This blog tracks climate change, and attempts to translate the science of it into words that a layman (such as myself) can understand. It began in part because I realized that thoughtful reporting on this issue, which is as changeable and as complex as the winds that circle the globe, is just impossible on a once-in-a-while basis. But even after a year of catching up, there are some weeks so busy that it’s almost impossible to stay current.
This post will list the highlights from last week, as briefly but inclusively as I can:
Peter Gleick, a scientist’s scientist, speaks on climate change and the impossibility of converting those who will not believe–many of them because they’re funded by, or involved with, the fossil fuels industry.
Scientists love to prove each other wrong – it is how they make advances and bolster their reputations – and it usually works to the benefit of our knowledge and understanding. Climate contrarians, however, misuse this tool of the scientific process to confuse people into believing that the debate about climate change should somehow be resolved, all uncertainties laid to rest, and the “truth” discovered – before policymakers act in the public interest. The proper response is to insist that the skeptics produce a reviewable, replicable scientific theory that can provide a plausible explanation for the mass of the evidence on climate change without invoking human interference. No climate skeptic has ever been able to produce such a theory.
John Quiggan of Australia put in a post that concisely but completely discredits the dishonest skeptics and smartly points out:
First, in the course of the debate, a lot of nasty things were said about the IPCC, including some by people who should have known better. Now that it’s clear that the IPCC has been pretty much spot-on in its assessment (and conservative in terms of its caution about reaching definite conclusions), it would be nice to see some apologies.
Second, now that the scientific phase of the debate is over, attention will move to the question of the costs and benefits of mitigation options. There are legitimate issues to be debated here. But having seen the disregard for truth exhibited by anti-environmental think tanks in the first phase of the debate, we shouldn’t give them a free pass in the second. Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking. That disqualifies virtually all the major right-wing think tanks, both here and in the US. Their performance on this and other scientific issues has been a disgrace.
Speak of "spot-on!" This hardheaded argument was alertly seconded by Kevin Drum, of "Political Animal," and then by David Roberts, of "Gristmill," who tartly asked the follow-up question:
Once we start talking about what to do next, is there any reason to think these same people are going to stop shilling industry-friendly propaganda?
Is the Competitive Enterprise Institute still going to show up in the last few paragraphs of every single story on climate change? I would think at this point even the most credulous environmental reporter would have learned their lesson.
Speaking of pro-industry groups, Grover Norquist’s Wednesday morning meeting of right-wing politicos and think-tankers welcomed Al Gore and invited him to give his PowerPoint presentation on global warming. Already last year Gore opened the eyes of Roger Ailes and FOXNews to the reality of the issue, resulting in a documentary on the subject (to JunkScience abuser Steven Milloy’s horror). The reviews of Gore’s presentation were just as good this time around.
Wrote Steve Hayward of the right-wing National Review’s The Corner:
As Grover’s meetings are off-the-record, I won’t relay any of Gore specific remarks (beyond repeating what I think he’d want Cornerites to hear–that global warming and the potential harm it may do to the planet should be recognized as a moral challenge by everyone, especially conservatives). But I think I can stay within the rules to make a few general observations about the experience.
First, Gore was funny, relaxed, and self-effacing, and he was received by the Group with the utmost politeness and courtesy, as it should be. John Miller is right to praise the guy for seeking to meet with a group of people not one of whom likely voted for him. His Powerpoint presentation on global warming was superbly done–the best I have ever seen either on this or any topic. (He has some dazzling graphics, and uses Powerpoint as it ought to be used.)
Gore took on all comers for about 25 minutes after the speech, and I thought most of his responses were not strong. He graciously acknowledged the merits of good points and some challenges put to him (including two from me, if I can boast a bit). But most of his answers, I thought, sounded like canned bits of the rest of his speech that he left out, and he didn’t, with few exceptions, join the fundamental premises at the heart of the questions. He also is not up to date on a few aspects of the climate change debate, but this is entirely forgiveable in my mind because it is almost impossible to keep up with this fast-moving scene.
Above all, Gore the practical politician may have come to realize something the environmental movement is resolutely clueless about: there can be no serious progress on any environmental issues without the participation of conservatives, for the obvious reason that the conservative movement is a potent force that is not going away any time soon. And with most other foreign conservative parties having joined the green/global warming bandwagon to some extent, this leaves the American conservative movement as the most significant remaining holdout. Most environmentalists want to demonize conservatives; Gore says he wants to talk to us. Good for him.
Once again, this reporter feels compelled to point out that there are conservatives–such as John McCain, who polls say is the most popular politician on the national scene–who do understand the urgency of the global warming crisis. McCain has been talking about the issue and pushing Congress to act for years. (Why is that both leftists and right-wingers consistently forget his efforts? Do neither really want to see him get any credit? I guess I’m naive, but I just don’t understand.)
But otherwise Hayward makes two excellent point on which everyone can agree: This issue is evolving rapidly, and major political progress in this country is impossible without the conversion of far more centrists, right-wingers, and Republicans than have signed on to date.
Further, James Hansen–who is widely considered the most respected climatologist in the country–has stressed that it is "not too late" to act to save the planet from drastic climate change. In a commentary published in the International Herald-Tribune,he concluded:
In the long run, satisfying energy needs while decreasing CO² emissions will require developing renewable energies, sequestering CO² produced at power plants and perhaps a new generation of nuclear power. But emissions can already be reduced now with improved energy efficiency.
It is important that the United States, as a leader in technology and as the largest producer of CO² in the world, take the lead.
In general, industrial emissions of CO² are declining. The problem is emissions from power plants and vehicles. The solution in both cases depends on efficiency. We need to avoid building fossil fuel power plants unless and until sequestration is a reality.
For vehicles, efficiency is critical because of the rapidly growing global number of vehicles.
In the United States, even though the number of vehicles on the road increases every year, we could stop increasing emissions by accepting even modest improvements in efficiency of about 30 percent by 2030. This could be done with available technology, and there’s ample time to phase it in.
The accrued benefit in 35 years, even without the introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles, is a savings of oil equal to more than seven times the estimated amount of oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
Keeping the rise of global temperature below one degree Celsius is technically within reach. Everything depends on an informed public to bolster the political will of leaders across this warming globe.
But back on earth, far away from political considerations, there was just as much news. The American Pika, a charming little creature that lives only under snow in the Sierras and other high mountains, appears on the way to extinction due to global warming, according to two studies. University of Washington researcher Donald Grayson in a press release pointed out that the pika has moved 1700 feet higher in elevation in Yosemite, to nearly 10,000 feet, and was quoted as saying:
"We might be staring pika extinction in the Great Basin, maybe in Yosemite, too, right in the face. Today, the Great Basin pika is totally isolated on separated mountain ranges and there is no way one of these populations can get to another. They don’t have much up-slope habitat left."
But as alarming as this news is for the pika, for those of us who live on the West Coast, the news that the little-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation appears to be speeding up radically could be much bigger news. A study just published in Science finds that the Pacific is warmer than it has been at any point in the last 1400 years. Usha McFarling, a reporter for the LATimes, checked this study out:
Bill Peterson, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, agreed with Field’s conclusions of a long-term warming trend.
Peterson also said that, for unknown reasons, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation might be speeding up from alternating 20-year cycles to three- or four-year cycles.
"It’s not behaving like it used to behave," Peterson said.
Given that the PDO is widely believed in the field to influence El Nino/La Nina, which has huge effects on our weather, this could be big news, and deserves following closely.
Kit Stolz 
