New findings predict that global temperature increases will be twice as high by the end of the century as previously forecast, unless international policy action is taken. That is the prediction of scientists using the Integrated Global Systems Model (IGSM), a project funded in part by the US Department of Energy.

IGSM is unique amongst climate predictors because it is underpinned by a flexible economic model that projects future changes in human activities such as trade between nations. Climate scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have used the model taking into account physical factors like the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions for the first time.

The researchers predict a 90 % probability that surface temperatures will be 3.5° to 7.4° higher by 2100, under a scenario involving no policies to specifically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These temperature increases are more than twice those predicted under the previous version of IGSM, which was run back in 2003. The model was also run for different scenarios involving “strong” policies to curb emissions, and the temperature never rose above 2.5°, which is relatively unchanged from the 2003 prediction.

Read on at http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39207
May require free site registration

Related articles by Zemanta

• MIT: Earth temperature may rise higher than previously projected (energyrefuge.com)
• Global warming may be twice as bad as previously expected (usatoday.com)
• New Study: Global Warming May Be Twice as Severe as Previously Estimated (takepart.com)
• Global Warming Twice As Bad as Forecast (climateark.org)

The digg™ story is about a Gallup poll showing:

Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

This report presupposes that Americans, in general, possess the tools needed to develop a meaningful decision on scientific matters. All men are created equal, but after being created all bets are off.  Some people have invested a huge amount of time and energy into studying specific subjects while others have forgotten what they learned in elementary school.

While most Americans would not presume that they have the skills and knowledge needed to diagnose cancer or other diseases, many so feel that they can possess a “gut feeling” that should be treated as equally valid as long term scientific research in creating environmental policy.  As long as this continues, we are in for a world of hurt.  I would be the last to espouse a technocracy, but there needs to be a way to reconcile the fact that if most of our elected representatives actually made the hard decisions that are needed now they would stand a good chance of losing their next election.

The second story that caught my eye is Science Literacy – American Adults ‘Flunk’ Basic Science, Says Survey.

Are Americans bad at science?  If so, are they worse than anywhere else?   We know the answer to one of those questions.  A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive  says that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.

The good news; U.S. adults do believe that scientific research and education are important. About 4 in 5 adults think science education is “absolutely essential” or “very important” to the U.S. healthcare system (86%), the U.S. global reputation (79%), and the U.S. economy (77%).

People are starting to realize that innovation and industry – not making cheap mortgages a government mandated right – are what propels successful economies.    That means people have to understand science.

If you’re already confident in your knowledge, here’s what other people do not know:

• Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
• Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
• Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth’s surface that is covered with water .
• Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly.

Knowledge about some key scientific issues is also low. Despite the fact that access to fresh water is likely to be one of the most pressing environmental issues over the coming years, less than 1% of U.S. adults know what percent of the planet’s water is fresh (the correct answer is 3%). Nearly half didn’t even hazard a guess. Additionally, 40% of U.S. adults say they are “not at all knowledgeable” about sustainability.

I guess the real question I am left with is what have we, as Americans, done to earn the right to make policy if we are not invested enough in the matter to study scientific subjects thoroughly.

The McCain campaign has finally responded to the Sciencedebate2008 questionnaire. His responses, alongside Obama’s responses from two weeks ago, are now online at The Questions and Answers, a Side by Side Comparison.

Washington (September 15, 2008) – Entering the debate on several contentious science issues, John McCain today answered the “14 top science questions facing America,” according to ScienceDebate2008.com, the group leading an effort to make science issues a larger part of the election. His answers join those of Barack Obama, who answered the same questions two weeks ago.

“Most of America’s major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions. To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is,” said Shawn Otto, CEO of the initiative. “We’re pleased that Senator McCain has provided voters with that plan.”

The top 14 questions address energy policy, national security, economics in a science-driven global economy, climate change, education, health care, ocean health, biosecurity, clean water, space, stem cells, scientific integrity, genetics, and research.

The 14 questions were developed from over 3,400 questions submitted by more than 38,500 signers of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. The questionnaire is a joint effort led by ScienceDebate2008, with Scientists and Engineers for America, AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations, together representing over 125 million Americans.

“I have a broad and cohesive vision for the future of American innovation,” said Senator McCain. “My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe.”

“Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration,” said Senator Obama. “Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches.”

Recent national polls have shown that 85% of voters would like the see the candidates debate these challenges, and the majority of voters are much more likely to vote for a candidate that has a plan for tackling these issues.

“We are grateful for both Senators’ detailed responses,” said Matthew Chapman, president of the initiative. “Now we hope the candidates will want to discuss their differences. Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience.”

ScienceDebate2008.com is a citizens initiative started by six individuals whose signers now include nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of nearly every major American university, and dozens of Nobel laureates and top American CEOs. For more information, to see a list of the signers, or to see detailed results of the national polls, please visit http://www.sciencedebate2008.com.

Its well worth the read

Obama Gets High Marks for New Energy Plan By Joseph Romm, Huffington Post. Posted August 5, 2008.

If I did something wrong – and I got caught – I’d also complain about the unfairness of my being punished when my friend’s got away with staying out after dark or shooting pellet guns at alligators. A common response from my mom was along the lines of “If __________ did __________, would you do it too?”. Those blanks would be filled in to read “If your brothers drank poison would you drink it too?” or “If you Kenny jumped off a cliff would you jump off too?”

I didn’t really understand her point at the time. Drinking poison or jumping off cliffs did not seem fun the way staying up late and getting watch R rated movies sounded fun. She never asked it that way. She was trying to teach me that sometimes you have to look at the people around you and realize that its up to you to do the right thing regardless of the choices made by the people around you.

Sadly, it appears that our President George W. Bush did not learn the same lesson. I was not privy to all the discussions at this week’s G8 summit in Japan, but the press coverage from the Financial Times lets you get the feel for what went down during the talks on climate change. I suspect it went something like this:

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: “Climate change is accelerating faster than was projected by the IPCC and we need to take serious action NOW to address green house gas emissions if we want to have any chance to slow down and reverse changes that will hurt us all economically, agriculturally, and medically.”

G.W. Bush representing the United States: “But… but… but… China and India get to keep polluting!”

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: “George, if China and India destroy their air and water and soil to the point that they end up killing off part of their population to starvation and lack of clean drinking water would you do the same?“

G.W. Bush: “Maybe.”

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: || All bang heads on table to the tune of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. ||

George W. Bush, speaking on behalf of American’s everywhere, promised on Sunday to be “constructive” (his word) in talks on global warming but said a deal was impossible unless fast-growing China and India agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

In President Bush’s own words: “I’ll be constructive. I’ve always advocated that there needs to be a common understanding and that starts with a goal, and I also am realistic enough to tell you that if China and India don’t share that same aspiration, then we’re not going to solve the problem.”

The United States, thanks to both the Clinton and G.W. Bush presidencies, the United States is already sitting out the Kyoto Protocol. The less we do now, the harsher the standards will be when the next pact replaces Kyoto in 2012.

This should not be a surprise to anyone after revelations today that the Office of the Vice President played a role, during the final hours before CDC director Julie Gerberding was to present her testimony to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on October 23, 2007, in “gutting” the report she prepared for the Senate committee.

The White House went on to lie about the edits when press secretary Dana Perino, baldly lied to the press corp stating that the President’s Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP), in consultation with OMB, had determined the CDC’s statements were not in line with the findings of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to Perino, there was not enough time to reconcile the differences, and instead the pages were removed in their entirety.

This was almost immediately refuted by one of the lead IPCC researchers.

“That’s nonsense,” said Jonathan Patz, professor of Public Health at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a lead author for the IPCC, “Dr. Gerberding’s testimony was scientifically accurate and absolutely in line with the findings of the IPCC.”

In fact, Barbara Boxer’s Senate Committee went on to produce a side-by-side comparison of the deleted CDC statements with supporting statements from the IPCC report, supporting Patz’s assertion. DeSmogBlog.com has the Full Version of White House “Edited” CDC Climate Report – with highlights! available online.

I wrote about this back in October of 2007 in a post titled Republicans, look up the word “Balanced” – Please! The fact that pages were deleted from the testimony is old news. The news today revealed that “The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) … any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,” Burnett has told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Jason K. Burnett, was, until last month the senior adviser on climate change to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson. He says that Cheney’s office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC’s original draft testimony removed.

Burnett feels, in his opinion, that the office of the vice president quite correctly feared that if the CDC testimony reported even the more conservative information about the expected health effects climate change, it will be harder for the Executive branch to the resist mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases they way they have through both of Bush’s terms.

To be fair, Megan Mitchell, the vice president’s press secretary, dismissed the allegations by Jason Burnett, whom she referred to simply as “the Democrat.”

On the new Climate Change Collection:

The last two decades of the 20th century produced mounting evidence that climate change posed significant risks to society. At the beginning of the 21st century, climate change has become a defining issue of our time. The importance of this issue is underscored by its magnitude and complexity: it is a global problem with wide geographic and economic disparity between the largest sources of the problem and those who will experience the greatest impacts. Many solutions often run counter to powerful entrenched interests and long-held patterns of individual behavior. All of this is happening amidst a global community that is increasingly connected by flows of information, people, commerce and environmental change. This collection brings together some of the world’s leading scientists and organizations and presents the essential knowledge underlying the issue of climate change. — Cutler J. Cleveland, Editor-in-Chief

The Collection is anchored by an electronic version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Nobel Prize-winning reports. It also includes articles by climate experts, biographies of individuals who have made important contributions to climate science and policy, a timeline of key events in the history of climate science and policy, a climate glossary, and much more.

A few of the features that I really enjoy include:

• Climate Change Timeline – Scientists have been interested in man’s effects on climate for much longer than you may realize.
• Climate change FAQs – What is the difference between weather and climate? What is the greenhouse effect? Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural variability? Answers to these and other essential questions from leading climate research centers.
• Climate Change Glossary – An extensive glossary defining some specific terms as the IPCC lead authors intend them to be interpreted in the context of if their Nobel Prize Winning Reports.

U.S. – European Cooperation to Pretend to Address Climate Change.

The U.S. and Europe both recognizes climate change as a serious challenge hoax or naturally occurring problem having nothing to do with humans and share a common goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the industries that create the bulk of the pollution feel like doing so voluntarily. We are committed to negotiating a new post-2012 climate change framework under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by the end of 2009 to take effect after oil becomes so valuable and scarce that it is no longer as large of a factor in the world economy and working with all international partners, including the major economies polluting nations, to reach agreement on this post-2012 long overdue and by then vaguely irrelevant framework.

During the April 2007 U.S. – EU Summit in Washington, the leaders agreed to a series of “commitments“ to ensure secure massive record breaking energy industry profits affordable, and clean supplies of energy, while creating the illusion of tackling climate change. Starting in 2006 a series of working groups on biofuels and energy efficiency have been held to help advance work on common biofuel standards despite the fact that biofuels divert much needed food from the marketplace while pollution and greenhouse gases are produced on a massive scale in the production of grain used to produce the fuel and efficiency measures like Energy Star while ignoring the fact that more energy use and pollution results from manufacturing new products than results from keeping existing goods in use and out of landfills.

The U.S. and EU are also engaging bilaterally on nearly every policy level; centerpieces are the U.S. – EU Strategic Energy Review and the High-Level Bureaucratic and ineffectual Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, which met most recently on March 3 and March 7, 2008, respectively.

– ## –

If you would like to read more US Government propoganda please visit the “real” newsletter page.

The U. S. Department of State sponsors the “Doors to Diplomacy” educational challenge – to encourage middle school and high school students around the world to produce web projects that teach others about the importance of international affairs and diplomacy. Each student team member of the winning “Doors to Diplomacy” Award team receives a $2,000 scholarship, and the winning coaches’ schools each receive a $500 cash award. Additional prizes may be provided by sponsors.

This years winners have been announced. The prizes above are for the winners  of the Platinum Prize. This year there are two Platinum winners. The two big winners this year are Pier2Pier and Fight Against Radiation to Have a Good Wind.

• Pier2Pier – Helping Wild Dolphins and Manatees Worldwide entered in the Environmental Awareness category. It is a project by four students: Rahsul, Fred, Frank, Ronald (ages 18,18,14, and 17) at Plantation High School in Plantation Florida. This is the first year that this team has participated in the contest. Their school adviser is Jamie Aquino. (http://www.pier2pier.net)
• Fight Against Radiation to Have a Good Wind entered in the Health and the Environment category. This project by four Bulgarian sixteen year olds, Iva, Nicole, Nicola, Tsvetelinka focused on safety factors for various energy sources with a focus on nuclear energy. This was also the teams first year for participating. They were advised by Dimitrinka Georgieva and Tanya Denova. (http://greenimpulse.hit.bg) [Note: Any Bulgarian speakers wanna give me a better translation of "Борете се срещу радиацията за да имаме попътен вятър"?]

Both entries go beyond a single page of information and are well done. I’m note sure exactly what criteria the State Department used in selecting these winners, but it can not have been easy. The Gold and Silver winners below created sites that are every bit as good the two Platinum winners.

Gold Prize Winners

• Child Labour-A Dark Spot On Humanity entered in the “Promotion of Peace and Democracy: Social Issues” category. This project was created by three students who are 13 and 14 at the International School in Maharashtra, India. This is a flash based presentation on Child Labour and features information on the orgins of child labour practices, information on combatting the problem, and a few short biographies of children who essentially lived as slaves – one of which was sold into servitude for the equivalent of twelve US dollars at the age of four. This is the teams second entry. (http://darkspots.tk)
• Review Of Past, Present And Future Of ASEAN: Is ASEAN Way The Key To Regional And Global Security entered in the International Security category. This project, by three students aged 14 to 17 living in Singapore, focuses on the forty year old Association of Southeast Asian Nations, commonly referred to as ASEAN. The primary focus is on the results of the organizational features of non-interference, informality, minimal institutionalization, consultation and consensus, non-use of force and non-confrontation that have constituted a foriegn policy schema called the ASEAN Way. (http://www.ri.sch.edu.sg/d2d/aseanway)
• Opening the Doors for Refugees: The Crisis in Iraq entered in the Promotion of Peace and Democracy: Social Issues category. This well designed site features a section containing a brief history of various refugee crises in the last century or so. There are also links to resources to help visitors get involved and offer aid. There is also a nice section that introduces visitors to the history, workings, and budget of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The site was created by three students, ages 17 and 18, from Cherokee High School in Marlton, New Jersey. (http://www.theiraqirefugeecrisis.com)

Silver Prize Winners

• The War on Peace – Learning from International Conflict entered in the Promotion of Peace and Democracy: Social Issues category. This site, created by two fourteen year old and one fifteen year old student opens with the quote: “Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.” by Max Lucade. This simple and easily navigated site explores the root causes of armed conflicts and possible ways to address them. It also offers three short case studies to provide readers with some background on the curret conflicts in Israel and Palestine, Darfur, and Myanmar. The Darfur section includes a video of testimony by refugees of the Darfur crisis with English subtitles. (http://www.thequietworld.com/thewaronpeace)
• Globalisation — The Trend Of The 21St Century entered in the Trade/International Economics category. This Flash intensive site explores globalization in three of its most recognizable aspects: Cultural, Economic, and Political. The site was created by four 15 and 16 year old students at the Hwa Chong Institution in Singapore. (http://www.hci.sg/~y05hci215/dtd)
• Global Warming: Teaching the World About Global Warming One Day at a Time was entered in the Health and the Environment category. Three students, ages 17 and 18, from Cherokee High School in Marlton, New Jersey created the site. The site contains information covering a broad array of topics related to Climate Change. The section I liked the best was the FAQ. The FAQ page will give students enough exposure to terminology and concepts to understand the material covered on the site. (http://www.freewebs.com/boomboy321)

All of entries reflect the creativity, research efforts, and commitment to global issues held by each team. These students should be commended for taking time away from other activities to participate in this contest.

I wasn’t sure I would have time or the inclination to do today’s Ideas Matter! post because of the Super Tuesday primaries yesterday.  But someone directed me to what may be one of the most important documents ever released by a major energy company.  Every three years or so The Shell Group group of companies produces what it calls "scenarios".  A scenario in this context is an alternative view of the future. A scenario identifies some significant events, main actors and their motivations, and they convey how the world functions.

 Building and using scenarios can help us explore what the future might look like and the likely changes of living in it. Shell has been using scenarios for 30 years. The  audience for these scenarios do not only consist of businesses and governments but all people who are curious by nature, and who are highly motivated to acquire a deeper understanding of the world around them.

Shell’s release of a new scenario is always news worthy on its own, but this scenario is more candid and important than most.  It has received more media coverage in mainstream U.K. and Australian news than it has in the US.  As this Google News Query shows, its been covered in the US but only on a limited niche media way.  This report contains, in clear and direct wording, the acknowledgment of the validity of one of the basic principles of Hubbert’s Peak in the business planning of a major energy company.

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another.  This time however, there is a clear preference.   As Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer explains in this introduction to the new scenarios, only one of the scenarios produces a desirable future that leaves the earth in relatively better shape for both corporate investors and future generations of humans.  

The two scenarios Shell has produced are called "Scramble" and "Blueprints".  Scramble is described as: "Like an off-road rally through a mountainous desert, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of "more haste" will often be "less speed", and many will crash along the way."  Blueprints, on the other hand, is described as resembling "a cautious ride, with some false starts, on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technological innovation provides the excitement."

Shell breaks with tradition and endorses the Blueprints scenario.  The summary says "… faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced."

The full report as well as information about how the scenarios are created and what they really mean are available on Shell’s website in the Looking Ahead section.  If you have the time, I would suggest that you reading Jeroen van der Veer’s  full summary at Two Energy Futures before going on to today’s candidates quotes on Energy.

Energy policy and Climate change are inextricably linked.  So these quotes will touch on both issues.  Ideas about energy matter a great deal,  and these are the ideas of one of our current presidential candidates:

 Suppose that climate change is not real, and we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and technology are capable of. Then all we’ve done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose that climate change is real and we’ve done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation? It’s real. We’ve got to address it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. We can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.

---

[We need to] stop the contamination of our atmosphere. Climate change is real & is taking place. We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that. And it’s also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation’s national security.

---

Q: Do you have a problem with Big Oil companies making these huge profits?

A: Sure, I think we all do. And they ought to be reinvesting it. And one of the areas that they ought to be involved in is nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green–& does not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is used on Navy ships which have sailed around the world for 60 years without an accident. And of course we ought to be investing in alternate energy sources.

---

Q: You said: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." And after you said that, you acknowledged you might pay a political price for that view. You said:  "My opposition to ethanol obviously would hurt me. But I’ve got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there’s really nothing I can do about it."

A: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.

Q: So you’ve changed your mind.

A: No, I haven’t. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.

---

"National security depends on energy security. Al-Qaida must revel in the irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the war they caused. As we sacrifice blood and treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots, and carry out attacks on our soldiers and citizens.  The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the conditions on which terrorists prey."

---

Oil is often called the lifeblood of our economy-the indispensable commodity that keeps commerce humming and America on the move. But, in today’s world, our dependency on foreign oil and the way we use hydrocarbons is a major strategic vulnerability, a serious threat to our security, our economy and the well being of our planet.

---

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major social, economic and political upheaval. The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue, and wreak havoc with God’s creation. A group of senior retired military officers recently warned about the potential upheaval caused by conflicts over water, arable land and other natural resources under strain from a warming planet. The problem isn’t a Hollywood invention nor is doing something about it a vanity of Cassandra like hysterics. It is a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge.

---

Answering great challenges is nothing new to America. It’s what we do. We built the rockets that took us to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. We’ve sent space probes into the distant reaches of the universe. We harnessed nuclear energy, mapped the human genome, created the Internet and pioneered integrated circuits that possess the computing power of Apollo spacecraft on a single silicon chip you can barely see. In twenty years we’ve gone from using this cell phone (SHOW), a $4000 toy for the wealthy, to this cell phone (SHOW), an inexpensive and virtually universal means of communication. We can solve our oil dependence. You can’t sell me on hopelessness. You can’t convince me the problem is insurmountable. I know my country. I know what we’re capable of. We’re capable of unimaginable progress, unmatched prosperity, and vision that sees around the corner of history. We’ve always understood our times, accepted our challenges and made from our opportunities, another better world. My people are Americans. Our time is today. That is the country I ask to lead.

The twentieth century produced massive changes in how we live our lives.  Changes in transportation, manufacturing, communication, and information management and sharing have created a world that would be virtually unrecognizable to someone who died in the late 19th century.  The 21st century will see another massive shift in the way we live our lives.  One of these possible shifts would send a big portion of the world’s population back to a 19th century lifestyle while other shifts will create a future that balances the best of the past with new technology that helps us achieve a stable, sustainable way of life.

The report is introduced with:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Many bloggers are using this report’s existence (but not its contents) to support their own positions that climate change is a myth. Seeing that, I think it is important to point out that the report is focused on objections to the idea of consensus on human activity’s role in global warming and not on the existence of climate change itself. If they were to limit the report to scientists who deny that climate change is occurring they would not be able to use a number like 400 in the title.

To put that full 400 number in perspective, the breakdown of the IPCC makeup is over 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors. When reading the report you will see that the few ‘skeptics’ that have any affiliation with the IPCC come from the largest subset – the ‘scientific expert reviewers’ – and not the contributing authors or lead authors.

I think reading the report, with Google at hand so you can check the context of the quotes used in the report, is a worthwhile endeavor; however, I don’t see many people doing that. I first learned of the report in a recent long discussion thread on BlogCatalog.com started by globalgirl. The existence of this report, posted by the ranking minority member of the EPW committee on his blog,  is cited as evidence against the reality of climate change.  People who mentioned it seemed to take the mere existence of the report as more important than its content.

Like all areas of life, not all ‘experts’ are created equal.The first featured ‘skeptic’ is atmospheric scientist, Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who focuses on these four points:

1. This is not the first time temperatures have changed historically.
2. Our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts
3. The long term rising of CO2 in the atmosphere over time. Specifically because he believes that the ocean might be able to absorb more CO2 than it currently does.
4. Long term CO2 rises from fossil fuels.

He appears to be a Peak Oil believer who says:

“the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-­200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won’t last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably take place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation.”

No climate scientists deny that we have historically had warming periods in the past. So, what Dr. Nathan Paldor is actually saying is that we have problems forecasting changes to our climate, but that even if CO2 is a problem, it will go away because we will eventually run out of burnable petroleum, coal, and natural gas. This does not sound to me like someone who is rejecting the IPCC report entirely, instead he questions predictions based on current trends because he does not see our current energy usage patterns as sustainable.

Next, the report features Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa is skeptical about climate change being the greatest environmental risk to humanity. He is quoted very much out of context in the report.

The quote in the report comes from a blog entry he wrote. I suspect that he was quoted mainly due to his use of the phrase: “global warming myth” which will leave many readers feeling that he is calling global warming itself a myth. In fact, as he defines it in his blog post, the “global warming myth” is based on the idea that “global warming” is the most pressing concern facing the world. The myth part is in reference to its proper placement in a prioritized list of problems and not its existence.

The entire segment that includes the portion quoted in the report is (the part included in the report is in italics):

The main arguments I hear from environmentalists are: (1) that even if we are not attacking a root cause, forcing all to burn less fossil fuels will slow down humankind’s otherwise unimpeded destruction of the planet and (2) concentrating on this issue has much educational value and will help sensitize members of the public who may then later go a further step.

I don’t agree with either of the latter positions.

On the “global warming issue as education” front, I again argue the opposite: That promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures. The first involves finding a comfort zone consistent with one’s values whereas the latter involves accepting confrontation and risk in order to challenge power structures. The first is needed for welfare, as are community, friendship, etc., while the second is needed to create sanity and justice in an insane world.

In that sense, the global warming myth is a powerful tool of co-optation that has even eroded one of the most fertile grounds of political activism: the environmental movement.

Later in the post he says:

The media are allowed to talk global warming because it does not threaten power in any significant way. Indeed, it deflects attention away from real world issues. It’s perfect. The scientists can debate it. The environmental activists are largely neutralized. Everyone thinks it’s about CO2. The economists can work out the carbon credits. The politicians can talk environment without actually saying anything. Those who want to do something can change their consumer habits. The others can just ignore it and continue chatting about the weather.

So you can see his skepticism is based on the social effects of focusing on climate change to the exclusion of other issues. I’d highly recommend reading his entire blog post to better understand his position on climate change.

Since the press, and most people, will probably limit their reading to the summary introduction where many people from all over the world are briefly quoted and highlighted, lets look at a few of the people on that list. The report has this to say about its experts cited in the report:

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki. His own biographic page points out his expertise and career is founded on his responsibility “To develop, coordinate, and conduct marine geological research in cooperation with colleagues from the Geological Survey of Finland and other national institutions and to continue to improve international cooperation and relations with colleagues abroad.” and not on climate science or the “effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation” that he is cited as a possible alternate set of factors affecting climate. I am sure that Dr. Winterhalter is fine in his area of expertise, but I think someone studying the ocean floor should be quoted in his own area and not on solar winds. On his website he writes about his frustration with media hype on the easy to communicate singular focus on CO2 instead of recognizing the extreme complexity of climate science.

Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. The report doesn’t give any information about the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project was registered as a Canadian corporation on October 21, 2005 with the address of 263 Roncesvalles Avenue Suite 2, Toronto, Ontario M6R2L9. That is the exact same address as The High Park Advocacy Group, Inc. The High Park Group is a “Toronto based public affairs and policy consulting firm,” according to its website. According to the Lobbyists Registration System, Government of Canada, HPG is registered as a lobbying firm for several energy industry clients and The Ottawa, Ontario, Yellow Pages lists HPG as “Government Relations Consultants”. HPG is a registered lobbyist for Areva Canada Inc. (the Areva Group is the world’s largest nuclear power company), ARISE Technologies Corporation (a Canadian-based public solar technology company), Canadian Electricity Association, and the Canadian Gas Association.

Tom Harris, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is the former Ottawa Director of the High Park Group (HPG). Harris has written several articles that dispute the science backing the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes to “stop climate change” through the reduction of human emissions of carbon dioxide. Prior to HPG, Harris was employed by APCO Worldwide and organized a press conference in Ottawa that included Dr. Madhav Khandekar.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation. Dr Kelvin Kemm is currently a Business Strategy Consultant and runs his own company, Stratek, based in Pretoria. It networks many varied facets of society in the interests of economic development. In 1994 Dr Kemm was appointed to the International Board of Advisors of the Washington DC-based environment and technology lobby group; The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) – he still holds that position. CFACT touts itself as a conservative answer to the Public Interest Research Groups (e.g. NYPIRG, ConnPIRG et al.), progressive lobbying groups concerned with environmental issues. Unlike the progressive groups that get most of their funding from grassroots efforts on campuses, CFACT gets much of its funding from industry groups including Chevron and ExxonMobil as well as The Carthage Foundation, one of the conservative Scaife Family foundations.

Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia. Dr. Plimer is an interesting guy that I’d love to have dinner with. He is famous as an outspoken critic of creationism and is famous for a debate with creationist Duane Gish in which he asked his opponent to hold live electrical cables to prove that electromagnetism was ‘only a theory’.

Plimer is also critical of what he sees as irrational elements within the environmental movement. He is critical of greenhouse gas politics and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. He suggests that meteorologists have a huge amount to gain from climate change research, and that they have narrowed the climate change debate to the atmosphere – Plimer claims that the truth is more complex. He suggests that money would be better directed to dealing with problems as they occur rather than making expensive and futile attempts to prevent climate change. His criticism of climate change science is NOT about whether the climate is changing or not. Instead he takes a pragmatic approach that suggests dealing with the effects is better than trying to prevent change.

Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant. Richard Courtney limits his skepticism to the human caused aspect of climate change. He is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry), but he is not a scientist. Courtney is often referred to without any academic degree, even if others are in the same document. For example, the ESEF member list of 1998 where he is not listed as a ‘Academic Member’ but as a ‘Business Member’.

Richard Courtney was one of the speakers at the conference in Leipzig in 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) which resulted in the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. In his speech he stated that he couldn’t find any negative sides of the announced global warming. Courtney was amongst the first group of people who signed the declaration that begins with: “As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we…”. After complaints that many people who were listed as those who signed it were no scientists at all, SEPP made a new list which no longer mentions Courtney.

Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University. David E. Wojick is a well-known and vocal climate change “skeptic”, with strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunct coal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society.

Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Wojick is listed as “contributing editor” ” to Environment and Climate News, a publication of the Heartland Institute, a US think tank at the forefront of the attack on climate change science. Heartland has received over half a million in funding from ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world. Wojick lists the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy as some of his former “clients”.

Wojick is listed among Natural Resources Stewardship Project’s “Allied Experts” as an “Independent journalist and policy analyst, specializing in Kyoto issues”. (The Natural Resources Stewardship Project was profiled in the above section on Madhav Khandekar.)

I could go on and on about the “Over 400 Prominent Scientists” that lend their collective existence to the title of this report, but I think any readers who have made it this far get the idea. This report is a desperate attempt to keep alive the idea that we don’t know enough about climate science to make valid and responsible public policy.

Many of the 400+ experts in the report do not debate that our climate is changing and the earth is warming. How we should address the problem is still up for debate and I don’t think that is remotely controversial. Maybe Dr. Plimer is right, and we are in no position to be able to stop or slow changes in our climate and we should instead focus on mitigating the results of that change. This report is one of the most dishonest documents, in both its content and its presentation, that I have ever read and the fact that it is hosted on a web server belonging to the US Government makes me ashamed

I am equally ashamed that a US politician would use his position on a Senate committee to do such a disservice to the scientists included in the report. Many of them, I am sure, have a lot to teach us and will be strong voices of rationality in the coming years. Those voices must be supported and held aloft to ensure that real scientific discourse is never silenced and is allowed to play its role as it has in the past. Lumping real scientists, backed by real science, who voice opposition to the simplistic CO2 driven climate change narrative do not deserve to have their words lumped in with lobbyists and industry friendly ‘experts’ the way they have been in this report.

Climate change is one crucial arena– along with nuclear weapons– in which the wellbeing and survival of US citizens are seen as very clearly inter-reliant with the survival and wellbeing of the rest of the world’s 6 billion people. We are all in this frail boat together.

Luckily, many US citizens seem finally to be waking up to this fact– even if they are not yet ready to acknowledge either the scale of the damage our country’s past emissions have caused to the rest of the world or the depth of the changes in lifestyles and mindsets that will be required to bring our emissions down to a globally-proportionate and reabsorbable level.

But still, it is good that increasing numbers of Americans are starting to think about these things and that there a number of nationwide groups doing good, solid organizing around them… Good, too, that we have increasingly potent and well-organized friends around the world who will help to persuade Washington to get with the global anti-warming program.

I was horrified, however, to see the "business as usual" news judgment being displayed by the WaPo this morning, when it buried its coverage of the globally important, cliffhanging proceedings of the Bali conference to deep down at the bottom of p.17. What were they thinking?

However, I believe that Stern’s fundamental conclusion is justified: We are much better off reducing carbon dioxide emissions substantially than risking the consequences of failing to act, even if, unlike Stern, one heavily discounts uncertainty and the future.

Two factors differentiate global climate change from other environmental problems.

First, whereas most environmental insults — for example, water pollution, acid rain, or sulfur dioxide emissions — are mitigated promptly or in fairly short order when the source is cleaned up, emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace gases remain in the atmosphere for centuries. So reducing emissions today is very valuable to humanity in the distant future.

Second, the externality is truly global in scale, because greenhouse gases travel around the world in a few days. As a result, the nation-state and its subsidiaries, the typical loci for internalizing externalities, are limited in their remedial capacity. (However, since the US contributes about 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, its own policy could make a large difference.) Thus, global climate change is a public "good" — as defined in economic terms — on an enormous scale.

Read the Rest

"The people", in the form of the US citizenry that are not running the government or huge corporations, tend to like their science the same way they like their news – in short, catchy, easily (pre)digested form that can be transmitted via AIM with under 200 keystrokes.   As a result, much very well written, well researched, and important work zooms right past people who are more eagerly awaiting news on the status of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s relationship.

And after the Seventh Great Extinction….
…
There is little doubt in my mind that we are set on a path that will require geo-engineering and bioengineering on a scale that only gods should contemplate.

I am not interested in the moral dilemma of Faust or the hubris in creating our own Tower of Babel. My question simply is: Do we know enough? There may well come a time when we will know enough. I, for one, believe in that time. But are we truly ready now?

Read the rest.

Came across a link to this interesting article about engineering and bioengineering ourselves out of the problems currently facing the world via naked capitalism.  Instead of asking much about IF we can, it asks if we are smart enough to know what changes would be a good idea.

Full Version of White House "Edited" CDC Climate Report – with highlights! | DeSmogBlog

"Edits" does not even come close to describing the grammatical massacre the White House undertook with CDC Director Julie Gerberding’s Senate testimony on the public health effects of climate change.

Heavy Editing Is Alleged In Climate Testimony – washingtonpost.com:

Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. … A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding’s draft "was eviscerated," cut from 14 pages to four. The version presented to the Senate committee consisted of six pages.

The Bush administration has been accused by government scientists of pressuring them to emphasize the uncertainties of global warming. Earlier this year, climate scientists complained to a House committee that the administration had sought frequently to manage or influence their statements and public appearances.

The White House in the past has said it has sought only to provide a balanced view of the climate issue.

First, lets look at Dr. Gerberding.   She is eminently qualified for her position as the director of the CDC, she not only is an M.D., she also has her Masters of Public Health from the UIniversity of California at Berkley.  She is an an infectious disease expert, and she is administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  She is also an Associate Editor of the American Journal of Medicine and serves as a peer-reviewer for numerous internal medicine, infectious diseases, and epidemiology journals. 

Last March, Director Gerberding, received the Surgeon General’s Medal.  The honor was given for her "outstanding public health professionalism, extraordinary leadership and utmost commitment and dedication to the USPHS Commissioned Corps."  The Surgeon General’s Medal is the highest award of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The medal is awarded in the name of the US Surgeon General for actions of exceptional achievement to the cause of public health and medicine. It is awarded by the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which is led by the US Surgeon General.

Now lets look at the White House staff.  According to this list of White House staff members from 2006, there does not appear to be anyone with an MD, let alone expertise in public health issues or infectious disease.  I’m very confused about how anyone there could have the nerve to edit a report by someone that that was appointed by their own Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson.  If the Bush Administration had some staff member that was secretly better educated and with more knowledge of infectious diseases and public health, why didn’t they appoint that person?

To achieve anything like a "balanced view" on anything science related you need to have people who are equally qualified to have an opinion on the subject.  A high school junior might have very strong views on how the school should be run, but we hire principals who are educated and trained in how to run a school to make the actual day to day decisions.  Until the White House can bring forward an individual or group of individuals who have the equivalent of Dr. Gerdberding’s qualifications, we should be allowed to hear what she has to say without her words being filtered by politicians.

I agree with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who said in a statement Tuesday that the Bush administration "should immediately release Dr. Gerberding’s full, uncut statement, because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming."

• human caused aspects of climate change (see: http://www.ipcc.ch)
• famine in parts of the world (see: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/malnutrition_and_famine)
• lack of safe and clean drinking water
• environmental problems created by industrial agriculture (see http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp and http://www.smm.org/deadzone)

seem to me to be related to one common problem: Overpopulation.
 
When I hear that North Korea does not produce enough food to feed its entire population I feel bad, but I immediately want to know how large of a population its food supply could satisfy. The earth has finite resources available at any given time. A great deal of science, and I mean science that is in the news daily, is geared towards addressing issues that are handled as discrete issues when in reality they are just a symptom of too many people and too few resources.
 
Before anyone jumps on me, I am not suggesting any kind of eugenic program, or putting a value on life based on where that life is born and lives. I accept that we have billions of people alive right now and they all, having been born, deserve to live out their lives as free and happy and healthy as possible.
 
Does anyone else see population size as a big underlying problem for much of the science news these days? If not, I’d be glad to hear why you think I am wrong.
 
If you do agree, how do you think the world should address the problem for the future in a fair and balanced way? Tax credits or subsidies for people who chose to not reproduce? Financial or legal penalties for those who produce more than they should? (Those of you who have read Ender’s Game should know what I am getting at.)
 
Also, to avoid this devolving into an abortion or eugenics (where people of more value can reproduce compared to lesser people) debate lets assume that if we wanted to put our best medical minds and enough funding behind it we can provide at least 80% of the worlds population with safe, effective, completely controllable anti-conception technology that doesn’t rely on someone taking a pill or putting on a condom. Essentially, assume people would need to make an effort to conceive.