• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics of Global Warming


I don't have time for this but here I go. It is for this reason that interacting with you is fruitless.

@TygerFirstly i was not addressing you, i will use @Tyger if ever i feel the need to address you in person, otherwise you can take it i am addressing the sophistry in a posting not the author, or just the thread/forum in general.
Got it. Though why not then go onto one of the numerous climate debate threads? Why insist on posting where I am active?
Common ground comes with common sense.
Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Means The Climate Has Changed. More sophistry no matter who is making claims based on it, most sophistical articles or debate starts with a first sentence false assumption, then make more false assumption based on it, that leads to the erroneous conclusions you seem to crave, as the post above.
I'll let readers unravel your knotted thinking.
Global average surface temperatures for the last 30yrs have grown at 0.06c av per decade, 0.18c in 30yrs, not even one 20th of a degree, and stalled in any rise for the last 18yrs and theres nothing unusual about it.And the base data for the period was corrupted upwards by giss to start with, before they base their honest modelling science on it.
Please read the links supplied on the various threads to get this knot unravelled in your thinking.
So you see the articles are see thru to me, as i know this stuff
I'm sorry, you don't know this stuff. It appears you don't understand what average means - you don't understand that there are 3 areas that impact that average. Evidence of this is your continual reference to surface temperature.
and it doesnt bother me the sun doing its thing, or politicians and journalists doing their ''thing''on some huge american social engineering experiment they will dismally fail to implement on a world wide basis. You seem to think volume equals validity.
Conspiracy theorist carry on. :rolleyes:
Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed
See how easy sophistry flows.
Has it ? How?
Who are you talking to? Who do you suppose will answer your entreaty?

You have to understand what the definition of climate is. Do you? It's defined in the link. Did you read it? Had you, you would have your answer as to 'how'.
Please provide peer reviewed papers/proof to show any weather that has been attributed to any co2, never mind manmade co2.
Who are you talking to? You want peer reviewed papers but you have said you are not talking to me. Can't have it both ways.

However....answering your request.....
It doesn't work that way and I am going to assume that you know that. It's actually an ignorant request but I suspect you understand that asking the question sounds like a 'gotcha' - when in actual fact you simply show off your abysmal understanding of climate theory. It's what the denialists depend on - this kind of simplistic nonsense.
Any climatic changes in the last 30yrs have been natural, i will wager by sophistical logic that i will have to ''prove'' the weather was natural.
Do some research on the differences between climate and weather.
 
Last edited:
@manxman I notice you have nothing to say about Willie Soon. It has been stated many times that the denialist 'scientists' and spokespersons are being funded by corporate interests to produce a certain pov, basically lying outright. Here is some more evidence. Any comment?


@Tyger

They are all part of the same circus, you just dont realise they all perform for the same ring-masters.
 
@Tyger
They are all part of the same circus, you just don't realize they all perform for the same ring-masters.
Nope, can't have it both ways, manxman. Here you have been caught out. You have nothing to support your views because you cannot address Willie Soon. Most of your links funnel to him and others in that circle.

Also, again, assertions, nothing more substantial. Why would both 'sides' be playing for the 'same ring-masters' ?

I think I'm done here with you, manxman. You're playing a game. It's been clear from the get-go. The kind of nastiness you engaged in on the Denial Silly thread pretty much let me know who you are. Your morphing into a 'serious' sifter of the evidence is not believable. You have never had a handle on the science. You've never been in this discussion to get at the truth.

I love science. I love the exploration of ideas. I also know how complicated drawing conclusions from real, careful observation of the world is. Your flippancy towards masterful work is beyond ignorant, as is US Senator Imhofe. Good luck with all that. The world moves on.
 
QUOTE="manxman, post: 216991, member: 4963"]


Its all the same, no matter whichever 'climate change profiteer' are debating whichever aspect of 'climate change theory' they are debating.

All the same whether its smug fat Anthony Watts mixing the fact and fiction or Bill Nye the science guy telling us global warming is attracting incoming comets to earth, thats the future type of debate for the next decade.

People like Watts making a living selling Green energy products, electric cars i think, milking every penny, aslong as they can keep it going, same for career meteorologists, now elevated to science gods, the shoe salesmen of the science pecking order, for 50yrs a safe haven for failed scientists, an under-funded unpaid career, last stop alley, now they rule the science world, and its ''a worlds top scientist said etc'', and funding and pay is not an issue..


Career astrophysicists who send little satellites to far off asteriods or planets, to further mans knowledge play second fiddle the 'new earther' science pecking order.

These physicists have worked out the atmosphere of far off planets down to the last detail, and are rarely surprised by emperical data our probes send back.

Yet when some of those very same scientists, whose careers do no not depend on american funding, describe how the earths atmosphere works, their cranks, ''''they are not meteorologist's'''', and the ''they are not meteorologists'' is said with a straight face, its just absurd.


snip

round and round in circles the climate profiteers go, all pawns in much bigger longer timescale 'game'.
 
I'm done, manxman. I have been for some time. Your shallow thinking is transparent.

I've no time to address your endless spinnings.
 
Editorial - in US regarding Keystone Pipeline.

Bernie Sanders Applauds Senate Democrats For Sustaining Obama’s Keystone XL Veto
was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA. Wed, Mar 4th, 2015


Bernie Sanders Applauds Senate Democrats For Sustaining Obama’s Keystone XL Veto

LINK: Bernie Sanders Applauds Senate Democrats For Sustaining Obama's Keystone XL Veto

TEXT: "Sen. Bernie Sanders applauded the Senate today for sending the message that United States is listening to the scientific community on climate change by sustaining President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL.

"In a statement, Sen. Sanders (I-VT) said:

I applaud President Obama for vetoing the Keystone XL legislation and the Senate for sustaining that veto.

The Senate and President Obama have sent an important message that the United States finally is listening to the scientific community and recognizing that global warming poses a real threat to our planet.

At a time when we should be doing everything we can to promote the development of clean sources of energy, it would have been crazy to let a Canadian oil company ship some of the dirtiest oil on the planet across the United States.

Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems. Our job now is to aggressively transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

"Sen. Sanders was correct. The push for Keystone XL defied all logic and common sense. Rejecting Keystone XL is the first step in creating a policy that will lead to real energy independence. Having the opportunity to buy oil from another country is not a strategy for energy independence. The message is clear. Republicans aren’t going to be allowed to get away with ignoring science so that the oil industry can profit.

"Bernie Sanders has led the charge to sustain President Obama’s veto. The Keystone XL bill was a waste of time. There was no chance that the president was going to sign the bill into law, or that Republicans would ever be able to muster enough Democratic support to override President Obama’s veto. Senate Republicans spent a month passing a bill that would never become law.

"Keystone XL is bad energy policy. It is an even worse jobs bill, and the country is better off because Democrats and Independents like Bernie Sanders sustained President Obama’s veto."
 
We will be seeing this film this weekend. Sounds good. The below seems an even-handed, fair summation.

Review: ‘Merchants of Doubt,’ Separating Science From Spin

By A. O. SCOTT MARCH 5, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/m...?emc=edit_fm_20150306&nl=movies&nlid=54852892

TEXT: "Late last month Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, brandished a snowball on the Senate floor, suggesting that the ugly winter weather afflicting the Eastern Seaboard was evidence that global warming is a hoax. This moment of political theater was widely ridiculed (by Jon Stewart and others), but “Merchants of Doubt,” Robert Kenner’s informative and infuriating new documentary, ought to remind us that the denial of climate change is hardly a joke.

"And those who promote it — in the news media, in political discourse, in serious-looking reports published by dubious think tanks — are anything but fools. “Merchants of Doubt,” based on Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s book of the same title, examines the history of corporate-financed public relations efforts to sow confusion and skepticism about scientific research. The filmmakers interview scientists, activists and whistle-blowers who have tried to expose such activities, as well as some of its perpetrators, repentant and otherwise.

" “If you can ‘do tobacco,’ ” one of the perpetrators is quoted as saying, “you can do just about anything in public relations.” The reference is to the long campaign to obfuscate and undermine attempts to make the public aware of the dangers of cigarettes. As early as the 1950s, tobacco companies were aware — thanks to their own research — that their products were hazardous and habit forming, but they waged a prolonged and frequently successful campaign to suppress and blur the facts. Their tactics included sending dubiously credentialed experts out into the world to disguise dishonesty as reasonable doubt. “We just don’t know.” “The science is complicated.” “We need more research.”

"The pro-tobacco strategy also called for smearing critics and invoking noble ideals like personal freedom against inconvenient facts like nicotine addiction. Thanks to thousands of pages of documents leaked to Stanton A. Glantz, a doctor and anti-tobacco crusader, the scale and the details of the deception are well known. The image of tobacco company executives taking an oath at a congressional hearing and proceeding to lie about what they knew is part of the collective memory. It also opened the door to lawsuits that led, in 1998, to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

" “Merchants of Doubt” links cigarettes and climate — with a fascinating and troubling detour into an investigation by The Chicago Tribune of the flame-retardant industry — by noting that both the playbook and many of the players are the same. “I’m not a scientist,” a recently adopted catchphrase among Republican politicians, echoes earlier evocations of complication and confusion. In both cases the science could hardly be clearer, but pseudo-experts can be brought before the cameras to peddle the idea that no real consensus exists. False information need not be coherent to be effective, and the specters of vanished liberty and tyrannical government regulation are easy enough to conjure.

"And science can be tricky to explain and to defend, especially in the shouting-heads cable news format. The scientists Mr. Kenner interviews — notably James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, who was among the first to establish a link between carbon emissions and climate change — tend to be earnest and serious. The scientific method is also predicated on intellectual humility, on falsifiable hypotheses and endless revisions in the face of new data. Public relations, in contrast, is built on slickness, grandiosity and charm. These traits are exemplified by Marc Morano, a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism and currently the executive director of the website Climate Depot.

"One of the film’s conceits is that the actions of Mr. Morano and his colleagues can be con games and magic tricks. A professional magician, Jamy Ian Swiss, is on hand to fool an audience with a deck of cards and to draw a distinction between his own “honest lies” and the shady doings of corporate shills and spinners. But his presence, and the animated playing cards that sometimes fly across the screen, feel like a glib and somewhat condescending gimmick, an attempt to wring some fun out of a grim and appalling story.

"More than that, the analogy between climate-change denial and classic confidence schemes doesn’t really hold up. Since the ’80s and ’90s, when the tobacco industry was trying to slow down regulation and lawsuits, the political landscape has changed, and so have the techniques of the anti-science side. Some of the attorneys general who forced the 1998 settlement were Republicans, after all. By contrast, in 2010 Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican congressman from South Carolina, was defeated in the primary after publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change.

"Climate-change denial has been raised to an ideological principle, a tenet of modern conservative and libertarian politics. Deceit and secrecy are hardly necessary when large portions of the public eagerly accept the message. If anti-environmentalist politics resemble a game of three-card monte, it’s one in which all the cards are face up and the marks place their bets on a nonexistent ace. Anyone who points out the error can be accused of liberal bias, and credulous journalists will give equal weight to both sides of the “debate.”

"The noticeable bias in “Merchants of Doubt” is toward optimism. The strongest convention in contemporary documentary filmmaking is to end on a note of hope, appealing for action on the part of an audience that is congratulated for awareness and good sense. Mr. Inglis, both a casualty of the war on truth and a warrior in its service, provides an upbeat message, accompanied by beautiful images of our abused planet. His words, and the film as a whole, express the faith that reason and facts can defeat propaganda and falsehoods. There is plenty of cause for skepticism on that matter, unfortunately."
 
TEXT: "Sen. Bernie Sanders applauded the Senate today for sending the message that United States is listening to the scientific community on climate change by sustaining President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL.
Wholly Smokes and Mirrors,

Obama finally had the guts to veto something!!! ???

I've never understood WHY the Canadians don't pipeline their oil to their own oil export ports. It has always been my understanding that the US would be the dumping ground "to process" the sand oil for export too! It was never meant for domestic consumption, correct? Am I missing something here? Also, where was all the processing waste for the sand oil going to go? Back to Canada? Wink.
 
Wholly Smokes and Mirrors,
Obama finally had the guts to veto something!!! ???

I've never understood WHY the Canadians don't pipeline their oil to their own oil export ports. It has always been my understanding that the US would be the dumping ground "to process" the sand oil for export too! It was never meant for domestic consumption, correct? Am I missing something here? Also, where was all the processing waste for the sand oil going to go? Back to Canada? Wink.

Correct, it was never meant for domestic consumption. :rolleyes:
 
Correct, it was never meant for domestic consumption. :rolleyes:
What's really very sad about this situation is that the oil markets are highly manipulative and don't give a damn about anyone's national interests. It's all done in the name of the holiest of all sacred ideals: Global Markets. BUT. Who in the Hell is really running the USA and Canada to expose such BLATANT economic abuses for the hallowed halls of Global Markets? These GM's are The Sacred Cows of WHOM??? Who ALL is behind this excuse to commit these kinds of economic abuses in the name of GM's pipe-lining thousands of miles JUST to export??? The incredible waste and pollution all in the sacred name of GM's???

Truly, the Canadians are quite capable of processing their sand oils themselves and exporting it from their ports too. Why not? Global Markets? BS.
 
I'm not a conspiricist. Reasons are usually simple: greed. Why? Because they can. Because the populace has not been vigilant, or discerning, regarding their elected officials. In the US less than 50% of the voting public votes. Apathy is the driver that those who deal in power and greed bank on. Nothing more complicated than that imo.
 
I'm not a conspiricist. Reasons are usually simple: greed. Why? Because they can. Because the populace has not been vigilant, or discerning, regarding their elected officials. In the US less than 50% of the voting public votes. Apathy is the driver that those who deal in power and greed bank on. Nothing more complicated than that imo.
It does not have to be organized to be conspiring by default. The default manipulation and the conspiring by default means these PTB no longer have the moral high-ground for anything. GM's are the sacrificial cow that enriches their gluttony and their high priesthood of the GM's. The oil markets are a manipulation and conspire for greed that has no national boundaries to enhance national wealth in the best interests of our citizens except for the cartels of the Middle East. They do conspire and manipulate for regional control and enrichment.

Leadership on a national scale once meant there was a moral obligation to uplift the citizenry, but that compact is broken. I think the pipe-lining from Canada is a perfect expression of how convoluted and dominate GM's have become to override the economic interests of both Canadians and Americans too. The GM system is a conspiracy of the rule making, so it doesn't appear to be organized in a traditional old-school conspiracy. Once "the conspiracy" grows to that point of no return, it's built into the rules, then there is no longer any obvious players that set this in motion decades ago. They're dead and gone, but "the conspiracy" of the rule making is still well in-play and controlling the little people keeping the PTB in power too.
 
I agree with the jist of what you are saying. Yes.

Here's an example of that, with someone who 'woke up'. In the end it's an accumulation of 'lies' we accept to get a job done when we work for a company and want to keep the job so that we can feed our family and send our children to good schools and take vacations. It's a system that requires all the little white lies that then one day becomes the ultimate lie that destroys communities and strangles lives. How did we get there? What conspiracy did we sign up for with eyes wide shut? We didn't, of course, it was just the compromises we made in the daily round.

Here's the example - bolding is my own -

Wendell Potter making amends......
LINK: Wendell Potter —

TEXT: "Thank you for visiting my site. Here’s what I want you to know about me.

"I left my job as a corporate executive [in the health insurance business] a few years ago after an honest-to-God, life-changing, Road-to-Damascus epiphany.

"During a weekend trip to visit family in Tennessee I woke up to the fact that I had somehow come to believe that it was OK to mislead people if that’s what you had to do to “protect and enhance” profits.

"I came to realize that I was at least partly responsible for America’s health care crisis. When I saw people getting care in barns and animal stalls, it became clear to me that what I was being paid to do was contributing to the growing number of Americans who couldn’t afford health insurance or medical care.

"Bottom line: I was deeply involved in the exploitation of the many for the financial gain of a few. I had lost my moral compass.

"Now I’m trying to make amends—through my books and commentaries, media interviews, public speaking, consulting work and volunteer activities. Through everything I do, quite frankly.
That’s the way it has to be.

"And God willing (as they say back home), I’ll be doing it for the rest of my life.

"With a heart full of gratitude. - Wendell Potter"

 
Wendell Potter, mentioned above, is a health care whistle-blower. What he describes is what is taking place in the 'climate change debate' corporate world. It is akin to this - and then some. At 7:00 is the core and kernel of this whole mess of the 'free market' system.

"Don't Drink the Co-Op Kool-Aid" w/ Wendell Potter
TEXT: "Uploaded on Aug 29, 2009"


The following is simply an insight into how the corporate world functions - in this case in the US around medical insurance, but this is just an example what is occurring with the oil and coal interests around global warming politics.

Obamacare Enemies Should Be Careful What They Wish For
TEXT: "Published on Mar 5, 2015: Wendell Potter, Deadly Spin, joins Thom Hartmann. Earlier today - the Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell - which challenges Obamacare's subsidies. What can we take away from those arguments - and what happens if the Court strikes down subsidies?"


Wendell Potter's book from 2011 -

Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans September 13, 2011 by Wendell Potter

Amazon Blurb: "In June 2009, Wendell Potter made national headlines with his scorching testimony before the Senate panel on health care reform. This former senior VP of CIG NA explained how health insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they skew political debate with multibillion-dollar PR campaigns to mislead the press and public. Potter had walked away from a six-figure salary and two decades as an insurance executive because he could no longer abide the routine practices of an industry where the needs of sick and suffering Americans take a backseat to the bottom line-leading Michael Moore to call him "the Daniel Ellsberg of corporate America."

"In Deadly Spin, Potter takes readers behind the scenes to show how a huge chunk of our absurd health care spending actually bankrolls a propaganda campaign and lobbying effort focused on protecting one thing: profits. Potter shows how relentless PR assaults play an insidious role in our political process anywhere that corporate profits are at stake-from climate change to defense policy. Deadly Spin tells us why- and how-we must fight back."



 
We saw the documentary 'Merchants of Doubt' this early evening at a special screening with the filmmaker Robert Kenner giving a Q&A after the showing. Excellent. As he said in the Q&A he was not really making a film about Climate Change but about 'the playbook' - about the Public Relations people who have been 'selling' the corporate spin for decades, from tobacco to flame retardant material to climate change.

Later Edit: Interesting comments about cap and trade: "corrupt". About carbon tax: revenue-neutral carbon tax advocated -
LINK: Shultz and Becker: Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax - WSJ

This is an extremely important film imo. Hopefully the Q&A will show up on YouTube (it was being filmed). Everything about it was revelatory - some old news but done in a very good way. At the end former Senator Bob Inglis makes some very insightful comments about the divide on this topic. He says it's not a divide on the science because there is no science that counters the prevailing view. Rather, it's a political divide - and why does it matter so much to the deniers? Because the science must be wrong if the current western lifestyle is to be validated. Climate Change must not be human induced because the consequences (if such were the case) are too uncomfortable, would demand too much.

"Filmmaker Robert Kenner (Food, Inc.) takes audiences on a satirically comedic yet illuminating ride into the heart of conjuring American spin. He lifts the curtain on a secretive group of highly charismatic, silver-tongued pundits-for-hire who present themselves in the media as scientific authorities—yet have the contrary aim of spreading maximum confusion about well-studied public threats ranging from toxic chemicals to pharmaceuticals to climate change. Inspired by the acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway."

LINK: Merchants of Doubt (2014) - IMDb
TEXT: "A documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities as they speak about topics like toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change."
 
Last edited:
This is a harrowing article in many respects because of all areas in the US - it is Florida, most of all, that is (and will be) most impacted by the rise in sea-level - that global warming is initiating. In fact, it is in Florida that the advancing sea is most evident. Under bone-dry skies, streets in certain coastal areas are now experiencing flooding from the advancing ocean - the kind of flooding one would associate with a broken water main, for example. It's being called 'nuisance flooding' - it's cause is the rising sea level.

As the professor states at the end of the article: "“It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change,” Wanless said. “It’s criminal at this point.”

In Florida, Officials Ban Term ‘Climate Change’ By Tristram Korten
Florida Center for Investigative Reporting

Published on March 8, 2015
LINK: In Florida, Officials Ban Term ‘Climate Change’ | Florida Center for Investigative Reporting

TEXT: "The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years. But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes. DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

"The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget. “We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’ ” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.

"This unwritten policy went into effect after Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the DEP’s director, according to former DEP employees. Gov. Scott, who won a second term in November, has repeatedly said he is not convinced that climate change is caused by human activity, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Vinyard has since resigned. Neither he nor his successor, Scott Steverson, would comment for this report. “DEP does not have a policy on this,” the department’s press secretary, Tiffany Cowie, wrote in an email. She declined to respond to three other emails requesting more information.

"Jeri Bustamante, a spokesperson with the governor’s office, wrote in an email that “There’s no policy on this.” But four former DEP employees from offices around the states say the order was well known and distributed verbally statewide. One former DEP employee who worked in Tallahassee during Scott’s first term in office, and asked not to be identified because of an ongoing business relationship with the department, said staffers were warned that using the terms in reports would bring unwanted attention to their projects. “We were dealing with the effects and economic impact of climate change, and yet we can’t reference it,” the former employee said.

"Former DEP attorney Byrd said it was clear to him this was more than just semantics. “It’s an indication that the political leadership in the state of Florida is not willing to address these issues and face the music when it comes to the challenges that climate change presents,” Byrd said.

"Climate Change Denial
"Climate change and global warming refer to the body of scientific evidence showing that the earth’s environment is warming due to human activity including the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It is accepted science all over the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations, wrote in a 2014 report for world policy makers: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” The report’s authors were scientists from 27 countries.

"Still, many conservative U.S. politicians say the science is not conclusive and refuse to work on legislation addressing climate change. This type of legislation, such as a carbon tax or policies to encourage more sustainable energy sources, could be costly to established industry. Among the skeptics is Gov. Scott. During his first campaign for governor in 2010, Scott told reporters who asked about his views on climate change that he had “not been convinced,” and that he would need “something more convincing than what I’ve read.” In 2014, he said he “was not a scientist” when asked about his views on climate change.

"In response, a group of Florida scientists requested to meet with Scott and explain the science behind the phenomenon. Scott agreed. The scientists were given 30 minutes. “He actually, as we were warned, spent ten minutes doing silly things like prolonged introductions,” geologist and University of Miami professor Harold Wanless recalled. “But we had our 20 to 21 minutes, and he said thank you and went on to his more urgent matters, such as answering his telephone calls and so on. There were no questions of substance ”

"Scott’s predecessor, Charlie Crist, had been proactive on climate change, forming a statewide task force and convening a national summit in Miami in 2007. But evidence the issue has fallen out of favor during the Scott administration is apparent. One example is the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council’s Annual Research Plan, put together by DEP and other state agencies. The 2009-2010 report, published the year before Scott was elected, contains 15 references to climate change, including a section titled “Research Priorities – Climate Change.”

"In the 2014-15 edition of the report, climate change is only mentioned if it is in the title of a past report or conference. There is one standalone reference to the issue at the end of a sentence that sources say must have slipped by the censors. “It’s a distinct possibility,” said one former DEP employee. Instead, terms like “climate drivers” and “climate-driven changes” are used.

"Orders From the Top
"Christopher Byrd said that he was warned not to use “climate change” and related terms during a 2011 staff meeting shortly after Gov. Scott appointed Vinyard as DEP director. “Deputy General Counsel Larry Morgan was giving us a briefing on what to expect with the new secretary,” Byrd recalled. Morgan gave them “a warning to beware of the words global warming, climate change and sea-level rise, and advised us not to use those words in particular.” Added Byrd: “I did infer from this meeting that this was a new policy, that these words were to be prohibited for use from official DEP policy-making with our clients.” Morgan did not respond to a request for comment.

"DEP dismissed Byrd in 2013. His termination letter states: “We thank you for your service to the State of Florida; however, we believe the objectives of the office will be accomplished more effectively by removing you from your position.” Byrd, now in private practice as an environmental lawyer in Orlando, said he was fired because he repeatedly complained the DEP was not enforcing laws to protect the environment. Although he disagreed with the policy, Byrd said he nonetheless passed the warning down to the various offices he worked with, including the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the Biscayne Bay Environmental Center in Miami. “As you can imagine with the state of coral reef protection,” Byrd said, “sustainability, sea-level rise, and climate change itself were words we used quite often.”

"The Coral Reef Conservation Program is where Jim Harper, a nature writer in Miami, was working as a consultant in 2013. He had a contract to write a series of educational fact sheets about how to protect the coral reefs north of Miami. Climate change was one of the issues Harper and his partner on the project, Annie Reisewitz, wanted to address. “We were told not to use the term climate change,” Harper said. “The employees were so skittish they wouldn’t even talk about it.” Reisewitz confirmed Harper’s story. “When we put climate change into the document, they told us they weren’t using the term climate change,” she said. Harper and Reisewitz completed the assignment as instructed.

"A year later, in November 2014, the Coral Reef Conservation Program held a meeting to train volunteers to use a PowerPoint presentation about the threats coral reefs faced. Harper attended the meeting, held at DEP’s Biscayne Bay office in Miami. Doug Young, president of the South Florida Audubon Society and a member of the Broward County Climate Change Task Force, also attended. Two DEP employees, Ana Zangroniz and Kristina Trotta, showed the presentation to the volunteers and then asked if anyone had a question. “I told them the biggest problem I have was that there was absolutely no mention of climate change and the affect of climate change on coral reefs,” Young said. He continued: “The two young women, really good people, said, ‘We are not allowed to show the words, or show any slides that depicted anything related to climate change.’ ”

"Young and Harper said they could not participate if climate change was not mentioned. “The women kept saying, ‘Work with us; we know you are frustrated,’ ” Harper said. On Nov. 19, 2014, the DEP’s Zangroniz wrote Harper and Young an email stating she had talked to her manager about their concerns. “Unfortunately at this time,” she wrote, “we can’t make any alterations or additions to the presentation. … If you do choose to continue as a volunteer, we would have to request that you present the information as is. If you choose to add in an additional presentation or speaker that addresses climate change and coral reefs, there would have to be a very clear split between the two.”

"Trotta left her position as a field and administrative assistant in January. She told FCIR that when it came to scrubbing the term “climate change” from projects, she was following orders. Those orders came from Regional Administrator Joanna Walczak during a staff meeting in the summer of 2014. “We were instructed by our regional administrator that we were no longer allowed to use the terms ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or even ‘sea-level rise,’ ” said Trotta. “Sea-level rise was to be referred to as ‘nuisance flooding.’ ” When staff protested, Trotta said, “the regional administrator told us that we are the governor’s agency and this is the message from the governor’s office. And that is the message we will portray.” The order pained her, said Trotta, who has a master’s degree in marine biology, because she believes climate change is an imminent threat to Florida. Walczak declined to comment citing DEP policy.

"While state officials are still not using the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming,’ any prohibition of the term “sea-level rise” seems to have ended. In a February press conference, Scott unveiled $106 million in his proposed budget to deal with the effects of rising oceans. But $50 million of that is for a sewage plant in the Keys, and $25 million is for beach restoration, which critics say is hardly a comprehensive plan to protect homes, roads and infrastructure.

"Wanless, the University of Miami professor, said the state government needs to acknowledge climate change as settled science and as a threat to people and property in Florida. “You have to start real planning, and I’ve seen absolutely none of that from the current governor,” he said. In Florida it will be hard to plan for climate change, he said, if officials can’t talk about climate change. “It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change,” Wanless said. “It’s criminal at this point.”
 
Last edited:
BTW in the Q&A for the 'Merchants of Doubt' Robert Kenner was asked about the threats he is now experiencing as a result of the film. He acknowledged that there have been threats and that 'next week' (this said on Saturday night so assume this coming week) there will be news reports concerning the threats. This after the film itself documented what certain people, like Hansen, have had to personally put up with because of their stated views. Naomi Orestes (author of the book the film is based on) has also had problems with threats (along with a slew of scientists). So now Robert Kenner.

For a variety of reasons I have been around Secret Service types anon and again in my life, and I do believe I sniffed out the tell-tale types at the front of the theatre surveying the audience with eagle eyes. (Not that they were Secret Service. I think they were security - and it's possible the threats were serious enough to warrant Federal protection - but that is pure speculation on my part. Sad commentary if so. We will find out when the news story breaks in a week or so).
 
Last edited:
The politics of Climate Change often hinges on the denigration of James Hansen's 1988 testimony before Congress. As with much of the denialist rhetoric it's a 'denigration' rooted in a a serious misunderstanding (or willful misrepresentation) of the science. Skeptical Science does an excellent job of rebuttal at three levels: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced. [All figures/graphics can be viewed within the link.]

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

LINK: What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

"Climate Myth: Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong.' On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.' (Pat Michaels)

"What the Science Says: Basic - Hansen's 1988 results are evidence that the actual climate sensitivity is about 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

"In 1988, James Hansen projected future warming trends. He used 3 differentscenarios, identified as A, B, and C. Each represented different levels of greenhouse gasemissions. Scenario A assumed greenhouse gas emissions would continue to accelerate. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth. Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. The actual greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 have been closest to Scenario B. As shown below, the actual warming has been less than Scenario B.

"As climate scientist John Christy noted, "this demonstrates that the old NASA [globalclimate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." However, Dr. Christy did not investigate why the climate model was too sensitive. There are two main reasons for Hansen's overestimate:



      1. Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric greenhouse gases would increase. This isn't just carbon dioxide. It also includes methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
      2. Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.

"If we take into account the lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases, we can compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in theAdvanced version of this rebuttal. To accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity valueslisted as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2. It is even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

"In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity. His results are actually evidence that the trueclimate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.


"What the Science Says: Intermediate: Hansen's 1988 projections were too high mainly because the climate sensitivity in his climate model was high. But his results are evidence that the actual climate sensitivity is about 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

"In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends using 3 different emissionsscenarios identified as A, B, and C. Scenario A assumed continued exponentialgreenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, andScenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 (Hansen 1988). As shown in Figure 1, the actual increase in global surface temperatures has been less than any of Hansen's projected scenarios.

"As climate scientist John Christy noted, "this demonstrates that the old NASA [globalclimate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." Unfortunately, Dr. Christy decided not to investigate why the NASA climate model was too sensitive, or what that tells us. In fact there are two contributing factors.

"Radiative Forcing
"A radiative forcing is basically an energy imbalance which causes changes at the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in a global temperature change until a new equilibrium is reached. Hansen translated the projected changes in greenhouse gases and other factors in his three scenarios into radiative forcings, and in turn into surface air temperature changes. Scenario B projected the actual changes we've seen in these forcings most closely. As discussed by Gavin Schmidt and shown in the Advanced version of this rebuttal, the radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5-10%. Thus in order to assess the accuracy of Hansen's projections, we need to adjust the radiative forcing andsurface temperature change accordingly.

"Climate Sensitivity
"Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (radiative forcings). Hansen'sclimate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 [2xCO2]. This is on the high end of the likely range of climate sensitivity values, listed as 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2 by the IPCC, with the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

"Since the Scenario B forcing was about 5-10% too high, its projected global surface air temperature trend was 0.26°C per decade, and the actual surface air temperature trend has been about 0.2°C per decade (NASA GISS), Hansen's climate model's sensitivity was about 25% too high. Thus the real-world climate sensitivity would be approximately 3.4°C to in order for Hansen's climate model to correctly project the ensuing global surface air warmingtrend. This climate sensitivity value is well within the IPCC range.

"In other words, the reason Hansen's global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had the sensitivity been approximately 3.4°C for a 2xCO2, and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly to better reflect reality, he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase.

"Spatial Distribution of Warming
"Hansen's study also produced a map of the projected spatial distribution of the surface air temperature change in Scenario B for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s. Although the decade of the 2010s has just begun, we can compare recent global temperature maps to Hansen's maps to evaluate their accuracy.

"Although the actual amount of warming (Figure 3) has been less than projected in ScenarioB (Figure 2), this is due to the fact that as discussed above, we're not yet in the decade of the 2010s (which will almost certainly be warmer than the 2000s), and Hansen's climate model projected a higher rate of warming due to a high climate sensitivity. However, as you can see, Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic, as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa, west Antarctica, more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere, etc. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections.

"What the Science Says: Advanced: Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.

"Hansen et al (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate. Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility, Hansen chose 3scenarios to model. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

"Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections
"The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

"This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent." Moreover, Michaels has continued to defend this indefensible distortion.

"Compare the figure Michaels produced to make this claim (Figure 1) to the corresponding figure taken directly out of Hansen's 1988 study (Figure 2).

"Notice that Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above, Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth, which did not occur. In other words, to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure," Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality.

"Gavin Schmidt provides a comparison between all three scenarios and actual global surface temperature changes in Figure 3.

"As you can see, Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong."

"In fact, when skeptical climate scientist John Christy blogged about Hansen's 1988 study, his entire conclusion was "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." Christy didn't even bother to examine why the global climate model was too sensitive or what that tells us. If the model was too sensitive, then what was its climate sensitivity?

"This is obviously an oversimplified conclusion, and it's important to examine why Hansen'sprojections didn't match up with the actual surface temperature change. That's what we'll do here.

"Hansen's Assumptions
"Greenhouse Gas Changes and Radiative Forcing
"So which scenario was the most accurate representation? Figures 4 below provides the answer. The radiative forcings for Hansen's three scenarios were estimated using the simplified radiative forcing expressions from the 2001 IPCC report, based on the projected greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations for Hansen's scenarios. The actual radiative forcing estimates are taken from Skeie et al. (2011).

"Hansen et al. only modeled the temperature response to greenhouse gas changes (and a few simulated volcanic eruptions). So in his simulations, the greenhouse gas (GHG)-only forcing and 'all forcings' are the same. In reality, they are not, with the main non-GHG forcing involving human aerosol emissions, whose effects remain one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science.

"In our analysis here, we're interested in the changes since 1988, particularly through 1998. The radiative forcing changes since 1988 are shown in Figure 4.

"Both the GHG-only and net anthropogenic forcing changes between 1988 and 1998 were very close to Hansen's Scenario C, consistent with Figure 1 above, primarily due to the CFCemissions reductions as a result of the Montreal Protocol.

"Recreating Michaels' Congressional Testimony Graphic
"As Figure 4 shows, Hasen's Scenario B is currently closest to the actual forcing (according to Skeie et al.), but running about 16% too high (since 1988). Figure 5 reproduces Hansen's Scenario B with a 16% reduction in the warming trend, to crudely correct for the discrepancy between it and the actual radiative forcing. This might be what Michaels' graphic would look like if he were to give an accurate version of his presentation today: [Figure 3]

"In Figure 3 we've included both GISTEMP data, and GISTEMP with solar, volcanic, and El Niño Southern Oscillations removed by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). The 1988 to 2010trends are similar, 0.20°C per decade with the natural effects, 0.18°C per decade without. Scenario B has a 0.23°C per decade trend, but when removing a simulated volcanic eruption in 1996, the trend decreases to about 0.22°C per decade.

"As the figure above shows, Hansen's 1988 model overpredicted the ensuing global warming. However, it only overpredicted the warming by approximately 15 to 25%, which is a far cry from the 300% overprediction claimed by Michaels in his 1998 congressional testimony.

"Climate Sensitivity
"Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing). Hansen's climate model had a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 [2xCO2]. The relationship between a change inglobal surface temperature (dT), climate sensitivity (λ), and radiative forcing (dF), is dT = λ*dF

"Knowing that the actual radiative forcing was slightly lower than Hansen's Scenario B, and knowing the subsequent global surface temperature change, we can estimate what the actual climate sensitivity value would have to be for Hansen's climate model to accurately project the average temperature change.

"What we find is that Hansen's results add to the long list of evidence that climate sensitivityis not low. As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), this suggests the actual climate sensitivity is approximately 3.4 to 3.6°C for doubled CO2, which is close to the IPCC best estimate of 3°C.

"The argument "Hansen's projections were too high" is thus not an argument againstanthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models, but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.2°C for 2xCO2, but it's also an argument forclimate sensitivity being around 3°C for 2xCO2, which is consistent with the range ofclimate sensitivity values in the IPCC report.

"Spatial Distribution of Warming
Hansen's study also produced a map of the projected spatial distribution of the surface air temperature change in Scenario B for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s. Although the decade of the 2010s has just begun, we can compare recent global temperature maps to Hansen's maps to evaluate their accuracy.

"Although the actual amount of warming (Figure 5) has been less than projected in ScenarioB (Figure 4), this is due to the fact that as discussed above, we're not yet in the decade of the 2010s (which will almost certainly be warmer than the 2000s), and Hansen's climate model projected a higher rate of warming due to a high climate sensitivity. However, as you can see, Hansen's model correctly projected amplified warming in the Arctic, as well as hot spots in northern and southern Africa, west Antarctica, more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern hemisphere, etc. The spatial distribution of the warming is very close to his projections.

"Hansen's Accuracy
"Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term, it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks), he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately. Not only that, but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy. The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2. "​
 
Last edited:
Two More States Join Florida in Banning Use of ‘Climate Change’ - March 10, 2015
LINK: Two More States Join Florida in Banning Use of 'Climate Change'

TEXT: "Earlier this week, reports surfaced that employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection had been forbidden to use the phrases “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications. But as ThinkProgress reported, the Sunshine State isn’t the only one to have censored those terms.

"A former employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) said that she had been “explicitly ordered” to remove all references to climate change from the DCNR’s website. She said the orders came from then-Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration.

"The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) removed links and documents regarding climate change from its website as well. DENR told ThinkProgressthat “the state lacked ‘clear regulatory responsibility’ to deal with global warming.”

"The common thread among the censoring of “climate change” in Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina is that all three states were/are headed up by governors who deny the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

"During his tenure as governor, Corbett “eliminated programs to research climate change impacts to [Pennsylvania], appointed a climate science denier to head his Environmental Protection Agency, and gutted efforts to encourage renewable energy.”

"North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) also refuses to clearly state that he believes climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, saying in an interview last year that he feels “there has always been climate change.” He was among the nine governors who asked President Obama to “delay proposed rules to reduce carbon pollution, and supports opening up North Carolina’s coastline to drilling.”

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott is in the “I’m not a scientist” camp of the GOP. Even after meeting with the state’s top environmental scientists, Scott still refused to admit that climate change poses a real and severe threat to Florida. The scientists in the meeting said he seemed uninterested in what they had to say and felt that he still wasn’t “climate literate.”

"Given the danger that global warming poses — especially to coastal states, these revelations of censorship by Republican administrations are embarrassing. Simply erasing a phrase from a few documents doesn’t make it actually go away. It just makes the administrations look stupid."
 
Climate Change Now Banned in Florida?
TEXT: "Published on Mar 10, 2015: A shocking new report says that Florida has banned its top environmental officials from talking about climate change. What should this tell us about the real priorities of the Republican Party?"
 
Back
Top