355th Month in a Row of Higher Than Average Temperatures

Yup, the frog (our civilization) is in a pot of gradually boiling water, and no one's gonna do a bloody thing until it's too late.

Uh, maybe.

Great video. One of the best appeals to people to care, despite their unreliable instincts and inert viscera suggesting there's no cause for concern, that I've seen in a long time. And it mentions George Marshall's book (no, not THAT George Marshall). Have a watch.

The Wall Street Journal Finally Coming Around to Reality?

It's nice that, after years, if not decades, of this, this, this, this, this, this, and on and on and on, the video below suggests the WSJ is coming to its senses, but given the publication's track record of intense climate change denial, is anyone else more than a little suspicious of the way it ends?



Contrast making a potential (not guaranteed, mind) failure to meet a fairly ambitious 2°C goal the takeaway message with what Holdren said on the Late Show recently (emphasis mine).

"There is a huge difference between how much climate change we can expect if we do nothing, and how much climate change we can expect if we do a lot in the way of reducing our emissions...It gets more and more difficult to cope with the impacts of climate change the higher we go. And there is a huge difference between being at, let us say, 3.6°F above pre-industrial — we're around 1.5°F now above pre-industrial — huge difference between that and 10°F above pre-industrial. We're much better off at the lower number, and we can get there."

- Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

At this point, if Bellini and the WSJ wish to be taken seriously on this issue, like, uh, ever, they need to concentrate on and not stray away from the dangerous consequences of our unchecked emissions for as many years and articles as they have been attempting to whitewash the problem. Giving the threat to our civilization posed by a warming world only passing mention, and then quickly transitioning into extensive naysaying of our ability to curb greenhouse gases ain't cuttin' it. When you've demonstrated such a strong affinity for denial for as long as this news agency has, it smacks of schadenfreude.

"Assessing over 30,000 Scientific Papers"

It's worth reminding the ignorant denier tosspots about the sheer magnitude of scientific literature behind the IPCC's recent Synthesis Report.

Over 30,000 Scientific Papers.

G'head, my little confused denier wingnut friends, have a watch and a tantrum; it's another video from your favorite org in the whole world. Did I mention yer all ignorant tosspots?

Dr. John Holdren on Late Show with David Letterman

"There is a huge difference between how much climate change we can expect if we do nothing, and how much climate change we can expect if we do a lot in the way of reducing our emissions...It gets more and more difficult to cope with the impacts of climate change the higher we go. And there is a huge difference between being at, let us say, 3.6°F above pre-industrial — we're around 1.5°F now above pre-industrial — huge difference between that and 10°F above pre-industrial. We're much better off at the lower number, and we can get there."

- Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Way to Go, Qatar

This post is not about climate change, but it does pertain to the ongoing effort of this blog to demonstrate the deleterious effects of religion, one of which is without a doubt the denial of global warming. Qatar, a monarchy and Islamic state, continues to detain and terrorize an Asian-American couple who are guilty of nothing more than being compassionate enough to adopt sickly African children.

Ignorance That Just Won't Die

The sources for the video (most of which are of the shambling, undead, denier variety):

• The Scientific American article and NOAA's infographics.
• "Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1."
• "Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US."
• "Global Warming Alert! 2014 coldest year on record."
• "Winter 2014 set to be 'coldest for century' Britain faces ARCTIC FREEZE in just weeks."
• "US Midwest Having Their Coldest Year On Record."
• "Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade."
• "Coldest U.S. winter in a century."
• "UK weather: Is Britain braced for worst winter in 100 years?" (Note: I included these UK articles, because the fear seems to be that frigid eastern US weather will flow or be replicated across the Pond somehow...here's the UK Met Office's counter-assertion for anyone interested.)
• "Settled Science Update."
• "US Short On Greenhouse Gases Tonight."
• "US Temperatures Plummeting At Seven Degrees Per Century."
• "All 50 states have below freezing temperatures."

(Note: the images are from various news agencies that can be found by searching for "buffalo ny snow," and, well, "zombie," so they will not be sourced.)

Whac-a-Troll's Posting Schedule

Over the past few months, posts have been pretty regular around here...



Might as well go there before any detractors can. Watch, they still will with zero awareness of the irony that this site was designed to help rid the world of science denial, not pile up big, giant, reeking heaps of it. If you find it befitting, you can think of this blog as a special kind of plumbing for the Internet, and deniers as, well, creating an excessive need for it.

However, due to other online and offline commitments (at least one of which is related to this site's primary purpose of defending the veracity of climate science and the urgency of the issue, and therefore may merit an announcement here upon completion), whac-a-troll will no longer be irritating ignorant deniers with reality on a day-to-day basis, until further notice. This is NOT, NOT, NOT due to lack of interest or topics! I have a TON of things I want to get to here, and there seems no end to the influx of original research and news related to this area of study, but I must devote the hours and effort elsewhere for the time being. I hope to return to the daily grind soon, and I will update the site as often as I can until then.

Thanks, all (five of you), for showing interest, and stay tuned! I'm not going anywhere; just temporarily easing off the throttle some. :)

To Paraphrase Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders: Way to Go, America

Before the elections, I gave you the breakdown of where each US Senate candidate in the close races stood on climate change. Well, here are Bill Maher and good ole Bernie to give you a post-elections idea of what thou hast wrought, America. It ain't pretty, so g'head and pat yourself on the back, my fellow countrymen and women, for pulling off a completely mindless job inside those voting booths, and for being too fucking lazy to show up at the polls, exercise your right to vote, and do your duty as citizens. All around, an incredibly pathetic red, white, and stupid performance that would make the Founders wanna puke. Enjoy, you infuriatingly senseless mopes.

Michael Oppenheimer Explains Importance of US/China Climate Deal

Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC AR4, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, and perhaps the person with the longest professional title and list of credentials in the universe, appeared on PBS's NewsHour recently to discuss America's latest climate agreement with China.

"This is huge, as far as I'm concerned...If you get China and the US in the room, you have about 45% of global greenhouse, global warming emissions. If you add in the EU, which is already on the downward, uh, direction in terms of emissions, you've got about 60% of emissions. Think about the leadership factor involved in that. Other countries will have a harder time avoiding dealing with climate change with the three 800 lbs. gorillas together."

For years we've been hearing the ridiculous excuse from climate change deniers that it doesn't matter what the US does, when China represents the real problem, and/or isn't interested in curtailing emissions. Declarations of this kind never really had much truth to them, but now, with China promising to meet more ambitious renewables and GHG reduction goals, they're especially specious. So, of course, deniers respond to being robbed of their favorite worthless, screwball excuse by gearing up to thwart the deal. Meanwhile, Watts and Goddard are still living in the 1950's, and continuing their sad and demented neo-McCarthyist ways. I mean, these people are just despicable infants.

My Nitpicking Gets Me in Hot Water with Dr. Steven Novella

First off, before I get to the exchange between Dr. Novella and me that I mentioned in yesterday's post, let me remind everyone that Science-Base Medicine (SBM) and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) are being sued for no good reason. If you care at all about free speech and our ability as free thinkers to criticize charlatans without going bankrupt hiring enough lawyers to defend a right which should be inarguable, if not inalienable, you (yes, YOU) should go over to the donation site and help in whatever large or small way you can to send a clear message to those who would abuse our legal system in this manner.

Secondly, this blog entry will relate to climate change only indirectly, and mostly will deal with Pope Francis' recent statements about evolution.

Finally, before diving in below, you should probably go over to the SGU archives, and listen to show #486 in order to understand the full context of what was behind my decision to contact. The discussion should be fairly easy to follow, if you choose not to do that, however.

OK, now that all the little lectors have met their caveats, and the caveats their lectors, or whatever, here goes...

After listening to the linked episode above, I wrote the SGU crew the following message on Monday of last week (Nov. 3rd).

Category: Feedback

Subject: Handy bit of absolution for the Pope (and others)

Message: Hey, guys, big fan. Just wanna pick a nit here, however…

At about 36:20 of last week's show (#486), during the evolution discussion, Steve provides an interesting bit of apology for Pope Francis.

"Some people are saying, 'Yeah, but he's still saying God created man.' Of course he is; he's the goddamn Pope!"

I'm just wondering what other beliefs he espouses, without providing convincing evidence, are equally unassailable, such as, geez, I don't know…exorcisms, which Evan thankfully brought up shortly thereafter. Why was this met with derision instead of animated defense? Why did no one on the show say, "Of course he believes exorcisms work! He's the goddamn pope?"

And why stop with the Pope? Doesn't opening the door for baseless assertions like this allow us to now say things similar to "Of course he believes in quantum healing; he's goddamn Deepak Chopra!"

As an atheist, I think we have a classic case of special pleading here, or, if not an argument from authority, selective excuse-making for authority. That's all I'm saying.

Still love the show to pieces, and sorry to insist on fully picking this nit.

To which Dr. Novella responded...

Planet Evans,

Thanks for writing. I don't agree with your assessment, however. I was not making an argument from authority or special pleading. I was also not defending belief in god or the supernatural, by anyone. My point was simply - what do you expect?

To take that a bit further, this is a common discussion we get into in skeptical circles. The question is - how do we respond to situations in which a person or institution is moderating their supernatural or unscientific beliefs? For example, what should our attitude be toward "evidence-based chiropractors?" Should we advocate for the profession being more scientific, or take the uncompromising line that nothing short of eradication is acceptable?

Same for religion. We are all atheists. I have very strongly held philosophical reasons for being an atheist and a naturalist. That is what I advocate. However, does this mean we cannot acknowledge when a mainstream religion moves toward a less crazy version of religion? Is it OK to say, "well, if you are going to believe in God, at least don't deny science. At least try to accommodate your faith to existing provable science."

This is not the same thing as defending faith.

My point was, it is OK to approve of the Pope saying that the church does not deny science without pointing out that he still advocates belief in God. Of course he does. The former is the difference between fundamentalist crazy religion and contextual less crazy religion, the latter is the difference between religion and no religion. If you are holding out for the Pope to say there is no God, then any incremental improvement in the church would mean nothing.

Exorcism is different. That is a harmful medieval practice. It is also often performed on people who have mental illness, and in practice is a denial of mental illness and even neuroscience.

I hope this clarifies what was said.

Cheers,

Steve

Like a knucklehead, I didn't check my email until a week later, at which point I replied...

Dr. Novella,

Thank you for responding. I honestly did not expect it, so I haven't bothered to check my email for about a week now. BIG MISTAKE on my part. With all the responsibilities you must have, both personally and professionally, where the heck do you find the time? :) It is greatly appreciated that you do, however.

I agree that a science-friendly church is much, much, much better than a science-phobic church, and that it is essentially absurd to expect the Pope to stop believing in God. Though I'm an atheist, I generally wouldn't even suggest this to your average religious Joe or Jo-Ann, unless my opinion on the matter is courted/requested. People are free to privately practice whatever beliefs and traditions they wish, in my mind (assuming no one gets seriously hurt). However, I think we still have a fundamental disagreement over the acceptability (or lack thereof) of the Pope - or any other respected public figure - openly and proudly making evidence-free assertions like "God created man" or that evolution and the "notion of Creation" do not conflict (I suppose Pope Francis uses "notion of Creation" to tiptoe around the more obvious incompatibility of evolution and creationism). Certainly, everyone has a right to express such nonsense, but I do indeed believe it is harmful to let it go unchallenged for many reasons, not least of which is the inherent discouragement of, if not outright hostility toward, critical thinking embodied by statements like the Pope's. And, if I can stack my soapbox a little higher here, I would further argue that religion and belief in supreme or supernatural beings is the Grandaddy of all pseudoscience, so if we are truly concerned with harmful, denial-laden practices like exorcism, it's probably best to admit and state what the root of the problem is rather than shrug our shoulders.

BTW, I'm one of those blowhard blogging critters (whac-a-troll.blogspot.com), and although it's predominantly a climate change blog, this exchange has relevance to a few posts I've made, including one about Bill Nye's recent "CBS This Morning" appearance. Would you mind if I posted these emails? Being that you sent your reply to me and not the world (i.e.: all four of my readers), I will certainly understand if you prefer that I do not, and I will respect your wishes.

Thanks again for responding, and, more importantly, for the SGU podcast!

Planet Evans

And finally this morning, Dr. Novella wrote back...

Planet Evans,

Feel free to publish them. My only final comment is that I agree, we should point out the role that faith plays in promoting pseudoscience and lack of critical thinking, and we do. This does not counter my main point, though, that we (at least some of us) should advocate for improved scientific and critical thinking all along the spectrum, and not just for pristine critical thinking atheism. Otherwise the vast majority of the world is unreachable. In a way it's like advocating teaching only advanced level post-graduate courses on science because they are the most accurate and complete, rather than teaching at a level appropriate to the student.

My approach has been to try to get people to advance one step further along the path to critical thinking. Then maybe they can take another step.

Regards,

Steve

Well, dear blog readers, who has the right of it here in your opinion? Should the Pope and other public figures be taken fully and relentlessly to task on each and every one of their unscientific statements, as I have suggested? Or is what Novella advocates (and Bill Nye, seemingly) — a more forgiving, incremental approach that allows leaders representing their somewhat biased and misinformed followers to draw lines in the sands of their cherished belief systems, past which even those who know better should not cross to criticize, until such time it is deemed appropriate — the better way to go? He brought up the convincing analogy of higher education. That is, what I argue for is essentially like asking college freshman to digest postgraduate-level lessons and/or produce masters or doctoral theses. Are there other ways you can imagine to bring my argument to a logical conclusion in order to weaken it?

Am I proposing a false dichotomy here? Should both approaches be applied simultaneously by their respective proponents to achieve some maximum of cultural reform, as Novella hints at in that last message?

I posted this exchange, because I, like Novella, believe it touches upon a genuine matter of open disagreement and debate within the skeptical/rationalist/atheist communities. And I personally feel it can have troubling implications for serious issues which rely on public understanding and acceptance of science like climate change. If you've followed along closely here at whac-a-troll, you know where I generally stand on such matters, though I must admit to the occasional quandary, or second thought about being such an implacable jerk, which every now and then make me see things pretty much exactly as Novella does. However, I keep coming back to the fact that we've run out of time for the kid glove treatment, and therefore the conclusions of scientific consensus must be defended at all costs, and leaders like the Pope, who should be old and wise enough to know better, must be rebuked unflinchingly at each and every turn, especially when they make tired arguments even theologians frown upon.

Well, OF COURSE Bill Nye Agrees with Me...Uh...Mostly

About three months ago, I declared Bill Nye was worthy and capable of lording over our entire universe. He appeared on CBS This Morning to promote his book, and to further prove his worthiness to rule the cosmos by agreeing with me. Like, OMG, as if, whatever, like he had a choice, duh.

"It's not a coincidence that the, that the, uh, creationists also deny climate change."

Does this proclamation sound familiar? It should.



Of course, not every bow tie-sporting universal overlord candidate is perfect, mind, so perhaps it will come as a shock to no one, especially not my regular readers (all 2 of them), that I am gonna take at least some issue with Nye's glowing approval of the Pope's statement that evolution does not conflict with the "notion of Creation" (whatever the hell that is...I guess his Papalitude is trying to distance himself from creationism and creationists like Ken Ham), and that the Catholic head guy, as Nye puts it, has declared that the Church is "gonna join the mainstream of scientific thinking." Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you can search legitimate, peer-reviewed, biological literature from now till the end of time, and you will find nothing regarding a "notion of Creation" that applies to the God of Abraham and Pope Francis. Not a single, solitary reference. Nope, not one. Mainstream scientific thinking on evolution does not require Yahweh's assistance. If nothing else, scientists probably left Him out because they don't wanna make Zeus, Osiris, et supreme al, jealous, amirite?

On a related note, I recently had the pleasure of receiving an emailed reply from Dr. Steven Novella of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe regarding this very same subject of the Pope and his statements about evolution and God. I have asked Dr. Novella's permission to post the exchange here. More on that when I get his answer...

Getting back to this post, all things considered, serious kudos go to CBS This Morning for giving air time to people who agree with scientific consensus more often than not. Now, if the producers and hosts of the show would just work a little harder on their unfortunate gullibility...

Back to Basics

What with the recent elections, the Affleck/Harris fiasco, and my continual commentary on the collision of faith and climate science, things arguably have wandered a bit far afield here at whac-a-troll lately. One might even say it's been getting downright esoteric around these parts, so it's probably a good time to revisit some core, meat-and-potatoes evidence for how the majority of scientists over a range of disciplines have become convinced the Earth is warming and our fossil fuel emissions are responsible.

And what better way to do that than with the infectious enthusiasm of Dr. Richard Alley? Here he is briefly explaining the essentials of how we know what we know when it comes to climate change.



That video is part of a more extensive National Science Foundation playlist entitled To What Degree: How Do We Know?. It was posted over a year ago, and each video having only a few hundred views is somewhat surprising to me. But, you know, I suppose people have better things to do like watching more cat videos. Sigh. It's well worth watching the whole thing.

Denier...It Rhymes with Liar

I think I know what to get deniers for the holidays this year: fire extinguishers that come with belt clips. You know, for that little problem with their pants pictured above which keeps cropping up.

With only three or four months of 2014 temperature records available, the Drudge Report decided back in the spring to run these two ridiculous headlines.

Northeast US Having Their Coldest Year On Record So Far

Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

Hmmmm, gosh, shucks, and gee willikerz, I wonder where those Drudge article links take a person clicking on them...astonishing, simply shocking, I tellz ya. Steven Goddard jumping the temp record gun for 2014 and thinking one section of the US for a third of the year would tell us anything important about the whole planet for all of the year, and Drudge credulously mirroring this garbage...whodathunk? But don't worry, folks, because Goddard's proven more than willing months later to double-down on this blinders-firmly-in-place idiocy.

US Having Its Coolest Year On Record

Truth be told, this is all more than a little strange, even for Goddard, the cherry-picker-in-chief, because I thought for sure he told us government agencies received threatening memos from Obama to cook the books as far as US temperatures were concerned. What the hell happened to all of that nonsense, Little Stevie? Did Obama forget to send the Matrix agents over to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)? Or is Morpheus running the show at the USHCN, making it the last bastion of resistance, and now he finally found you, Denier Neo? Hmmmmmm?

Or is it not more likely the case that are you simply cherry-picking as usual, seeing numbers you like, and therefore deciding to take off your giant tin foil hat and accept them without the screwball conspiracy theory tantrum this time?

Don't worry yer little paranoid head, though, Tiny-Small Stevie, because Anthony Watts decided he'd see your ridiculous tunnel vision and raise its absurdity to one month of temperature records down in the South Pole.

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded

OK, here's the news, you pathetically dishonest denier morons. If global temperatures for 2014 continue on the same departure line from the 20th century average, this will be...

...drum roll, please...

The Hottest, NOT the Coldest, Year on Record, Surpassing Even 2010.

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January–September tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record, at 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 57.5°F (14.1°C). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest year on record. The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.20°F (0.11°C).
• The January–September worldwide land surface temperature was 1.75°F (0.97°C) above the 20th century average, the sixth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.41°F (0.23°C).
• The global sea surface temperature for the year to date was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average, the warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.09°F (0.05°C).

This isn't hard, you denier screwballs. You just have to be honest, something which, I imagine at this point for you, is as impossible as getting Gollum to eat wholesome Elven wafers instead of raw fish and worms. Now, go put yer tin foil hats back on, and predictably tell us how these government agency numbers were rigged, unlike the ones you posted.

Oh, brother.

"30,000 Studies Were Analyzed"

Michio Kaku was on CBS This Morning a few days ago talking about the latest IPCC Synthesis Report (emphasis in the quote below is mine).

"First of all, it's based on the largest analysis of data. Thirty thousand studies were analyzed. And, as you mention, for the first time in clear words [the IPCC] says there's a point of no return."

But...but...Michio, didn't they look at snow cover in...uh, just 2 months out of the year for...uh...only the northern hemisphere? I mean, 30,000 studies, who cares? They need to put on blinders, and cherry-pick only the stuff that agrees with their mindlessly moronic scientific ignorance. That's how Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Pickers, does it.

Oh, brother.

While I don't always agree with Kaku on matters of frontier research, unlike Goddard and many other harebrained climate deniers, he recognizes scientific consensus and established facts when he sees them. Have a watch.

Don't Deniers Get Tired of Being the Butt of Jokes?

"[Inhofe's book] is like Harry Potter for people who thought Harry Potter had too much science in it."

Ladies and gentlemen, Stephen Colbert on climate change deniers.

That is all.

Will the Republican Congress Succeed in Reversing EPA Authority over CO2?

Spoiler alert: NO.

That was easy, huh? OK, blog post over. You can go back to watching online pet videos now. :)

But, seriously, Republicans will certainly rattle some sabres in the halls of Congress in the coming months/years, strut about, showing off their new Senate majority, and howl at glass-shattering decibel levels about reversing each and every last one of Obama's accomplishments while in office (and maybe some he had out of office...they'll probably get so animated they'll set up committees to investigate the validity of a few of his bowling trophies, or something). All of this pointless bluster will merely meet with the veto smackdown each time, so the legislative drama will be a tremendous waste of America's time. As I mentioned yesterday, however, do not fool yourself that this blowhard boondoggle-athon will serve no point at all. It will in fact do the GOP's major sponsors the favor of preventing further emissions controls and buying them more polluting time.

No, the specific showdown over CO2 authority will happen for real in the courts. If conservatives have any hope of gutting EPA regulation, it won't be through enactment of new laws in Washington. It will be by waving legal challenges to what Obama has already drafted under the noses of federal judges. Certainly, Republicans in Congress will play a part in these proceedings, if by doing nothing more than shaking their pom-poms vigorously for the EPA's opponents in these cases, but the actual petitioners will come in all shapes and sizes. I've blogged about them before, and perhaps it goes without saying that they are a bunch of self-contradicting, science-denying clowns.

Here's a great breakdown in video form of how EPA regulatory powers may fare in federal court by professors Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus of the Harvard Law School. Despite previous victories, the EPA may be in for quite a struggle. Freeman puts it this way at one point in the video.

"Based on the UARG case [the case I mentioned in the previous blog post linked to above]...it wasn't all bright spots. There were a few dark moments, and in the opinion there are warning shots. It's hard not to view them as that; that look like they are designed to make EPA sit up and take notice."

Have a watch.

Forget EPA and Keystone, Election Results Grant Time We Don't Have to Polluters

Needless to say, if you care about climate change, you can't be terribly happy about what went down on Tuesday. Phil Plait posted an excellent rundown of what a GOP-controlled House and Senate could mean for the climate and science in general.

"But this vast, gaping polarization of American politics is toxic, especially where it comes to the crucial issue of global warming. Here, a Senate GOP majority can have an extremely destructive effect."

And Ben Adler over at Grist wrote a similar assessment.

"This is not good news for the climate...The Republicans have two top energy-related demands: stop EPA from regulating CO2 and approve the Keystone XL pipeline."

As much as I agree with these two opinion pieces, like many if not all election diagnoses and follow-ups, there's a critical conclusion which is not being drawn here. Phil mentions it, but fails to recognize it as the truly insidious threat to any hope of reversing the adverse effect our emissions have on the climate.

"What does [a GOP Senate majority] mean? Well, in the short term and for many issues, not a lot. This previous Congress will go down in history as the least effective ever, since all it really did is block White House initiatives."

Quite the contrary, this pointless political tail-chasing and continued inaction means everything, as far as global warming is concerned, anyway. Republicans will waste precious time we don't have grandstanding for their scientifically-illiterate base on issues they know will most likely get vetoed (Obamacare, reversing EPA regulation of CO2, the Keystone XL pipeline, etc.), without hope of a two-thirds overturning vote, and the real winner will be the fossil fuel industry, which will be awarded a de facto license to go on polluting and reprieve from cutting emissions during the next few years of ineffectual, meaningless wrangling in Washington. It should surprise absolutely no one that, coincidentally, these corporations are one of the Grand Old Party's greatest sources of funding.

As depressing as these election results and the impending political inertia may seem, there is still a faint beacon of hope shining far off in the distance, which continues to brighten and spread throughout the land. And it's the idea that, in spite of pathetic ineptitude on the part of politicians, businesses will rise to the occasion, anyway, and see great opportunities for growth, cost-cutting, and profit in greening their operations and combating climate change. Here's Andrew Winston, author of The Big Pivot: Radically Practical Strategies for a Hotter, Scarcer, and More Open World, to explain why caring for the environment and a thriving economy are not only completely compatible, but, in fact, inevitable partners.

Climate Change Advocates More Numerous Than Gun Rights, Pro-Choice/Life, Pro/Anti-Immigration Activists

I'm sure you've seen denier trolls like Anthony Watts and Bjørn Lomborg try to pretend the public doesn't care about climate change. Nothing could be farther from the truth, according to a report from a couple years back by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies entitled Global Warming's Six Americas. As people flood into the voting booths tonight across the US, often to decide very tight races, I think it's a brilliant time to remind everyone how out of touch with, not only the science, but the pulse of the nation the ignorant deniosphere is.

"And the first of those [groups of Americans we researched] is what we call 'the alarmed.' It's about 18% of the public. Uh, these are people who, uh, are absolutely convinced climate change is happening, it's human-caused, it's a very serious threat, it's happening now. They're already taking action in their own lives to try to reduce their own carbon footprint, and they're really hungry to know what's the next thing I can do. This has been called, in political science terms, an issue public. This is the part of the public that is the most mobilized, and most engaged with this issue. And that's actually a very large issue public, compared to other issue publics, like, say, on, on gun rights, or pro-choice, or pro-life, or anti-immigration, or pro-immigration. I mean, those are all different kinds of issue publics out there that agitate or advocate for particular policies. Um, the climate change issue public is actually larger than most of those other ones."

- Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University

If nothing else, the impressive turnout at the recent climate change march proves Leiserowitz is right, and clueless deniers are miserably and laughably lost once again.

Have a watch, and then make sure you run out to the polls tonight, if you haven't already. Your vote could be the difference between inaction and the adoption of meaningful policy on an issue upwards of 50-60 million Americans care deeply about, and many millions more are concerned about!

"Even the IPCC Says..."

The IPCC recently released its latest Synthesis Report, so you can expect those in the deniosphere will be falling over themselves to win awards for making the most paranoid and ignorant remarks about it (because obviously the best way to rig elections is to produce climate assessments, dontchyaknow, or so says my giant tin foil hat, and flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health, violent conflicts, etc., are all ever so dull and boring anymore...just ask those whose lives are negatively impacted). That kinda brute force denier stupidity is just a given at this point, but there's a more insidious and underhanded approach they employ every now and then which involves trying to make it look like the IPCC itself refutes man-made global warming. It usually starts with the following four words or something similar...

"Even the IPCC says..."

Allow me to translate what starting a statement this way really means.



To give you an idea what I mean here, I'm gonna make some predictions based on previous personal observations about how deniers will misrepresent the report's findings. Here goes...

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is virtually certain that globally the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.'"

What the report actually says:

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012.'"

What the report actually says:

For the [Arctic] summer sea ice minimum, the decrease was very likely in the range of 9.4% to 13.6% per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km^2 per decade) (see Figure 1.1). It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012. However, there is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in Antarctica, with extent increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Since 1993, [rates of sea-level rise] for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.'"

What the report actually says:

Rates of sea-level rise over broad regions can be several times larger or smaller than the global mean sea-level rise for periods of several decades, due to fluctuations in ocean circulation. Since 1993, the regional rates for the Western Pacific are up to three times larger than the global mean, while those for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations.'"

What the report actually says:

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Due to a low level of scientific understanding, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.'"

What the report actually says:

Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Anthropogenic influences likely contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Due to a low level of scientific understanding, however, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.

In the upcoming days and weeks, keep your eyes peeled for deceptive denier cherry-picking along these lines, because I can nearly guarantee it's on the way.

Woody Harrelson Urges Climate Action and YOU (Yes, You) to Vote

Yet another actor proves he understands scientific consensus better than professional trolls and cherry-pickers like Watts and Goddard.





If you want a rundown of climate change stances for the close US Senate races this Tuesday, click here. And get off yer rump and vote!

Climate Change Denial: A Model of Inconsistency

Image source: chadwickschool.libguides.com/greek_gods

If you're familiar to any considerable degree with the ongoing debate between monotheists and non-believers, you've probably seen or heard an atheist drop something akin to this startling bomb onto the conversation at some point...

"Truth be told, you and I agree much, much, much more than we disagree."

Now, why would anyone say something like that during an oft-heated back-and-forth lasting for hours, days, and sometimes even months (we do have the Internet and online forums these days to drag the argument out indefinitely, if participants wish, ya know)? To understand why this statement is in fact true, let's look at how modern-day religious people in the West and Middle East and non-believers answer the following questions...

Are/were Ra, Shu, Geb, Osiris, Horus, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Zeus, Apollo, Hera, Poseidon, Athena, etc., and their Roman analogs real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Odin, Loki, Freyja, Thor, Yggdrasil, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Tecciztecatl, Nanauatl, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Apu, Supay, Apocatequil, Ch'aska, Kuka Mama, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Lord Brahma, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Gitche Manitou, Storms-as-He-Walks, Pah, Malsumis, Haashchʼéé Oołtʼohí, Angwusnasomtaka, Torngasoak, Sedna, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was the Golden Calf real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was Ba'al real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is the Dalai Lama truly the enlightened reincarnation of all the lamas or tulkus that precede him (i.e.: a living god)?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Is Yahweh (or whatever name you care to give the God of Abraham) real?
Monotheist: Yes.
Atheist: No.

Briefly and simply put...

"From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."

- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

Similarly, despite the eyebrows that might raise over it, this statement is also true.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates and deniers agree on the science about 99% of the time.

To see how this is the case, let's once again pose some illustrative questions to both sides...

Have you ever aggressively criticized epidemiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized geologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized microbiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized hematologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized oncologists or pathologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized seismologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized nuclear physicists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized mathematicians and physicists for their usage of computer models to assist the military in making battle predictions?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized neurologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Have you ever aggressively criticized climatologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: Yes, all the time.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Just like monotheists have very nearly narrowed it down to the real number of gods, but refuse to take that final, irresistible, and unavoidable step toward maintaining logical consistency, climate change deniers almost hit the mark on the real number of computer models that have proven useless to scientists trying to improve the predictive capacity of their chosen discipline, and therefore are indeed worthy of their ignorant criticism.

Zero.

And, FYI, deniers, no matter how much you really, really, really want it to happen, no one is going to stop attempting to predict future climate, mmmmkay? It's not going to happen. EVER. So, unless you have a better alternative than computer models to offer the world for its much-needed climatic forecasts, you can go ahead and shut yer ever-flapping, horribly misinformed, pointless pie holes until you do.

Thank you.

A Fun Thing to Do This Halloween

If any trick-or-treaters show up with these costumes, just do like Granny...


Image source: http://www.indystar.com/opinion/varvel/

Oh, man, do I got a million of 'em, or what? Happy Halloween, everyone!

The Close 2014 Senate Races and Climate Change

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, of the 100 total US Senate seats, 64 will not be contested, and 36 will, 21 of which are presently held by Democrats, and 15 by Republicans. The NY Times and CNN appear to agree that the outcomes for about 24 of these Senate races are all but foregone conclusions, with 10 safely resulting in a Democrat victory (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia), and 14 Republican (Alabama, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming).

If your head is starting to spin a little from parsing those numbers and trying to keep track of the states, don't worry, because the essential takeaway here is that there are about 12 interesting, unpredictable Senate races that could go either way on Tuesday (the NY Times says only 11, but I'm going to throw in West Virginia, anyway...take that, NY Times).

The candidate's stance on climate change could and should be the deciding factor in these tight contests, so let's see who understands the issue and its urgency, and therefore deserves the Senate seat. Based on the position stated outright or implied by preferred policy, the following "thermometer" ratings will be given.



In other words, the candidate gets a red thermometer for being a climate realist, a yellow for being a lukewarmer, and a blue for being a denier.

Alaska - Mark Begich (D), Dan Sullivan (R)

Begich: "You have to broaden the perspective and look at what's the goal here. If the goal is to lower emissions, that's disconnected to most people. If the goal is to save taxpayers' money, now the public has some interest."

Sullivan: "I think the jury’s out on climate change...I think the federal response to climate change should not be what the Obama administration is doing, which is trying to kill energy and low-cost energy, and particularly coal."

Arkansas - Mark Pryor (D), Tom Cotton (R)

Pryor: "A federal cap-and-trade program is perhaps the most significant endeavor undertaken by Congress in over 70 years and must be done with great care."

Cotton: "America has the world’s largest fossil-fuel reserves in the world. I view our fossil fuels as a valuable asset to be used, not an embarrassing liability to be restrained...We must open federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to more exploration and production. The oil-and-gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and federal public lands in the West and Alaska are a tremendous untapped source of economic growth...I strongly oppose all forms of a 'cap and trade' schemes...The government shouldn’t subsidize [alternative energy sources], nor should it artificially increase the cost of oil and gas by singling the industry out for tax hikes and regulatory burdens."

Colorado - Mark Udall (D), Cory Gardner (R)

Udall: "Coloradans know that it's time to start planning for our energy future. Nothing less than our national security and economic success depend on it. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil and curbing the effects of climate change have long been priorities of mine, and I'm working in the Senate to create a plan to tackle these important goals. To do so, we will need an all-of-the-above strategy that includes all of our energy sources, with a special emphasis on those that are clean and domestic. That means focusing on everything from renewable energy and energy efficiency to natural gas and safe nuclear power."

Gardner: "I believe that the climate is changing, I disagree to the extent that it's been in the news."

Georgia - Michelle Nunn (D), David Perdue (R)

Nunn: "Georgia is helping lead America towards an economy that benefits from clean energy investment. We have made huge advances in solar power, becoming one of the fastest growing solar energy markets in the country. Georgia’s solar energy companies are investing in our state and helping increase the amount of energy we use from renewable sources.

"Currently $32 billion leaves Georgia each year to pay for petroleum, natural gas, and coal. But when we supply our energy needs from within our own state, the money stays in Georgia, creating jobs and multiplying the benefits throughout our economy.

"I believe that Washington must create the conditions for these clean energy companies to thrive. This means reducing the uncertainty surrounding renewable energy tax incentives and investing in public-private partnerships that advance clean energy research."

Perdue: "Earlier today, the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group endorsed Michelle Nunn. The group is against the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, advocates for such things like Obama’s war on coal, burdensome EPA regulations, and cap-and-trade...Michelle Nunn supports their liberal agenda. Her own jobs plan refuses to address how burdensome regulations on the coal industry will raise energy prices and destroy jobs. Her website says she wants to 'act now' on climate change."

Iowa - Bruce Braley (D), Joni Ernst (R)

Braley: "Just like our parents and grandparents passed on a better planet to us, we have an obligation to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. That’s why I supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which promotes renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar. It also helps advance alternative transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission."

Ernst: "Yes, we do see climates change but I have not seen proven proof that it is entirely man-made. I think we do have cyclic changes in weather, and I think that’s been throughout the course of history."

Kansas - Greg Orman (I), Pat Roberts (R)

Orman: (Kansas Sierra Club Chairwoman Yvonne Cather said she expects Orman is avoiding the subject, as well as the Obama administration's efforts to address climate change with executive action, 'because that's a political hot potato' for many candidates...Loomis similarly suggested that Orman's silence on issues like KXL is strategic, as he aims to pick up voters who have become disillusioned with Roberts as he seeks a fourth Senate term.)

Roberts: "There's no question there's some global warming, but I'm not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism."

Kentucky - Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), Mitch McConnell (R)

Grimes: "I recognize the reality of climate change and the imperative of addressing its potential consequences...The difference between me and the position of many national Democrats is that I am pro-coal and will lead to develop a long-term strategy that addresses economic and energy demands, as well as climate concerns. I oppose drastic unilateral steps such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax because they fall far short of that standard."

McConnell: "For everybody who thinks it's warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn't...Even if you conceded the point, which I don't concede, but if you conceded the point, it isn't going to be addressed by one country. So the idea is, we tie our own hands behind our back and others don't."

Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (D), Bill Cassidy (R)

Landrieu: "The President and I have very different views on how to tackle the challenges of climate change. We both want to protect the environment, but I believe that overzealous regulations are harmful to our economy.

"I wish the President today would have instead approved the Keystone Pipeline to create new jobs here at home. And any call to single out the energy industry, including oil and gas, for increased taxes is unwise and counterproductive to economic growth. We should be encouraged that America's emission of CO2 has declined to its lowest level in two decades, and emissions have fallen 13 percent in the last five years alone.

"I am encouraged that the President wants to make coastal communities more resilient to extreme weather by removing counterproductive policies."

Cassidy: "It could just be a shift on the axis."

Michigan - Gary Peters (D), Terri Lynn Land (R)

Peters: "In 2009, I proudly voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lay the groundwork for a clean energy economy. By pursuing clean energy technologies, we'll break our nation's addiction to foreign fossil fuels and create thousands of American jobs. All of us must do our part to fight global climate change and that's why I’ll keep fighting for important legislation like this."

Land: "My #1 concern is Michigan jobs. Climate change is absolutely real but we cannot afford @Peters4Michigan job-killing regulations #MISEN"

New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen (D), Scott Brown (R)

Shaheen: "I’ve long believed that we have a moral obligation to address climate change and the time for action is now. By acting quickly, we’ll not only be protecting our environment for future generations but we can also create jobs, grow our economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Brown: (Rubens acknowledged climate change, while Brown and Smith said 'no' when asked if science has proven climate change is occurring.)

North Carolina - Kay Hagan (D), Thom Tillis (R)

Hagan: "This is a pressing problem that needs to be addressed and too often gets pushed to the backburner...This current path is unsustainable, and we must take steps now to slow and stop the effects of climate change. This is a challenge that will need to be addressed from many different directions."

Tillis: (When asked if climate change is a fact, all four candidates vying to challenge incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan said no.

The candidates, Greg Brannon, Heather Grant, Mark Harris and Thom Tillis, were asked the question during a debate Tuesday night.)

West Virginia - Natalie Tennant (D), Shelley Moore Capito (R)

Tennant: (Capito’s Democratic opponent for the Senate seat, Natalie Tennant, opposes Obama’s environmental policies that Republicans say amount to a "war on coal." Tennant said she does believe in human-induced climate change.)

Capito: (Capito said she doesn’t "necessarily think the climate is changing," but told reporters afterward she misspoke and does think people contribute to climate change.)

So now that you know the breakdown, get yer butts in gear, and vote on Tuesday! You could be the difference between business as usual and the enactment of policy that will actually reduce our emissions.

Oh, and if you were expecting a similar summary of the House and/or Governor elections, there are waaaaaaayyyy too many, so think again. It may not be much of a life, but I'm gonna spend some of it away from the computer. ;)

Two Year Anniversary of Sandy Making Landfall in the Northeast US

Two years after a unique and powerful storm ravaged the northeastern US coastline, many communities are still assessing the historic levels of damage, waiting on funding assistance, and rebuilding. And emotions are still running high.

Whether or not Governor Christie deserves blame for the pace of the storm clean-up, he most certainly deserves criticism for his ignorant stance on climate change and Sandy.

"‘Cause I don’t think there’s been any proof thus far that Sandy was caused by climate change."

Again, Governor, for the nine millionth time, causing Sandy is a red herring. The issue was and always will be the inarguable intensification of the storm due to our warming planet. Perhaps it'd be good for Christie to watch the Nova documentary from a couple years ago another time (or, more likely, and sadly, for the first time).

"There were parts of Manhattan being impacted 25 feet above sea level."

- Jeff Weber, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

"...as the climate warms, the sea levels will rise. It's already risen around a foot in the last hundred years in the New York area."

- Adam Sobel, Columbia University

Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ben Affleck, Religion, and...Yup, Climate Change

Right about now, you're probably scratching your head and trying to make all the seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces in the title of this post fit together. Hang in there, it'll all be clear soon (I hope).

To start, even people living under rocks heard about this exchange — troubling and fascinating in equal measure — a couple weeks ago on Bill Maher's Real Time.



It's pretty obvious Sam's near supercomputer ability to instantaneously call forth essential facts about Islam began causing many of Ben's ideological walls, which he probably cherished and thought were rock-solid, to crumble, and the resulting apoplexy almost turned him into his O'Bannion character from Dazed and Confused for real.

The reactionary racism accusation/straw man and the "shifty Jew" analogy were completely obnoxious, infantile, and inappropriate. Islam is not a race; it is a religion...a collection of dated ideals, apocryphal stories, and mostly backward morals which could only have lasted this long in our culture thanks to an extreme dedication on the part of humans to ignoring evidence and dismissing reason. Is someone racist for criticizing Christianity? The password is "no." As he often does, Harris was making an eloquent, reasoned argument along these lines, and Affleck was simply sticking his fingers in his ears and having a tantrum ridiculous enough to make an 8 year-old blanch. Further proof that you are just NOT allowed to criticize religion, not even in a calm, factual, and rational manner, in front of some people.

The shock waves from this titanic television event are still rippling through the blogosphere and Web.

After linking to that SFGate blog post, do I even need to mention once again that you are just not allowed to criticize religion?

A few days after his appearance on Maher's show, Sam was interviewed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, mostly about the heated debate (not surprisingly, Sam's doing the talk show rounds to sell a book, and his publisher must be doing backflips over all the attention). The entire discussion is worth watching, but I want to focus on one question O'Donnell posed and Harris' response.

Lawrence O'Donnell: "Sam, I think one of the things we are talking about here, uh, uh, uh, or that's involved here is the maturation curves of religions. Christendom, uh, was once a pretty murderous operation."

Sam Harris: "Yeah."

Lawrence O'Donnell: "The Inquisition was all about murdering people for not being, uh, good Christians, and not being convincing Christians after they had, uh, converted. Uh, just conversion wasn't good enough, and so, so, uh, but, but what happened at some point was that Christianity matured out of that thinking, and they matured out of thinking that the penalty for not observing the Sabbath should be death. And so no one is killed anywhere in the world now for not observing the Sabbath. No one is stoned to death for that..."

Sam Harris: "Right."

Lawrence O'Donnell: "...anymore. So, I guess, what, what I'm looking at when I look at, at this situation now, uh, with, uh, this fanatical interpretation of passages of the Quran is when and how will, will that same maturation curve be followed, uh, in Islam?"

Sam Harris: "Well, the first thing to point out is we don't have centuries to wait for this process. It took centuries, as you say, and, and..."

Lawrence O'Donnell: "Yes."

Sam Harris: "...it was based on the collision with science, and secular human rights, and, and secular ethics. Uh, it took a long time. We need, we need to hasten this process through honest conversation."

Let's just skip over the fact that O'Donnell does not seem to understand that religion did not so much "mature" as have its fangs and claws torn out in the West by enlightenments and highly-influential, legally-binding, secular documents like the US Constitution (factors largely lacking in the Middle East), and get right to the essence of what Sam said...

We don't have centuries to wait...collisions with science...hastening the process through honest conversation...

When I heard those words, I couldn't help but think that they may no longer apply to Western religion's greatly attenuated murderous nature, but when it comes to faith's retrograde effect on the urgency of the climate change issue and discussion, they unfortunately are still relevant to the point of being painfully poignant.

Delaware May Shrink 11% by 2100 Due to Sea Level Rise

Delaware, being the 6th most densely populated state in the US, must have some lifestyle appeal going for it, but, let's face it, it ain't very big, and therefore really can't afford to lose any size. Minus a couple, three chicken farms, it might be forced to fill out the forms for becoming a large county in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Or maybe like Pluto, it would be re-classified as a dwarf state, or something.

All kidding aside, this report from WHYY's excellent radio show, The Pulse, details how Delaware officials are scrambling to protect its relatively meager landmass, its historic neighborhoods, and a critical part of its economy from the effects of climate change, sea level rise (SLR), and stronger storms.

Predictive maps show that most of the [Wilmington neighborhood of Southbridge] would be permanently covered by water if sea levels rise by a meter and a half, the upper limit state officials are preparing for by century's end.

Eleven percent of Delaware's landmass could be inundated by 2100, according to state projections...

"One of the things that we're really trying to make sure that people understand is that sea level rise is not just an issue for people with giant houses along the ocean," said Susan Love, a coastal programs planner for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

Geez, that's strange. I mean, it's almost like Susan Love had a particular group of people with an extremely ignorant take on SLR in mind when she said that.

Nah. Never mind. Must be my imagination.

Unfortunately the Future Looks Even Drier for California

"Roughly three quarters of the locations in the West have posted decreases [in spring snow water equivalent since 1950], and California is no exception...very large decreases in the spring snowpack, you know, complete loss in many areas [by 2070 based on RCP 4.5]."

- Philip Mote, Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

Hansen Walks Fine Political Line; Near Liberal Riot toward End o_O

James Hansen's climate change advocacy stems from the inarguable fact that he really does care about present and future generations, plain and simple. Whether or not they agree with him, and whatever ulterior motives they try to attribute to other advocates like Gore and Suzuki in order to change the subject and avoid addressing the real issue, our warming planet, I think deniers can at the very least admit that, when it comes to Hansen, there is no deception whatsoever — not even cards being played tight to the chest — perceived or otherwise. He holds nothing back, and talks straight from his impressive mind and his deep heart, switching between the two fairly effortlessly.

I agree with 99% of what he says in the video below, including this...

"The solution does need to come from the conservative side."

I'm even mostly in agreement with this part of the talk, where he once again touts the benefits of nuclear energy, while laying much of the blame for the off-and-on political moratorium in this country at the feet of liberals.

"Unfortunately, beginning with Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton, they terminated research and development on advanced generation nuclear power, which, uh, was a big mistake. And it's, it's hard for liberals to admit that...because we burned India and China's share of the, of the, uh, carbon budget, we should help them with [advanced nuclear] technology. Instead, we've kind of withheld the expertise that the US has in those technologies."

That's a fair point, and I get what he's trying to do here. He is trying to open a door through which conservative deniers, who, by virtue of their own obstinate dismissal of the legitimate science, have been frozen out of the conversation, can re-enter the public exchange, holding their heads up. I'm not so sure how keen they'll be to share nuke tech with China, or even India, but the "blame Carter and Clinton" aspect will have attraction for them, I'm sure. It's a compelling approach, one that regular readers of this blog (all 2 of them) will notice is not exactly praised and championed around these parts very often, but I will admit it does offer some hope of producing concerted political effort on this particular issue (not so much on the larger, root problem of science denial, though). However, it requires Hansen walk a fine line, and continually revitalize reasons why those who accept the scientific consensus still deserve more blame than those who deny it. Personally, I would fail utterly at this balancing act, so I will take a pass and instead continue to bludgeon deniers mercilessly with the truth. And I did notice that Hansen himself slips up a little, and allows a bit of irresolution to bubble to the surface every now and then (emphasis mine)...

"Well, no, the conservatives don't want the government to get bigger. That's what they're afraid of...The truth is the conservatives and the Republicans, the majority of them, do not deny the science...And it turns out what they're afraid of is that this will be used to increase taxes, and to increase regulations, and intrusion of government into people's lives. That's what they're afraid of. That's why they then deny the science."

Now, we can debate the validity of the particular assertions he makes here (i.e.: whether or not the Right really wants less government, or simply wants a bigger, more intrusive government that marches to its own ideological drumbeat) until we are blue in the face (or red...get it?). The point I'm concerned with here, the rather telling bit, is Hansen claims one minute that conservatives do not deny the science, and then in the next breath implies they do deny the science publicly, but their real "behind closed doors" concerns absolve them of any blame for policy inaction. He seems to have an internal inconsistency and conflict...a lingering doubt, if you will...in his own mind, and therefore in the argumentation he is trying to put forth as well, that he needs to work out.

Still, this is not some deceptive tactic on his part. I believe he truly feels this is a helpful stance which will bring about a result we all need and can support: reduced emissions via bipartisan agreement. It's just not always gonna be easy to adhere to and sell, which brings me to the last point I wanna make before finally posting the video...

Sheesh, does the man have patience in surplus, or what?. Watch the somewhat heated exchange his position elicits toward the end of the Q&A session, and how Hansen tries to handle it affably. He's a champ.



Also, check out the YouTube channel which uploaded this video for an...interesting digression into another topic (or many) altogether. :)

Oh, and what is the only bit Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Picking, chose to take from an extensive, informative talk? The one little smidgeon of information that appears to agree with his harebrained denial of climate science, of course. And even then, he screws up Hansen's point royally. Nope, sorry, Little Squeakathon Stevie, Hansen does NOT say, "the methane global warming scam is nothing but BS." Your listening comprehension is nothing but BS.

By the way, it doesn't seem likely that Goddard'll let my comment post. It's still in moderation limbo. Though I suppose he's busy getting schooled by Gavin Schmidt, et al, because he's too dense to understand a warming world may cause the atmosphere to hold more moisture and therefore increase precipitation in some areas, including snow in winter, but cause it to melt sooner/faster in spring.

(Update: The comment was allowed to post. :) We'll see how it goes over. Somehow, in trying to get a screen capture of the comment for my own blog, and trying to submit it over at Goddard's, I managed to include a typo and omit the word "to" before "commenting." Grrrrrrrrrrr. No response to my point about the missing source, however.)

I Decided to Kick the Brainless Hornets' Nest

Steven Goddard likes to accuse NASA of cooking the books just about every five bleeding seconds. He seems determined to turn his blog into the premier source for ass-backward and completely asinine interpretations of NASA's research. No, really, the guy is simply an intellectually-stunted disaster.

I guess if you were feeling extremely generous, you could say he's truly and sincerely devoted to the extirpation of fraud wherever it may be found but just too abysmally stupid to distinguish it from legitimate research. Well, unfortunately for this slimy little blogging cretin, he doesn't even have that excuse to fall back on.

Witness his latest travesty of a post regarding sea level rise (SLR) in the Miami, FL area. You would figure, if he is indeed concerned about fraud, that when he posted the following worthless, cherry-picked graph, at the very least, he would have mentioned/linked to the source for the data. Yeah, not so much.



One centimeter of SLR in the Miami, FL area, eh, Tiny Steven? Gee, what happened to all your concern about fraud, you spineless charlatan? That went out the window quick, because, see, here's what NOAA has to say about your 1 cm...

Miami Beach, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


Vaca Key, FL (~40 cm or just over 1 ft since 1900):


Key West, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


Fort Meyers, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


In case you missed that clicking on those images gets you to the source, here is where I got those graphs. Notice how I actually link to my source, Little Squeaky Stevie Goddard?

I just couldn't let this one slide, dear blog readers, so I left the following comment over at Real Science (Jaezuz, it's painful typing that inappropriate blog title). Let's see if Goddard has the guts to let it post.