Communicating Climate Change (and other issues)

[donsutherland1]

Don - thanks for the info.

Just goes to show that there are some people for whom you CAN safely assume the worst. Bastardi is apparently one of them.

Dabize,

I sent a reply via Twitter stating that he was using the wrong maps. Let's see if or how he responds.

[Jonger]

Dabize,

I sent a reply via Twitter stating that he was using the wrong maps. Let's see if or how he responds.

Isn't the fact still that melt season has either ended or ending early still valid? I just read his tweet, its still aiming in the right direction.

[donsutherland1]

Isn't the fact still that melt season has either ended or ending early still valid? I just read his tweet, its still aiming in the right direction.

Volume will likely have hit the bottom or will do so any day now. Area and extent will likely take a little longer before they bottom out (probably around 9/10 +/- a few days for area and in the 9/10-20 timeframe for extent). The stated idea that there has been a big rebound since 8/27 was incorrect. Had JB stated that SSTs had cooled and that signaled the approaching end to the melt season, that would have been reasonable. Making a forecast is one thing and there can be a lot disagreement with forecasts. Stating what has happened is quite another and there should be no real disagreement on the statistics. The CT, DMI, JAXA and NSIDC data all agree that Arctic sea ice has declined further since 8/27.

FWIW, if one is looking more closely at the Arctic, there have been some small ice gains in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The remainder of the basin has had no gains (where there is no ice) or losses (biggest losses in the Central Arctic).

Finally, it is clear that JB used the wrong maps. DMI has separate ice product maps for assessing ice. The SST maps are not a substitute for those maps. Why JB cropped away the key at the bottom of the SST maps showing water temperatures when using those maps to suggest that Arctic sea ice had begun a rapid recovery is not known. There was no rational basis for doing so whether those maps were used in the correct fashion or in error. At a minimum, doing so creates problems of perception. Whether and how JB responds on the issue of the DMI maps will be revealing.

[winterymix]

... Why JB cropped away the key at the bottom of the SST maps showing water temperatures when using those maps to suggest that Arctic sea ice had begun a rapid recovery is not known. There was no rational basis for doing so whether those maps were used in the correct fashion or in error. At a minimum, doing so creates problems of perception....

As always, unbiased data doesn't require an explainer to magnify insights.

Wonderful efforts, Don S.

[Msalgado]

Is it possible that we should unleash, if not the dogs of war, at least the rhetoric that seems to precede every campaign.

Prior to all the wars that I'm familiar with was an overly hyped assessment of the danger of doing nothing, from dominoes falling in South East Asia to Saddam being the next Hitler, bent on overthrowing the world. These campaigns, however odious they seem in hindsight were effective at stirring the public's imagination. None could stand any scrutiny at all, but all became believed widely enough that politicians had no qualms about facing the electorate after voting to engage in actions that would be at the minimum vastly expensive, and that couldn't possibly have any direct benefit for anyone not involved in the arms industry.

The dangers we face are real, not imagined, but if we restrict ourselves to talking only about scenarios that are withing 95% confidence levels, we will lose the propaganda war. That these claims will be ridiculed as alarmist, not mainstream science, or simply false is OK because these terms are already being applied to the reality based observations.

I suppose what I'm proposing is that since we've already got the name, why not play the game.

Terry

So basically the line of thinking in this post is that you should resort to lying - or at the very least gross exaggeration because you have failed to make a case the public has bought? I can't state enough how utterly flawed - not to mention fairly disgusting - this line of thinking is.

First, I don't think you mentioned a single event where people were misled in order to accomplish long term action. You've mentioned extremely short term events that the public grew tired of and learned much of the truth in a few short years. Climate change is not a situation that is going to be over and done with in a few years. In fact we're not going to feel the strongest effects for decades. So how do you suppose you're going to be able to keep the public from questioning about the man behind the curtain?

Secondly, when the public sees that gross exaggeration and lies or what they are the scientific community will lose the only currency that matters in this situation: Trust. Why does Bastardi get away with doing what he does to such a large audience? Because that audience has placed trust in him and believes what he says whether its correct because they have laid trust in him. Whether that trust is justified or not is irrelevant but once trust is lost its much harder to gain back than to get it in the first place.

I'm actually fairly surprised this post went by and no one even batted an eyelash. I honestly find the mindset quite disgusting. Instead of putting efforts into conning people (and this is exactly what is being advocated if you want to use the Iraq War Playbook) why not actually figure out how get the public factual information?

[Msalgado]

People acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others who share their values and whom they therefore trust and understand. Usually, this strategy works just fine. We live in a science-communication environment richly stocked with accessible, consequential facts. As a result, groups with different values routinely converge on the best evidence for, say, the value of adding fluoride to water, or the harmlessness of mobile-phone radiation. The trouble starts when this communication environment fills up with toxic partisan meanings — ones that effectively announce that ‘if you are one of us, believe this; otherwise, we’ll know you are one of them’.

From Don's OP. Read that a few times and actually try to process what it means.

[donsutherland1]

Terry,

IMO, the tasks involved in an effective communication strategy aimed at promoting an understanding of climate change and building sufficient support among the public to facilitate and sustain policy solutions is inherently different from that faced by those who seek to preserve the status quo and/or reject the science altogether. All the latter group has to do is to instill doubt and appeal to the public's natural sense of risk-aversion. Attacking and exaggerating uncertainties in the science (even small ones) and the costs of change is their strongest position, as they lack credible scientific evidence to win the case on its scientific merits. They have no natural variable or variables to which they can point to explain observed climate change as well as it can be explained when anthropogenic forcing is included in the mix. To them, the science is irrelevant. Inhibiting policy change and preserving the familiar status quo is their end goal.

In contrast, the task faced by the climate science community and those who understand the science/seek change is more challenging. The task involves building a compelling case for change that can withstand the efforts of the other side to fuel doubt, navigating the public's inherent sense of risk-aversion, and offering tangible policy options that could make a meaningful difference.

To do so, the case needs to be focused and accurate. Loss of credibility would only nurture the public's risk-aversion. At the same time, the case must demonstrate sufficient gravity and urgency so that the public understands that the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of change.

Today, a lot of climate information is available, but it is fragmented in many places (often specialized and technical). It is also in a format that does not necessarily appeal to the general public. The information must be advanced beyond the scientific and technical realm to adequately inform and educate the public. In short, the journals will remain central to the expansion and deepening of knowledge, but when it comes to broadening public understanding, the journals can only play a supporting role.

A book coupled with an online clearinghouse of information that is crafted to be understood by the general public would probably play a more effective role. The existing books on the market don't really seem to be up to the task. The myriad organizations separately lack critical mass to maintain a sustained and intensive communications campaign. There needs to be far more collaboration.

The information should be focused on the areas in which confidence is highest: basic facts concerning climate change (physical basis) and developments that can be attributed most strongly to climate change (rising temperatures, growing incidence of severe heat, transition from perennial to possibly seasonal Arctic ice cover, Arctic amplification, rising sea level, etc.). The evidence and consequences of those developments should be clearly articulated in a fashion that the public can personally relate to those developments. Areas where significant uncertainties exist e.g., possible tropical cyclone implications, should be excluded. Such uncertainty can only invite doubt and it will be ruthlessly exploited by those seeking to sustain the status quo. A FAQ rebutting the anti-climate change arguments should also be available. Skeptical Science offers a model, but it is not sufficiently comprehensive.

In terms of policy, the suggested solutions need to be concrete, specific, and focused. There needs to be clear, practical, and effective alternatives that the public can embrace. The benefits of those solutions or the need for them should leverage factors beyond climate. For example, when it comes to fossil fuels, there are strong geopolitical arguments for developing alternatives e.g., a disproportionate share of the world's fossil fuels exist in countries that are either unstable or even not very friendly toward the U.S. A lack of alternatives also makes countries more vulnerable to supply shocks than they would otherwise be and, given the importance of a reliable supply of energy, supply shocks can have a devastating economic impact. Examples of the impact of even a modest but sustained disruption can be found in the 1970s energy shocks.

Above all, the climate change issue should not be conveyed as a partisan one. Otherwise, a broad slice of the public will be put on the defensive (along with political leaders) and resistance to policy solutions would be sustained, if not strengthened. To communicate with Republican audiences, there needs to be enough information that appeals to Republicans' identifying with entrepreneurship, innovation, the harnessing of markets, free enterprise, etc. To communicate with Democratic audiences, appeals must focus on the robustness of policy solutions, the improvement of the public welfare, etc.

There is sufficient overlap that would allow for a bipartisan public-private partnership to be forged and sustained. One has witnessed elements of such partnerships when it came, for example, to war efforts or the Apollo project for which some of the required technologies simply didn't exist when President Kennedy launched the effort.

The key is not to convince everyone about climate change. Some of the public takes natural variability as an immutable fact and its faith that natural variability, alone, drives climate change cannot be altered. Instead, the key is to build support among a sufficient share of the public so that policy makers in both political parties can have the latitude to work toward policy change without automatically imperiling their political fortunes.

In the end, even if the initial policy thrust would aim for the more limited goal of making a "downpayment" for change, that's far better than maintaining the status quo. Once that initial change is achieved and tangible results are being attained, additional efforts for further changes could be pursued. In sum, it is probably better to pursue a step-by-step process that yields tangible progress and lays the groundwork for additional steps, than to seek a single grand policy outcome all at once.

[TerryM]

Don

I agree that the data has to be perceived as purer than Caesar's wife. I think what I'm pondering is the advisability of enlisting verbal berserkers. Monckton, Tallbloke, Watts & Bastardi have no credibility as serious climate scholars, yet their ridiculous utterances are repeated ad nauseam.

When the media present a story on climate change they try to "balance their report by interviewing one serious scientist and one crazy denier. What would happen if there was another spokesperson howling for airtime that was as far from the center on the alarmist side as Monckton is on the denier side. What if the debate became:

Crazed Alarmist-"The Arctic will melt out in 5 yrs and the methane released will kill everyone in the NH"

Serious Scientist-"The Arctic may melt in a decade, and the NH climate will be effected - this is bad"

Crazed Denier-"The Arctic can't melt, and even if it did think of the economic possibilities"

Is it possible that the public in this scenario would dismiss both the crazies and gravitate towards the truth?

I don't know if introducing a new voice into the debate would be effective, I do know that the path we've been following where paid propagandists debate scientists as equals has served Big Oil well.

Terry

[donsutherland1]

DMI confirmed that the SST maps can't be used to extrapolate ice and that its ice products should be used.

The reply from Dr. Jacob L. Høyer:

What you see as white is based upon the temperature of the ocean and is only an indication on the ice cover. However, it can not be used to derive the ice extent. For ice extent analysis you should use the ice concentration maps e.g. at:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.php

Normally there is a close correspondence between SST white areas and sea ice extent but at the moment, the SST is uniform over a large area. This means that a 0.1 DegC higher threshold for white would significantly reduce the white areas in the SST plot, so that they resemble the ice extent.

In short, Joe Bastardi used the wrong chart (from which he cropped off the temperature scale) to suggest that there had been a big increase in Arctic sea ice since 8/27. Also, when the issue had been tweeted to him last evening, he did not reply nor did he correct his earlier message. He has had numerous tweets since then and replied to some tweeted messages, so it is improbable that he didn't see the message about the chart he had used.

[dabize]

Terry,

One characteristic of denialisti trolls here and elsewhere is that they are relentlessly opportunistic.

They also don't believe in things like good faith, fairness, honesty or truth, any more than the Heartland Institute, Karl Rove or Dick Cheney do.

So thinking out loud is something that will be used against you, even if you are just contemplating the asymmetry in mendacity that is characteristic of the AGW exchange.

This isn't really a conversation we're having, its more like an attempt to ward off a dangerous disease. Might as well try to communicate with a flu virus.........

[dabize]

Terry,

IMO, the tasks involved in an effective communication strategy aimed at promoting an understanding of climate change and building sufficient support among the public to facilitate and sustain policy solutions is inherently different from that faced by those who seek to preserve the status quo and/or reject the science altogether. All the latter group has to do is to instill doubt and appeal to the public's natural sense of risk-aversion. Attacking and exaggerating uncertainties in the science (even small ones) and the costs of change is their strongest position, as they lack credible scientific evidence to win the case on its scientific merits. They have no natural variable or variables to which they can point to explain observed climate change as well as it can be explained when anthropogenic forcing is included in the mix. To them, the science is irrelevant. Inhibiting policy change and preserving the familiar status quo is their end goal.

In contrast, the task faced by the climate science community and those who understand the science/seek change is more challenging. The task involves building a compelling case for change that can withstand the efforts of the other side to fuel doubt, navigating the public's inherent sense of risk-aversion, and offering tangible policy options that could make a meaningful difference.

To do so, the case needs to be focused and accurate. Loss of credibility would only nurture the public's risk-aversion. At the same time, the case must demonstrate sufficient gravity and urgency so that the public understands that the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of change.

Today, a lot of climate information is available, but it is fragmented in many places (often specialized and technical). It is also in a format that does not necessarily appeal to the general public. The information must be advanced beyond the scientific and technical realm to adequately inform and educate the public. In short, the journals will remain central to the expansion and deepening of knowledge, but when it comes to broadening public understanding, the journals can only play a supporting role.

A book coupled with an online clearinghouse of information that is crafted to be understood by the general public would probably play a more effective role. The existing books on the market don't really seem to be up to the task. The myriad organizations separately lack critical mass to maintain a sustained and intensive communications campaign. There needs to be far more collaboration.

The information should be focused on the areas in which confidence is highest: basic facts concerning climate change (physical basis) and developments that can be attributed most strongly to climate change (rising temperatures, growing incidence of severe heat, transition from perennial to possibly seasonal Arctic ice cover, Arctic amplification, rising sea level, etc.). The evidence and consequences of those developments should be clearly articulated in a fashion that the public can personally relate to those developments. Areas where significant uncertainties exist e.g., possible tropical cyclone implications, should be excluded. Such uncertainty can only invite doubt and it will be ruthlessly exploited by those seeking to sustain the status quo. A FAQ rebutting the anti-climate change arguments should also be available. Skeptical Science offers a model, but it is not sufficiently comprehensive.

In terms of policy, the suggested solutions need to be concrete, specific, and focused. There needs to be clear, practical, and effective alternatives that the public can embrace. The benefits of those solutions or the need for them should leverage factors beyond climate. For example, when it comes to fossil fuels, there are strong geopolitical arguments for developing alternatives e.g., a disproportionate share of the world's fossil fuels exist in countries that are either unstable or even not very friendly toward the U.S. A lack of alternatives also makes countries more vulnerable to supply shocks than they would otherwise be and, given the importance of a reliable supply of energy, supply shocks can have a devastating economic impact. Examples of the impact of even a modest but sustained disruption can be found in the 1970s energy shocks.

Above all, the climate change issue should not be conveyed as a partisan one. Otherwise, a broad slice of the public will be put on the defensive (along with political leaders) and resistance to policy solutions would be sustained, if not strengthened. To communicate with Republican audiences, there needs to be enough information that appeals to Republicans' identifying with entrepreneurship, innovation, the harnessing of markets, free enterprise, etc. To communicate with Democratic audiences, appeals must focus on the robustness of policy solutions, the improvement of the public welfare, etc.

There is sufficient overlap that would allow for a bipartisan public-private partnership to be forged and sustained. One has witnessed elements of such partnerships when it came, for example, to war efforts or the Apollo project for which some of the required technologies simply didn't exist when President Kennedy launched the effort.

The key is not to convince everyone about climate change. Some of the public takes natural variability as an immutable fact and its faith that natural variability, alone, drives climate change cannot be altered. Instead, the key is to build support among a sufficient share of the public so that policy makers in both political parties can have the latitude to work toward policy change without automatically imperiling their political fortunes.

In the end, even if the initial policy thrust would aim for the more limited goal of making a "downpayment" for change, that's far better than maintaining the status quo. Once that initial change is achieved and tangible results are being attained, additional efforts for further changes could be pursued. In sum, it is probably better to pursue a step-by-step process that yields tangible progress and lays the groundwork for additional steps, than to seek a single grand policy outcome all at once.

Don, this is a truly excellent post.

I agree entirely about the need to get the constituents to drive the process by using the facts to inform them of where their self interest lies, rather than waste time conversing with fully weaponized trolls, who aren't going to listen (see my post above). And even though this is now obviously an emergency situation, the perfect remains the enemy of the good, as it so often is.

On the other hand, one does have to push back against the torrent of disinformation, because it effectively interferes with communicating the truth to those who really need to understand it. It is important not to confuse that effort (which Terry was trying to address) with the actual communication effort, which you have outlined so well.

[dabize]

[/i]

From Don's OP. Read that a few times and actually try to process what it means.

This is perhaps the most hypocritical post I've ever seen here, and that's in a very competitive environment.

[PhillipS]

I just came across a TED lecture by James Balog on communicating the reality of glacial and ice sheet loss through images and film.

It's about 20 minutes long but well worth a watch.

I feel that there are more people who can grasp the significance of an image than can understand an equation or read a graph. Humans are a visually oriented species, and I feel that it is a good strategy to provide compelling images along with the facts and theories. When I think about the Dust Bowl, I don't remember the details of how many people and acres were affected - I remember the images of farms buried in dust and families with all their belongings loaded on trucks.

[Msalgado]

This is perhaps the most hypocritical post I've ever seen here, and that's in a very competitive environment.

Explain how its hypocritical.

[Ellinwood]

In short, Joe Bastardi used the wrong chart (from which he cropped off the temperature scale) to suggest that there had been a big increase in Arctic sea ice since 8/27. Also, when the issue had been tweeted to him last evening, he did not reply nor did he correct his earlier message. He has had numerous tweets since then and replied to some tweeted messages, so it is improbable that he didn't see the message about the chart he had used.

RE: The bolded, I don't think he EVER addresses criticisms given to him or corrects earlier statements, at least on Twitter (unless he instigates someone else first).

[ben4vols]

RE: The bolded, I don't think he EVER addresses criticisms given to him or corrects earlier statements, at least on Twitter (unless he instigates someone else first).

Bastardi has admitted he has been wrong many times. Does James Hanson ever admit he is wrong?

[WeatherRusty]

Bastardi has admitted he has been wrong many times. Does James Hanson ever admit he is wrong?

He hasn't been wrong.

The science is not wrong.

The Earth is warming, weather patterns are destabilizing, ice is melting and sea levels are rising.

Now, go pick at the details and maybe you'll find some things to hang your hat on. However, the understood uncertainties cover the most extreme possibilities and details.

[Vergent]

[donsutherland1]

Today, Joe Bastardi has tweeted that Arctic sea ice has increased over the past 16 days (presumably 8/26-9/10 timeframe). He tweeted:

Heh, how come no comment from Warmingistas on ice increase the last 16 days. They only look when it suits their needs...

http://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/245500879933952001/photo/1

There are no comments on the purported sea ice increase over the past 16 days from those who accept AGW, because there has been no such increase. Claims of an increase are factually incorrect.

JAXA, NSIDC, and CT have all declined overall during the past 16 days, despite some recent increases. NSIDC is at a record low for ice extent. JAXA and CT are just above their record lows.

Aside from the factual error about sea ice trends, Joe Bastardi again made his claim using the DMI sea surface temperature (SST) charts. Those are the incorrect charts for that assessment. Previously he had done so and I had tweeted him the correct information and link to DMI's ice products. He never replied to that tweet nor, far more importantly, corrected his error.

DMI has separate sea ice products. Bastardi did not utilize those products (perhaps because those products show no net increase over the past 16 days).

In short, Bastardi is wrong about an increase in ice having occurred over the past 16 days. Moreover, his use of the wrong DMI product creates an illusion that does not fit reality.

To say the least, Bastardi's use of DMI's SST charts to make a claim about Arctic sea ice is disappointing. It is even more disappointing given that he was alerted to the issue and could readily have verified the link that had been given to him.

For those who are not familiar with the issue, here's the reply from DMI's Dr. Jacob L. Høyer regarding DMI's SST maps:

What you see as white is based upon the temperature of the ocean and is only an indication on the ice cover. However, it can not be used to derive the ice extent. For ice extent analysis you should use the ice concentration maps e.g. at:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.php

[nflwxman]

Today, Joe Bastardi has tweeted that Arctic sea ice has increased over the past 16 days (presumably 8/26-9/10 timeframe). He tweeted:

Heh, how come no comment from Warmingistas on ice increase the last 16 days. They only look when it suits their needs...

http://twitter.com/B...3952001/photo/1

There are no comments on the purported sea ice increase over the past 16 days from those who accept AGW, because there has been no such increase. Claims of an increase are factually incorrect.

JAXA, NSIDC, and CT have all declined overall during the past 16 days, despite some recent increases. NSIDC is at a record low for ice extent. JAXA and CT are just above their record lows.

Aside from the factual error about sea ice trends, Joe Bastardi again made his claim using the DMI sea surface temperature (SST) charts. Those are the incorrect charts for that assessment. Previously he had done so and I had tweeted him the correct information and link to DMI's ice products. He never replied to that tweet nor, far more importantly, corrected his error.

DMI has separate sea ice products. Bastardi did not utilize those products (perhaps because those products show no net increase over the past 16 days).

In short, Bastardi is wrong about an increase in ice having occurred over the past 16 days. Moreover, his use of the wrong DMI product creates an illusion that does not fit reality.

To say the least, Bastardi's use of DMI's SST charts to make a claim about Arctic sea ice is disappointing. It is even more disappointing given that he was alerted to the issue and could readily have verified the link that had been given to him.

For those who are not familiar with the issue, here's the reply from DMI's Dr. Jacob L. Høyer regarding DMI's SST maps:

What you see as white is based upon the temperature of the ocean and is only an indication on the ice cover. However, it can not be used to derive the ice extent. For ice extent analysis you should use the ice concentration maps e.g. at:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.php

I really have no idea why he still has scientific credibility (for some people). As a meteorologist, he puts out high bust potential forecasts constantly. As a "climate expert" he constantly lets his ideology (or potentially whoever pays his bills) get in the way of facts and true images. Being that one has to have SOME basic knowledge of statistics and graphics as a meteorologist, I can only conclude that he is not ignorant, but rather engaging in purposeful misleading.

[ORH_wxman]

I really have no idea why he still has scientific credibility (for some people). As a meteorologist, he puts out high bust potential forecasts constantly. As a "climate expert" he constantly lets his ideology (or potentially whoever pays his bills) get in the way of facts and true images. Being that one has to have SOME basic knowledge of statistics and graphics as a meteorologist, I can only conclude that he is not ignorant, but rather engaging in purposeful misleading.

Unfortunately this is rampant everywhere and JB is just one of many. Its too bad that someone with such knowledge in atmospheric science puts out the high bust potential forecasts and incorrect information out there for others to see.

[Jonger]

I follow his tweets in bulk at times... But he is a very biased forecaster. I remember watching his videos daily and it always had some epic cold waves locking in that never happened.

[Ed Lizard]

I guess AGW is absolutely scientific fact. Not just the warming, but the anthropogenic part. The people like Al Gore leading the AGW bandwagon only want what is right, there is no agenda whatsoever on that side, only the truth.

Everyone who would question that either has some kind of mental deficiency that keeps them from seeing the obvious, or is in the pay of the Koch Brothers or Exxon.

There can be no questioning AGW.

Did I miss anything?

[Ed Lizard]

BTW, as a former Bastardi AccuWx subscriber and a Twitter follower, I don't think he purposely misleads. He is wrong, a lot, but he is almost like a weenie with a BS in met. He may does have a political bias, but I doubt anyone pays him to doubt AGW.

BTW, AGW may be correct. I don't know the science well enough to say one way or the other. I just do notice which people so strongly support it, just as Terry seems to note which people doubt it. I don't think I'm as quick to label people as in the pay of big oil. Or big solar and big turbine, or whichever Solyndra and General Electric type companies might benefit from AGW being accepted as fact and anti-AGW efforts becoming approved policy.

[ORH_wxman]

I guess AGW is absolutely scientific fact. Not just the warming, but the anthropogenic part. The people like Al Gore leading the AGW bandwagon only want what is right, there is no agenda whatsoever on that side, only the truth.

Everyone who would question that either has some kind of mental deficiency that keeps them from seeing the obvious, or is in the pay of the Koch Brothers or Exxon.

There can be no questioning AGW.

Did I miss anything?

The misinformation issues is rampant on both sides unfortunately.

We've seen a lot of comments about extreme weather in the past few years...particularly hurricanes and tornadoes....being linked to climate change with no credible scientific evidence. We've seen evidence for an increasing probability of heat waves taken out of context by the media on several occasions.

JB using incorrect sources for sea ice is just another example on the other side of the coin...he uses cold outbreaks too as "proof" there is no AGW.

[TerryM]

On a somewhat related note, Peter Lilley has been made a "Non-Executive Chairman" of an oil company. Crime may not pay, but Climate Change Denial has it's perks.

Terry

[TerryM]

Sorry - forgot the link

http://www.tethyspetroleum.com/tethys/newscontent.action?articleId=2355562

Terry

[Ed Lizard]

On a somewhat related note, Peter Lilley has been made a "Non-Executive Chairman" of an oil company. Crime may not pay, but Climate Change Denial has it's perks.

Terry

On the flip side, it is my understanding Al Gore positioned himself to profit handsomely in the trade of carbon credits, if that legislation had passed.

I don't doubt greed exists, but it isn't limited to just one side of any issue or ideology.

Anyway, I'm willing to read the CC forum, but I rarely post. It is too close a proxy for AP. But Don S. seems to be non-politically motivated (or, if he is, it isn't obvious) and he knows of what he speaks in the weather threads.

On the policy side, natural gas is the least carbon polluting of the fossil fuels, and natural gas turbine generation plant are about the easiest plants to build. If electric vehicle technology is going to work, until nuclear power's issues can be addressed, substituting gas for coal for electric generation seems an obvious first step.

Wind turbines and solar are not ready to replace fossil fuels yet, IMHO.

[TerryM]

Ed

Hadn't heard the Gore story - any links?

CH4 is needed short term if we want a smooth transition, but my thought is that if coal and oil fall from favor in the 1st world, they'll be utilized by poorer countries when prices drop due to demand side problems. I don't really see any way that anybody is going to walk away from assets already identified.

A huge global carbon tax might serve to keep prices high enough to preclude usage, but it would be hard/impossible to enforce.

Got way off topic here.

My bad.

Terry

[Jonger]

Ed

Hadn't heard the Gore story - any links?

CH4 is needed short term if we want a smooth transition, but my thought is that if coal and oil fall from favor in the 1st world, they'll be utilized by poorer countries when prices drop due to demand side problems. I don't really see any way that anybody is going to walk away from assets already identified.

A huge global carbon tax might serve to keep prices high enough to preclude usage, but it would be hard/impossible to enforce.

Got way off topic here.

My bad.

Terry

We need to start off shoring wind power. No matter the technology, someone complains. Now we have people from animal groups fighting wind power over bird deaths.