In one breathtaking stroke of close-minded prejudicial rhetoric and disinformation, Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was able to lump any and all concerned about climate change as anti-capitalist, hysterical, and sick.

A pretty impressive feat, but made easier when your grasp of science is weak and you employ, as David Sassoon points out in SolveClimate.com, the psychological illusion of “projection”.

That Mr. Stephens bandies about terms and phrases that may suggest an air of knowledge, he is, in terms of his factual assertions, either ignorant or purposefully misleading (it’s gotta be one or the other); and in his fear-based dogma equating global warming “believers” as pro-socialist anti-capitalist neurotics participating in some form of “sick theology” he belies his own neurosis – his own sickness.

Stephens states numerous “scientific” facts but fails to actually cite any of them. Where does he get his statistics from in his assertions regarding ocean temperatures? Perhaps from data such as is discussed in SkepticalScience, but if so, he’s failed – again either through ignorance or willful deception – to state the whole picture. Typical cherry-picking.

In regard to NASA’s “begrudging” (really? or is this his own characterization?) confirmation of U.S. temperature extremes, well, they’re just that – U.S. temperatures. His point gets skewed when we’re reminded that we are talking of global climate – and haven’t we been through this already when NASA first made their correction (in tenths of a degree) last year? In any case, aside from the error of presenting localized data when talking of a global issue (and again, Stephens is either talking through ignorance or purposefully shoveling B.S.), he fails to cite a source.

It appears he doesn’t want to get too deep into the science, either because he simply isn’t that interested in it or, what I suspect is likely the case, the deeper he goes the more it flies in the face of his weak-minded argument (or perhaps both).

But science really isn’t the point for Stephens anyway – merely it’s fragile foundation. It seems that, in his mind, “global warming” is some form of religion (albeit a “sick” one) that requires of its adherents an essential anti-American, anti-capitalist, even anti-humanity fervor in order to belong.

This is where Stephens shows his true colors by projecting his own fear-based neurosis on his antagonist.

Where does he get this notion? In fact, the future of entrepreneurial America, its position as leader in business, technology, and innovation lie in visionary men and women all over the country ready and eager to do their part in moving the country – and the rest of the world  – into a new, sustainable energy economy. One that works. If only people like Bret Stephens would get out of the way.

I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with and meeting many of these people as the publisher of this blog and writer for TriplePundit.com. I’m just a blogger. Bret Stephens purports himself, I assume, as a full-fledged journalist, entitled to all honors, awards, rights, and privileges of his journalistic fraternity. Perhaps there’s even a plaque on his wall with the word “Journalist” boldly imprinted upon it.

All I can suggest for Mr. Stephens, writing for an allegedly premier business publication, is that he get out more.

But there’s the rub. He doesn’t want to read the science in-depth, and he doesn’t want to get out and see what’s really happening with entrepreneurs ready to lead the charge to a prosperous and sustainable future for America in the 21^st century.

He rather sit and accuse others of what he himself is guilty – and that is neurotic and sick.

Stephens would do well to look elsewhere for evidence of a “mass-neurosis”.

Sources and Further Reading:
Natural News
DeSmogBlog
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RealClimate.org – Antarctica Cold? Yeah, We Knew That
U.S. Climate Extremes Index
U.S. Climate Change Program
Earth: The Sequel
“Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story.”

Editorial Rants Global Warming ResourcesEditorial Rants Global Warming Resources

Not many people have heard of the Climate Extremes Index, but it was first introduced back in 1996 with the goal of

…summarizing and presenting a complex set of multivariate and multi-dimensional climate changes in the United States so that the results could be easily understood and used in policy decisions made by nonspecialists in the field.”

My guess is that those unfortunate enough to lose their homes, farms, and livelihoods from the recent flooding in the Midwest don’t care about the CEI right now – with an estimated $8 billion in losses (and rising) that’s to be expected. But the question remains: if the Climate Extremes Index is there to help us understand climate extremes and what they mean, why isn’t the mainstream press saying more about it?  As Joseph Romm originally reports in ClimateProgress.org, there isn’t even a mention of the data trends of the CEI, or the expectation of more extreme weather events as a consequence of climate change.

But in a way I can understand. Just wade through the comments on Romm’s post on ClimateProgress (linked above), or the reprint published on Grist.com, or how about the “world governments are controlling the weather” comment at SolveClimate.com – who’d want to put themselves in the middle of all that acrimony?

No single weather event can be directly linked to “global warming” as its cause – not the flooding in the U.S. Midwest or the killer Typhon in the Philippines – climate is not weather – ever. Lot’s of people misunderstand that, but in the process of researching this post and getting in the middle of all this “intelligent debate”, it seems more often than not its the deniers (few real skeptics seem to exist at all anymore, on any subject) that miss this point:

Remember Connecticut 1955 worst in History?”

 The 1965 Flood of the South Platte River…”

 The Mississippi Flood of 65…”

The flooding is historic — if your a 4th grader.You have to read the fine print — one article called the floods “historic” but then added it was the worst “in 15 years”!

(This last quote misunderstands a basic point. The flooding in 1993 and 2008 are both considered the kinds of floods you’d expect once every 500 years – and yet two have occurred only fifteen years apart.)

Okay, there have been disastrous floods in the past, what is everybody trying to prove by these endless comments of catastrophic weather of yore? If we all (tenuously) agree that no single weather event can be linked to climate – climate is not weather – then what’s the usefulness of bringing up any single weather event?

The point is that averages and extremes will change over time – as in climate change. So when there is a particularly extreme weather event it seems logical to take a look at things such as the Climate Extremes Index, consider the models (and increasing empirical data) calling for more extreme weather, and from there consider how we might prepare for the next flood, the next hurricane, continued drought, and whatever else might come our way in a changing world – and it is changing.

Government scientists warn of increased extreme weather events such as the recent flooding in the Midwest. Not that this particular flood is directly linked to global warming (though there is actually a case to made in that regard), but that this is the kind of thing we’ll need to deal with more often – just as two “500 year floods” within only 15 might point out.

Instead the mainstream media seems loath to even mention climate and possible adaption strategies they may be necessary, and all those commenters on the blogs – on all sides of the issue – just go on and on and on and on…

For the people in Iowa and the Midwest it might not much matter what caused the “Great Flood of ‘08”. What does matter, to them and to all of us, is how far we can pull our heads out of the sand, stop yelling at each other, and actually see the handwriting on the wall.

 

 

climate science Editorial Rants Global Warming Resourcesclimate science Editorial Rants Global Warming Resources

Now there’s leadership for ‘ya…

In April 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection agency has the authority and obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants that contribute to climate change. The ruling also made clear that the EPA could not shrink from this responsibility unless it provides a scientific bases for doing so.

In December 2007, in apparent compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EPA emailed a draft report to the White House that, according to an EPA official, concluded that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare and should be controlled. The White House refused to open the email and several EPA officials have said the Bush Administration asked for the email to be recalled. It wasn’t. And so the email sat, ignored.

The report also stated that, based on data from the Energy Department, it would be cost effective to set CAFE fuel efficiency standards to 37.7 MPG by 2018. Ten days after the email was sent and left unopened (with no further attempts from anyone to otherwise deliver the information and suggest someone in the Bush White House at least read it), the president signed into law an energy bill requiring CAFE standards at 35 MPG by 2020, less rigorous than the EPA’s ignored recommendation.

This, in conjunction with the EPA/White House fiasco over refusal to comply with numerous subpoenas related to White House influence over EPA administrator Steven Johnson’s decision to deny California’s waiver to set tailpipe emission standards, has drawn increased attention to the EPA’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Despite the failure of the White House to read its email, it apparently knows (of course) what the EPA concluded over six months ago. This past week the White House has successfully pressured the EPA to cut large swaths from the original report, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2trillion in economic benefits to the American economy.

A senior EPA official said the original EPA findings

…showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy to reduce greenhouse gases. That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto refused comment on discussions between the Bush administration and the EPA – why bother? The EPA has now obviously become the tool of George Bush instead of the an agency in honest pursuit of its mandate to protect the environment.

The ongoing charade of leadership from the White House and EPA administrator Johnson has led to the resignation of Jason Burnett, the EPA associate deputy administrator who had broad authority over climate change regulations. Said Mr. Burnett of his decision to resign:

…no more constructive work could be done on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court. The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

In fact, we all must face the consequences of what this administration has done, and not done, for and to the American people.

As David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, says:

All this does is further underscore that the Bush administration has not done anything, will not do anything, and has stood in the way of anyone else doing anything.”

Sources and Further Reading
New York Times – Dot Earth
US Climate Change Program
Associated Press
The Telegram

 

 

 

 

Climate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Environmental News Environmental Protection Agency Government Policy PoliticsClimate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Environmental News Environmental Protection Agency Government Policy Politics

Last Friday, with only 15 minutes to spare before the House Oversight Committee was scheduled to vote on holding EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and White House official Susan Dudley in contempt of Congress, the Bush administration invoked executive privilege – thus expressing its own contempt for that pesky concept known as “congressional oversight”.

The impending vote from the committee chaired by Henry Waxman was in response to Johnson and Dudley, the administrator of regulatory affairs in the White House Office of Management and Budget, refusing to hand over subpoenaed documents relating to the EPA’s denial of a waiver allowing California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes (along with about a dozen-and-a-half other states with similar laws on their books), and possible interference from the White House influencing the decision.

As has been widely reported, documents and testimony from EPA officials strongly suggest that Johnson was initially in support of at least a partial waiver, in accordance with the unanimous recommendation from his own staff, only to make an about-face and deny the waiver after contact with the White House.  

Waxman’s committee has had access to thousands of documents and sworn testimony from EPA officials, but Johnson and the White House have consistently refused to abide the subpoena for specific documents relating specifically to phone calls or meetings between at least one high-ranking EPA official and an assistant to the the president.

The stonewalling from the EPA and White House begin immediately after Johnson announced his decision and continues with Bush’s claim of executive privilege.

Representative Waxman cancelled the contempt of congress vote Friday upon receiving the letter from the White House invoking executive privilege in order to determine Attorney General Michael Mukasy’s rationale for the claim.

Waxman made clear his doubts as to the motives of the White House and the veracity of its assertion of privilege.

I have a clear sense that their assertion of this privilege is self-serving and not based on the appropriate law and rules,” Waxman said from the dais of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing room.

I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president when the president of the United States may have been involved in acting contrary to law, and the evidence that would determine that question for Congress in exercising our oversight is being blocked by an assertion of executive privilege.

The battle rages on.

 

 

Climate Change and Politics Editorial Rants energy policy Environmental Protection Agency Government Policy PoliticsClimate Change and Politics Editorial Rants energy policy Environmental Protection Agency Government Policy Politics

For the second time in two weeks a polar bear was sighted in Iceland – and then shot dead.

Polar bear sightings are relatively rare on the island nation (at least until two weeks ago) since getting to Iceland means bears are forced to swim hundreds of miles through icy waters far from their typical Arctic habitat.

Due to harsh criticism after the first polar bear was shot two weeks ago, authorities in Iceland said they would attempt to subdue and capture the second bear after it was discovered by a young girl walking her dog.

The chief veterinarian for the Copenhagen Zoo was flown in to help wrangle the animal late last Tuesday, but it all came to naught later that night. Police and the vet tried to get close enough to the bear to shoot it with an anaesthetiser but as they approached the bear ran in a panic – apparently toward a group of reporters. Afraid of losing control of the situation and having the bear eat a journalist, police “decided to shoot it”.

Copenhagen Zoo spokesman Bengt Holst said that Icelandic authorities made the right decision.

“It was a security problem” Holst told reporters (“Indeed!” is what I can imagine reporters dumb enough to be unprotected and in range of the poor animal).

Two polar bears making the icy swim hundreds of miles to Iceland in as many weeks “lends credence” to biologist’s determination that climate change is is destroying the arctic habitat of the polar bear, forcing them to swim farther and farther afield in search of their typical diet of ringed or bearded seals.

While I think a single occurrence, even two incidents back-to-back, of a polar bear making the unusual journey to Iceland is not in and of itself  definitive proof of anything, it certainly serves as pieces to the puzzle; clues to either take seriously or dismiss without thought. My research indicates there have been some 600 recorded sightings of Polar Bears in Iceland. The last one in 1993, and before that in 1988.

Beyond the needless death of two great animals, it is also frustrating to see the deniers and skeptic “wanna-bes” coming out of the woodwork on the heels of this story (as I’ve said before, true skepticism requires a logical thought process and some notion of a well-formed argument).

Unfounded statements like “There are 3 times as many polar bears as there were 50 years ago” – Or assertions that “Polar bears are growing in numbers” or that “…the world hasn’t warmed since 1998” (these last two from Andrew Bolt who simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about and isn’t afraid to show it) are just a few examples of how denialism is sadly alive and well, and unfortunately riding in on the backs of two polar bears that came to a tragic end.

Sources and Further Reading
Science Daily
AFP
The Age
Global Warming is Real.com

 

 

 

  

arctic Editorial Rants Environmental News Polar Beararctic Editorial Rants Environmental News Polar Bear

Fox News anchor Shep Smith recounts the story of a man in Pennsylvania who, drunk and naked, got himself stuck up to his waist in a porta-potty.

In telling the story Shep equates folks who get themselves wedged up to the waist in toilets while sloshed and butt-naked with global warming deniers. Says Shep, they’re just like

…people who deny the whole global warming thing. They’re just a little crazy, you know? What do you do?”

Did I mention that Shep Smith is from Fox News? Poor Shep, it seems that for a moment he dropped the company line, being that Fox News is a premier mouthpiece for climate change deniers.

And in other related news, the Think Progress reports that the National Journal recently polled 39 GOP lawmakers in Washington about their thoughts on global warming. 74% of those questioned don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Someone should probably check to see if there are any porta-potties in the Capitol Building.

I’m just sayin’…

 

Editorial RantsEditorial Rants

Strong language perhaps, but this is no time to mince words. 

When Dick Cheney claims that the only impediment to increased domestic oil and natural gas production is the refusal of Congress to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he isn’t telling you the truth.

When Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Henninger publishes an article using phrases like “environmental moralisms” for a reality he fails to comprehend, instead invoking fear (“Nikita Khrushchev said, ‘We will bury you.’ Forget that. We’ll do it ourselves”) and political dogma for his false argument that the only thing blocking the United States to Drill! Drill! Drill! is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he is either ignorant of or simply does not care about the truth.

Dick Cheney’s time is long past (not too many people believe what he says anyway). The Wall Street Journal doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Stuck in reverse with the thought that the key to our energy needs lay in the “moonscape” of the Arctic Reserve (as Henninger, who likely has never even been to Alaska, let alone ANWR, puts it) Dick Cheney and  Daniel Henninger do us all a grave disservice.

This is, or course, the sort of non-leadership, vision-less tripe we expect from Cheney and the Journal. It isn’t the first time they’ve lied to us, and it sadly won’t be the last.

But let’s imagine for a moment that the vice president and Henninger actually told us the truth:

Imagine that they told you the hard truth that increased domestic drilling does not, in fact, correlate into lower gas prices.  

Since the 1990’s, the federal government has consistently encouraged the development of its oil and gas resources and the amount of drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007.

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%, yet gasoline prices have risen dramatically contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two” (emphasis mine)

And what if they told you that oil and gas companies aren’t using a significant portion of federal lands already open to energy development?

Even if increased domestic drilling activity could affect the price of gasoline, there is yet no justification to open additional federal lands because
oil and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of drilling permits that the federal government is handing out.

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.”

These are the some of the conclusion from the House Natural Resources staff committee report The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits (pdf). 

Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, chairman of the Natural Resources committee introduced the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 that would force Big Oils hand – “use it or lose it” as David Sassoon characterizes it in his article at SolveClimate.com.

The bill would impose the same requirements that coal has had with their 20–year leases – show that they are “diligently developing” resources with them.

As it is now oil and gas companies are sitting on leases and 68 million acres already leased for energy extraction go undeveloped.

It makes you wonder why Cheney and Henninger aren’t telling us the truth.

 

Climate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Energy Non Renewable Environmental News Government Policy PoliticsClimate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Energy Non Renewable Environmental News Government Policy Politics