t do it alone. The United States is part of a deeply integrated North American energy market, with interconnected pipeline and electricity systems and a shared market for vehicles and clean energy technologies. We trade as much energy with Canada and Mexico each year as with the rest of the world combined. As we invest in modernizing the United States’ energy infrastructure, we need to do so as part of a continent-wide strategy that ensures safe, reliable and affordable energy delivery, unlocks economic opportunity for American businesses and workers, and accelerates the transition to a clean energy economy across the North American continent.

    Hillary Clinton’s North American energy infrastructure plan will do this in several key ways.

    MAKE EXISTING ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE SAFER AND CLEANER

    The United States has more than two million miles of oil and gas pipelines, many of which are outdated and in need of repair or replacement. This increases the risk of oil spills, methane leaks that help drive climate change, and dangerous explosions. A 20-fold increase in the amount of oil shipped by rail over the past five years has led to devastating accidents. Our electric grid too often fails during extreme weather events – and is increasingly vulnerable to cyberattack. These challenges extend beyond our borders to Canada and Mexico, and will be most effectively tackled if all three countries work together.

    To address these issues Hillary Clinton will:

    Modernize our Pipeline System

    • Repair or replace thousands of miles of outdated pipelines to improve safety and reduce methane leaks by the end of her first term in office.
    • Improve pipeline regulations, including instituting automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves and leak detection standards that have been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.
    • Work to close the loophole that allows companies to ship oil sands crude without paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

    Increase Rail Safety

    • Accelerate the phase-out of outdated tank cars that create the greatest safety risk and make information on companies’ progress available to the general public. Ensure rail regulations are strengthened and enforced within the United States and across the U.S.-Canada border.
    • Instruct the Department of Transportation to guarantee that first responders and the public have better information on oil and hazardous materials passing through their communities.
    • Partner with rail companies in aggressively repairing track defects that cause derailments and evaluate whether shale oil presents unique explosion risks.

    Enhance Grid Security

    • Create a Presidential Threat Assessment and Response Team to improve coordination across federal agencies and strengthen collaboration with state and local officials and the electric power industry in assessing and addressing cybersecurity threats.
    • Implement a cybersecurity strategy that integrates and protects the expanded use of distributed energy resources and other cutting-edge clean energy technologies.
    • Provide new tools and resources to states, cities and rural communities to make the investments necessary to improve grid resilience to both cyber-attack and extreme weather events.

    UNLOCK NEW INVESTMENT RESOURCES

    From the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Hoover Dam to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, when the United States invests in building, upgrading, and improving our national infrastructure, we create good jobs and careers, boost economic competitiveness, and give rise to entirely new industries. Clinton will galvanize the investment needed to help cities, states, and rural communities upgrade and repair existing energy infrastructure and build the new infrastructure we will need for a clean energy future through:

    • A National Infrastructure Bank: Establish a National Infrastructure Bank to leverage public and private capital to invest in critically important infrastructure projects, including energy infrastructure projects.
    • Challenge Grants: Award competitive grants through Clinton’s Clean Energy Challenge to states, cities and rural communities that take the lead in reducing carbon pollution by investing in renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration, and reducing energy costs by investing in efficiency in both new and existing buildings.
    • Accelerating Investment: Ensure the federal government is a partner in getting clean and affordable energy to market by making the infrastructure review and permitting process more efficient and effective.
    • Expanding Consumer Choice: Offer financing tools for grid investments that support the integration of distributed energy resources and for gas pipeline investments that enable households and businesses to switch away from heating oil and other petroleum products.
    • A New “Pipeline Partnership”: Help cities, states, and rural communities repair and replace thousands of miles of pipelines by leveraging big data, predictive analytics and innovative testing procedures to more quickly and effectively find and fix pipeline leaks through a public-private partnership between federal regulators, pipeline companies, local utility commissions and leading technology providers and research institutions.
    • Transportation Funding: Work with Congress to close corporate tax loopholes and increase investment in transportation solutions that expand transit access and reduce commute times, oil consumption, and pollution.
    • Innovation: Increase public investment in clean energy R&D, including in storage technology, designed materials, advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and sequestration. Expand successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results.

    FORGE A NORTH AMERICAN CLIMATE COMPACT

    The United States isn’t in this alone. The entire North American continent must accelerate the clean energy transition and develop more comprehensive approaches to cutting carbon pollution. As President, Clinton will immediately launch negotiations with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to secure a North American Climate Compact that includes ambitious national targets, coordinated policy approaches, and strong accountability measures to catalyze clean energy deployment, reduce energy costs, cut greenhouse gas emissions, guide infrastructure investment, and make our integrated energy and vehicle markets cleaner and more efficient. This will include:

    • Ambitious Targets: Drive greater ambition in the global fight against climate change through coordinated targets for clean energy and cutting carbon pollution, internationally recognized reporting mechanisms, and a binding review process.
    • Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.
    • Clean Transportation: Work to harmonize vehicle efficiency, emissions and fuel standards, strategies for electric vehicle deployment, clean freight and logistics, and other low-carbon transportation solutions.
    • Methane Management: Establish continent-wide methane emissions reduction targets and coordinated strategies for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
      Infrastructure Standards: Develop common, world-class standards for North American infrastructure that create good jobs and careers, support prevailing wage and project labor agreements, and ensure energy transportation across the continent is clean, safe, reliable and affordable.

    Clinton’s vision for modernizing North American energy infrastructure is one pillar of her comprehensive energy and climate agenda, which includes major initiatives in the following areas:

    • Clean Energy Challenge: Develop, defend and implement smart federal energy and climate standards. Provide states, cities and rural communities ready to lead on clean energy and exceed these standards with the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.
    • Energy and Climate Security: Reduce the amount of oil consumed in the United States and around the world, guard against energy supply disruptions, and make our communities, our infrastructure, and our financial markets more resilient to risks posed by climate change.
    • Safe and Responsible Production: Ensure that fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible, that taxpayers get a fair deal for development on public lands, and that areas that are too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
    • Revitalizing Coal Communities: Protect the health and retirement security of coalfield workers and their families and provide economic opportunities for those that kept the lights on and factories running for more than a century.
    • Collaborative Stewardship: Renew our shared commitment to the conservation of our disappearing lands, waters, and wildlife, to the preservation of our history and culture, and to expanding access to the outdoors for all Americans.

    source


    Spread the love