Roger Tattersall, aka “Tallbloke” has an old story worth re-telling today in the “false balance” arguments being made about my appearance on PBS. Its’ all part of a strategy. He writes:
Nice old cutting this, from the ‘Boston Sunday Globe’ 31 May 1992. Click for the full size image, sorry for the poor quality, but it is legible. The attempt to remove dissenting voices from the media has been in full swing for 20 years. Lewdandorky’s attempt to get man made global warming sceptics written off as ‘lunar landing deniers’ is just another route to the same goal. These people are unable to convince the public via fair open debate with their intellectual opponents.
It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.
T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says in comments there:
That is a scan I originally linked to in my JunkScience guest article “In Case of Heart[land] Attack, Break Glass” http://junkscience.com/2012/02/19/in-case-of-heartland-attack-break-glass/ (7th paragraph there), and in my comment here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/the-other-problem-with-the-lewandowsky-paper-and-similar-skeptic-motivation-analysis-core-premise-off-the-rails-about-fossil-fuel-industry-corruption-accusation/#comment-1076717 which is within the comments section of my own guest post at WUWT about ‘the other major problem’ with the Lewandowsky paper.
I also showed it in the comment I placed at the PBS NewsHour to predict the AGW backlash Watts was going to get: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html#comment-653837814
My heartfelt hat tip goes to Australia’s Brenton Groves for supplying me with that scan and the larger “Racing to an environmental precipice: Fear of future on deteriorating planet sets agenda for Rio de Janeiro summit” May 31, 1992 Boston Globe article containing it.
I believe there was a Gore / Schneider / Gelbspan connection at the beginning of it all. Consider that in September of 1992, Schneider said the following in a Discover magazine “Can We Repair the Air?”article (8th paragraph): “The White House, some business groups, and a few contrary-minded scientists had always argued that the possibility of a nasty greenhouse effect was too uncertain to justify spending billions of dollars to fix it. They (as the tobacco industry has done for decades with smoking) called instead for further studies. …” http://discovermagazine.com/1992/sep/canwerepairtheai120/?searchterm=Hurricanes%20Intensify%20Global%20Warming%20Debate ( http://www.webcitation.org/69uvrQUd2 )
My thanks to you for spreading the word of how this is a 20 year boilerplate smear.
It is 3 simple talking points: “settled science” / “corrupt skeptics operating in a parallel manner to old tobacco industry shills” / “the media is not obligated to give skeptics equal balance because of the first two points”.
Ross Gelbspan consolidated this 3-point mantra into the successful smear it became after late 1995. The story must be told far and wide, and I and can use all the help I can get in telling it.
RICO keeps coming to mind.
Tallbloke, that’s a great find! This beats the Boykoff Bros.1992 “balance as bias” paper by 12 years. That paper was written up by a group that calls itself FAIR (as opposed to cloudy?) ….
Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
Creating controversy where science finds consensus
By Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
also at Academic Search…
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/4911402
so this nonsense actually got published. No doubt Naomi Oreskes was a “peer” reviewer.
In alphabet soup, FAIR is so-called “Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting”, “challenging media bias and censorship since 1986”. From the article:
A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.
So this FAIR group, who challenges media censorship, supports censoring “a small group of global warming skeptics (who) have their views greatly amplified.”
So, we have…
Balance is Bias. – Boykoff Brothers, 2004
War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. – Big Brother, 1984
Great find Tallbloke !! Have been watching this go on for a long time. I am confident that the comments on the PBS blog will actually hurt the CAGW folks. The average person will find the venomous hatred repugnant.
Note the author of this piece.
Roger, do you have any insight as to why Gelbspan’s ideas were so influential? Was it just right idea, right time, for a bunch of NGOs looking for a hook? Or what?
Yep, settled science. This is the same Schneider who published the noveau ice age classis, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract
that concluded that aerosols – soot et al. – would be “sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
So, if the science is settled, why do we pay 2.5 billion a year for more of this science? And why do we pay these guys handsome salaries for 40 years to change their minds?
Schneider in his ice-age phase (the Hansen aerosol link)
Schneider’s tipping point
So. PBS is biased. Against CAGW.
…
Pull the other one, it has bells on.
(It was never about the science, it was always about power and control. See Earth Day 1970. From. Day. One.)
Here are a few more quotations, excerpted from
http://www.green-agenda.com
Now seriously, do you really think this is all about global warming?
Is it not possible that CAGW alarmism is just a smokescreen?
It must be obvious by now, even to the most stupid of warmists, that the world is no longer warming, and has not been warming for 10-15 years..
And the warmists are not all stupid, so what are they up to?
In their own words:
__________
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
-Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
-Professor Maurice King
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
Déjà vu
Time
Feb 17, 1992
It is tempting to forget or ignore the transgressions of ourselves and others when we are in general agreement with them. My experience shows that any time anyone’s faith is challenged or is perceived to be, he strikes out. All to often that strike is as ill conceived or as biased as that to which he objects. All this social climate nonsense is all to reminiscent of the cold war, modern American politics and the ongoing squabbling within and among religions. As I recall the recent noise from the “post modern” folks is not unlike this only in slightly politer terms. You can find some excellent parallels in the NM’s The Prince too. Nothing new under the sun only the means of doing “evil” to those of a different opinion.
The narrative was always there (once they got passed the 2nd coming of the Ice Age), even before they had the science, which, when it came was, of course, conducted to verify the narrative.
Someone with the knowledge and stomach to do so should take the ten most influential warmist papers and audit them for confirmation bias. I’m guessing it wouldn’t take much to expose the whole sorry affair for what it is: religious conviction dressed up as rational, objective research that affirms the need for governments to tightly control all economic activity.
Anthony, according to the cutting it was Al Gore that said the second para about “feeling angry towards those who exaggerate uncertainty” and not Schneider.
Cheers,
Simon
But, but……..1992 was 20 years ago. Aren’t we supposed to be all dead now?
“In 40 years, he [Robert Balling] said, China alone will burn about 50 percent more coal.”
After 20 years China is burning close to 300% more coal. And adding another 1.2 GW of coal-fired power plant every week.
And that was only 15 years after we were threatened with a new Ice Age due to the Global Cooling of the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, complete with the threat of food shortages, according to the CIA’s summary of the leading climate science of the day.
Hats off to Tallbloke for turning this up and also to Allan Macrae, in these responses, for providing those chilling quotes from the left wing conspirators whose purpose is so clearly expressed within them.
The penetration into Western society of The Plan is deep and depends on the infiltration and coercion of the media for it to succeed. The collapse of journalistic enquiry and integrity at the BBC is one if it’s greatest successes – indeed, senior staff at the BBC have produced statements on air saying it is not necessary to report the CAGW debate in a balanced way, statements that mirror the quote from Schneider 20 years ago.
This is why Anthony’s admirable appearance on PBS has produced such a hysterical, hate-filled reaction. For a brief moment, they lost control of a major media organisation. Even worse, they sense that it may be a bellwether that The Plan is faltering.
Anthony’s blog, Jo Nova and others, Andrew Bolt – one of the fearless journalists who works for truth and enquiry – those from all walks of life who contribute to these responses and pro-actively debate the issues at all levels…..these are the things that give us hope that the earth will return to the scientific method.
“T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.”
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-
====================
If I only express my uncertainty, would that deflect the anger.
I’m not sure were the anger is coming from:
The exaggeration, or the uncertainty.
I don’t do the former, and not because it is so easy to falsify.
I hope everyone realizes that the UN Foundation mentioned above is not part of the United Nations. It is directly responsible to the State Department.
It has a UN-like logo but does what the Secretary of State wishes. For example the GACC is Hillary’s initiative to assist and improve women’s health through disseminating improved cooking stoves.
The opinions of its head are not UN policies and may have a very different agenda from one President to the next.
I couldn’t agree with the sentiment of this article more, nor could I disagree with its application less. I hate it when news agencies present facts and fallacies as if both are equally valid. They are not. News agencies should present facts and only facts.
The problem is fallacies sell papers, and fr***s manipulate reporters to present fallacies.
This is one of my pet peeves. Fr***ulent economists have been doing it for nearly a century, and as a result our economy is about to collapse when the greatest debt bubble in history pops. The sad but true fact of our lives is the fr***s in all facets of our life have won. They’ve gotten rich by aligning with the politicians and looting the rest of us.
I used to believe fighting the fr***s on global warming was a pivotal issue. Now I realize it’s worthless. They can’t steal our wealth and send it overseas. We have no wealth left to steal. The plutocrats who control the Fed have already stolen everything from us but the kitchen sink, and Bernanke is going to steal that from us with QE3. This debate has become academic in the most trivial sense.
“telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.”
Well. DOH !!
One side produces real information.
The other side, alarmism, backed by very little real information.
So yes, telling both sides is DEFINITELY “informational bias”
And what about all those 5,000,000 “climate” refugees.. Can anyone name just one ????
Down here, we have lots moving from south to Queensland, in a northerly direction….. to warmer climes !!
Mind you, I suspect that in a few years, those in the northern parts of the NH may very well be needing to travel south also to warmer climes. They will not be able to afford to heat their houses in winter, even if electricity is available.
good find! It sets an interesting context for a lot of matters in the past 20 years.
fyi, The last quotation, according to the article, was from then-Senator Al Gore, not from Schneider:
I reckon nothing of interest happened in the Arctic this summer.
REPLY: I reckon you are incapable of using the scroll bar on the front page of WUWT – Anthony
AndyG55 said:
I thought they called it denial.
AndyG55 says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I am one of those. We are moving to the Queensland tropics this weekend, in fact. Sydney is getting colder and colder. When we arrived in 2001, we had lovely hot summers. These last few summers have been pretty dismal, and the winters bitter (down to 4C at times, even near the coast).
I’m off to keep warm for the next decade or two as the world cools off a bit, through what I strongly believe is a natural cycle.
Pat Frank says:
September 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Roger, do you have any insight as to why Gelbspan’s ideas were so influential? Was it just right idea, right time, for a bunch of NGOs looking for a hook? Or what?
Gelbspan is a shameless liar and self promoter. He described himself as a “Pulitzer prize winning author” on the sleeve notes of his own book. It’s a lie. The Pulitzer prize committee has confirmed he never received it.
It looks like Gore passed him the infamous memo from a coal company from which a closely clipped quote was mined about repositioning man made climate change as theory rather than fact. It seems this is where the whole ‘fossil fuel industry shills’ smear campaign took off.
The second half of the quote in my piece is actually from Gore according to the Gelbspan piece. I made an error attributing both statements to Schneider. It was Gore who said:
“[T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.
Notice how Gelbspan neatly equates human impact with the whole of global warming in the middle of this quote.
We all know the reliability of Gore’s scientific judgement regarding evidence for human impact on ‘global warming’, and it seems that Gelbspan made his own, and no doubt found it paid well to keep pushing the theme.
Gore also had a grudge against S. Fred Singer because Singer published a paper in ’92 that he had co-authored with Roger Revelle (one of Gore’s mentors) shortly before Revelle’s death in ’91. In the paper, they said it was too early to rush into action on mitigation because more research was required before vast sums of money were spent.
More on the Revelle – Singer – Gore connection here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/more-history-from-1991-revelle-co-wrote-with-singer-look-before-you-leap-into-climate-action/
Be sure to read the link at the end of the intro paragraph too.
By the way, if anyone on the mod team wants to grab an improved image of the Boston Globe story to replace the murky jpg with it’s here:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gelbspan-schneider-gore.png
More quotes from politically motivated CAGWers.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
As Pascal Bruckner says in his article ‘The Ideology of Catastrophe’, ‘Catastrophe is not their fear, it is their joy.’
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_apocalyptic-daze.html
@Jer0me says:
“Sydney is getting colder and colder. When we arrived in 2001, we had lovely hot summers. These last few summers have been pretty dismal, and the winters bitter (down to 4C at times, even near the coast). ”
I’m in Newy, used to live in Sydney. I remember when young spending a LOT of the October holidays down the beach. Last few years have been a real wash in that regard 🙁
Oh how I wish for a warmer summer than the last few. !!!
This once again brings up a disconnect I’ve been thinking about: When the first George Bush said global warming required more study, they went into shrieking hysterics over it. Yet we are constantly hearing calls from them, for More Study!
And when new research increasingly shows things happening which are in direct contradiction to what they claimed would happen, it is ignored or demonized…
A Lovell says: September 20, 2012 at 12:09 am
More quotes from politically motivated CAGWers.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
_______________
Thank you A. Lovell – well worth reading, along with http://www.green-agenda.com
_______________
I really dislike conspiracy theories, but the above references provide overwhelming evidence, in the words of the co-conspirators, of their objectives, strategies and tactics.
Their objective is political power; global warming alarmism is their strategy; and viciously smearing any dissenters and enforcing media bias are their “green-shirt” tactics.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.
As we confidently stated in 2002 at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “
Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.
__________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
Ps: The URBAN land temp made have been trending upwards in the NH,
.. but it sure hasn’t done much down here !!!
I suspect that if urban effects were taken properly into accoun the trend would already be well downwards.
I sure hope we DO get some real global warming soon, because the alternative will be a world wide DISASTER !!!
Mods, first line made = may
darn typos !!!
Regarding the above reference to Quantitative Easing in the USA (it is also happening with the Euro, the Yen and the Pound), please see
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/
From memory:
The US Monetary Base (the “Base”) is (more or less) the amount of USA dollars printed and in circulation. The Base took over 200 years to reach ~$880 billion, and then just a few months to double, starting in late 2008. The Base now sits at about $2.7 trillion, about three times what it was in mid-2008.
Allan Macrae~ Thank you for the link to Green Agenda. I’ve added it to my list… I have a Climate Change Resource Page, which I created on another site (heavily populated by True Believers), and every bit of Skeptical ammo I can find, goes onto the list of links there.
Allan MacRae says:
September 20, 2012 at 1:58 am
========================================
Now that’s a genuine hockey stick, and scary!!
Anthony and Tallbloke:
The BBC has an official policy of providing biased reporting of AGW and the stated reason for the policy is precisely the argument presented by Schneider in the 1990s.
Richard
Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.
Sorry. I forgot to provide the link to the BBC’s explanation of its policy. It is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/07/bbc_science_review.html
Richard
Moderator, my reply to DC seems to have gone in the bin. Please retrieve it. Richard
DC says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:40 am (Edit)
Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.
—————————————————————————————————————
Yes but the definition of “crank viewpoints” is made by who? Yes , quite right, by the AGW Mafia.
As for his being dead, what relevance does that have?
DC says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:40 am
Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.
I’m sure he’s still busy slandering us on the other side… and probably compiling a blacklist of weather-gods who have had the temerity to make the Earth cool over the last seven years even as we exercise our freedom of speech.
No genuinely competent journalist should take a partisan activist’s word on what is or is not journalistically irresponsible. The fact that so many did says a lot more about the partisan stance of the ‘Society of Environmental Journalists’ than it does about the facts of the legitimate scientific debate around global warming.
“To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
…Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest.”
-Stephen Schneider-
This is advocacy and activism, not science.
Going by QE3 in USA and similar everywhere else we will, in due course, have a global Weimar Republic.
Our currencies have already been debauched and the approaching light is an oncoming train rather than the end of the tunnel.
The politicians have effectively given up and are just timeserving in the interval.
WUWT link in the comments:
19 Sept: LiveScience: Natalie Wolchover: Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don’t Disprove Global Warming
In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero)…
Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard’s post has garnered attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, “Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.”
***But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.
“Antarctic sea ice hasn’t seen these big reductions we’ve seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us,” said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC…
http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html
a taste of Natalie Wolchover’s work, whereby not even dead baby boomers will escape the CAGW-ers:
Dec 2011: MSNBC: Natalie Wolchover: Burning deceased humans will produce electricity
Turbines at crematorium will convert heat into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours per corpse
In Durham, England, corpses will soon be used to generate electricity…
Some might find this concept creepy. Others might be pleased to learn that the process “makes cremation much greener by utilizing its by-products,” in the words of cremation engineer Steve Looker, owner and chief executive officer of the Florida-based company B&L Cremation Systems, which is unaffiliated with the Durham enterprise.
In Europe, tightening regulations on crematorium emissions, coupled with the high price of energy, will lead more and more facilities to go the way of Durham in the future, Looker said…
According to Looker, whose company is currently testing different methods of utilizing cremation waste heat, the expensive turbine systems being installed in Durham are not yet economically viable for crematories here. “In the U.S., most crematories don’t have enough throughput,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries. “Cremation in some parts of Europe is over 90 percent, but it is not over 50 percent yet here.” That is, less than half of Americans opt for cremation…
However, Looker is hopeful that the situation could change in the near future. “Over the next 10 years, with the baby boomers coming through, cremation is going to reach 75 to 80 percent. Then, this might be feasible.” …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45526347/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/burning-deceased-humans-will-produce-electricity/
Stephen Schneider made a career of alarmism. Here he is through the years going back to the 1970’s:
So Schneider, and by implication his pal Ehrlich, were using deception from early on.
DC, you are just annoyed because you know it is true, but you are too cowardly to face the truth.
pat:
re your post at September 20, 2012 at 3:50 am.
Oh the spinning! I’m so dizzy from it that it hurts!.
Either AGW is greater at the poles – both of them – or it is not.
There is no known mechanism which would induce AGW to cause one polar region to cool and the other to warm. None, not any, nada.
So, Arctic sea ice decreasing while Antarctic sea ice is increasing neither proves or disproves AGW. It merely demonstrates that AGW – if it exists – is too small for its effects to be discerned against the natural climate variations in those regions.
Richard
Freedom of speech was thought an important right also because the majority can be wrong. So to avoid a democratic tyranny by the majority, dissenting views need to be heard.
So OK, they worked up a consensus amongst a group of experts, fine. But they then believe that that consensus is worth more than it is, ie. that it gives them the right to shut up alternate views. No, it doesn’t. But they seldom relent on this point, apparently. They took the hill and now want to use it to dominate everything? That’s exactly what freedom of speech is supposed to help, to keep things healthy.
It is a diversion to say it is about “balance”. Nobody has balance. It is about openness and flexibility and disseminating views so that people can then be better informed. They realise the alternative views are in direct competition, so they try to shut them up.
@ DC September 20, 2012 at 2:40 am
I can’t see why you infer slander.
Stephen Schneider at http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf August/September 1996 page 5
“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
…
”Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
I would agree with tallbloke that this would appear to be activism/advocacy.
Science is never “settled”; science is mutable, but always based on facts. Consensus is the inverse of science.
I wrote to Michael Getler, as I’m certain many others have – you’ll see the text at this link:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunes/censoring_a_voice_of_reason.html#comment-3167934
Anthony – truth will out.
E. T. Jaynes wrote on ‘Converging and Diverging Views’ in the ‘Queer uses for probability theory’ Chapter 5 of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge, 2003). Only a narrator thought balanced by the entire audience can report evenhandedly. Otherwise, the narrator’s biases are magnified by the prejudices of the audience driving them to greater polarization. Hence, the need for qualified audiences.
I have tried to tell the world that the incompetent climate consensus should have been cut short 20 years ago, when the detailed Venus atmosphere data was obtained, and people like Schneider and Hansen were in the early stages of conning the people and the system. It is not off-topic, however, to bring everyone’s attention to the climax now occurring, of long-held but wrong-headed beliefs, in the political realm itself:
Happening Now: the Fruits of Unsupported Dogma Over Reason in America
If it helps anyone I’ve scanned the improved image posted above, and run it through some OCR software. And……after a further half hour correcting errors, it finally looks OK!
Here it is in its entirety:
To some, global warming may be only hot air
While most environmental and atmospheric scientists say there is little time left to respond to the threat of global warming and rising sea levels, a minority of policy makers and researchers say the data are far too inconclusive to justify such alarmist predictions. Atmospheric dynamics are too complex and scientific knowledge so incomplete, they say, as to defy accurate predictions of climate change by computer models that attempt to play out the trends in existing data. And while few dispute that humanity is generating geometrically increasing quantities of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide, some say their effects are so poorly understood that it is wrong to conclude we are facing a planetary environmental crisis.
In the absence of what he called “more convincing data” about Global warming, US Energy Secretary James Watkins said in a recent interview that it would be foolhardy for the United States to implement dramatic reductions in fossil-fuel burning. Conceding that the data do indicate some impending changes in climate patterns, Watkins said “the present state of scientific uncertainty” does not provide conclusive evidence that such change will be rapid or catastrophic. Asked why the United States is not discussing a crash program to switch to renewable energy sources, he responded: “Can you imagine what that would cost, especially since the scientists aren’t really sure of what’s going on?”
Several researchers, including Robert C. Balling Jr., director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, said in interviews that global warming is more “media hype” than anything else. Balling, one of a handful of scientists who have publicly dismissed concerns about global climate change, agrees that greenhouse gases are concentrating in the upper atmosphere at a rapid pace, but he said there is no evidence they will produce anything other than minimal warming of perhaps 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). That, he said, could have beneficial effects.
Although greenhouse gases have increased by 50 percent in the last century, he said, “all we see is that the weather has become cloudier.” “Night temperatures have risen, while daytime temperatures have fallen, and the world is getting somewhat wetter,” he said, noting that the historical temperature record indicates a warming of only one-half degree over the past century. Balling believes that saturation of the upper atmosphere by carbon dioxide will have negligible effects on global temperatures, and that efforts by developed countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions would be equally inconsequential. “We’re looking at the doubling of the Earth’s population by 2030. which means there’s no hope of even slightly reducing carbon dioxide emissions by then,” said Balling. “Any emission reductions will have zero effect unless we curb population growth.” In 40 years, he said, China alone will burn about 50 percent more coal.
Similarly, S. Fred Singer, a physics professor at the University of Virginia. wrote recently that “the scientific base for an enhanced greenhouse warming … is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” A rise of 1 degree Celsius in average temperatures, he said, would result in longer growing seasons, fewer frosts, the northward expansion of agricultural land and no increase in evaporation of water from agricultural soil. Singer said dramatic countermeasures proposed by environmentalists are “sure to stifle economic growth and reduce human welfare.”
His position is echoed by Murray Weidenbaum – head of former President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. “The doomsayers have no monopoly on the truth,” Weidenbaum said in a recent interview. Weidenbaum, who now heads the St. Louis-based Center for the Study of American Business, says the belief that pollution and atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide is increasing geometrically “runs counter to any science I’ve seen.”
However, these voices are increasingly in the minority. And as evidence has accumulated, the tide of the debate has swung increasingly toward those who believe that the Earth’s ability to withstand untrammelled human activity has reached the breaking point. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading atmospheric researcher with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said recently, “It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as though it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.”
Sen Al Gore (D-Tenn.) conceded that uncertainties about atmospheric interactions make it impossible to forecast specific phases of climate change. But, he added, “the overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel anger toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.”
This completely distorted mindset was refuted with a particular paragraph in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, (p. 735 in my copy):
“We never make assertions, Miss Taggart,” said Hugh Akston. “That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell–we show. We do not claim–we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction. You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw–we can help you to name it, but not to accept it–the sight, the knowledge and the acceptance must be yours.”
It has always been rejection of the truth that causes these people to behave in the irrational manner they do–like the “looters” in Rand’s book, their only goal is power and domination, and with that comes fame and fortune, or so they think.
No wonder they have a complete hatred for a group that do show; that do prove–that require truth in all things. Sadly, very few of them will ever accept it; rather, they are expert at false assertions.
So you have to go and find a 20 year old paper where someone in the news organisation is promoting “balance” rather than a contrary viewpoint at any cost.
Absolutely the LAST thing you want is even handed reporting. If you got the representation your viewpoint deserves, you would get 0.2% of the news time. Or once every 5 years or so. Your viewpoint is already massively overrepresented and this article was simply one that pointed to this heavy bias.
As for the rest of the comments? Keep believing. True faith can actually work miracles. Sadly for the rest of us in the real world, it’s a grim future we are looking at. 1 Million official climate refugees in the horn of Africa alone and god knows how many others not counted. Certainly it’s likely that the official figures are no better than 1 in 5.
All I can say is that you’ll need to find a bigger sandpit to bury your head in over the next decade.
Eugene S Conlin says:
September 20, 2012 at 5:21 am
Thanks, Eugene, for providing the fuller context of the Schneider quote about ‘making little mention of any doubt’ etc. I could only find the short version in my brief web search.
The worst thing is that since that 1992 article, the climate has shamelessly played along with the corrupt megalomaniacal scientists, getting warmer and warmer. But the climate is such a capricious thing. It keeps throwing in short cooling periods to give skeptics false hope.
Still you have to give skeptics credit. For over twenty years now governments have needed an excuse to do nothing, and the skeptics have done a great job of providing excuses. Well done.
NeilT says:
September 20, 2012 at 6:15 am
“1 Million official climate refugees in the horn of Africa alone and god knows how many others not counted. ”
Bollocks.
Global warming is a large and complicated thesis with quantifiable uncertainties. How can you report that uncertainties exist without automatically being taken to a place where unanimity does not exist?
So, so true / sarc
Now, why should journalist take a more balanced approach? Could it be that people can get it wrong at times? I don’t know but let’s go back to the future.
More hilarity and entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
I’ve been hammering on the PBS NewsHour over this concept of “fair balance” since December 29, 2009. See: “The lack of climate skeptics on PBS’s ‘Newshour’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.htmI
My thanks to “tallbloke” for moving the comment I placed at his blog yesterday up into the main text body.
(FIXED the link) See: “The lack of climate skeptics on PBS’s ‘Newshour’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.html
NeilT says:
September 20, 2012 at 6:15 am
We don’t operate on “True faith” around here, Neil–we don’t make assertions like yours: What proof do you have that your “1 Million official climate refugees” are due to the increase in CO2?
Oh, none, you say? Not surprising.
No, we operate on showing and proving, whereas you use assertions.
See the difference?
“The other issue is the conduct of science and the integrity of the science process. The corruption of science in a worthy cause is still corruption, and it has led to its further corruption in an unworthy cause—the ideologically driven claim of anthropogenic global warming.” S. Fred Singer (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/01/03/secondhand-smoke-lung-cancer-and-global-warming-debate)
pat says:
September 20, 2012 at 3:50 am
WUWT link in the comments:
19 Sept: LiveScience: Natalie Wolchover: Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don’t Disprove Global Warming
In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero)…
Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard’s post has garnered attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, “Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.”
***But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.
“Antarctic sea ice hasn’t seen these big reductions we’ve seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us,” said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC…
http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html
Pat if you were to ask an actual scientist (it sounds as if you haven’t) – they would point out that we are currently in the cooler end of the12,000 years of the Holocene and that satellite observations of the poles only started ~30 years ago, so less than 0.3% of the period. There is evidence of wave action on the shores around the Arctic that indicate that it was open water during the early and mid-Holocene. This appears to be at a time when humans were keeping domestic cattle in what is now the Sahara desert and of course the polar bears survived this period too. In the Eemian the temperatures were warmer still yet the world did not come to an end. A scientist tends not to panic over statistically insignificant observations of one area when information is already available from another. But then Pat you do not appear to be a scientist.
Evidence please. And if you do provide it show me how carbon dioxide caused it?
Droughts were supposed to be just a thing of the past. Children won’t know what drought is.
By the way would the 1 million refugees be part of the still missing the 50 million climate refugees. 😉
http://asiancorrespondent.com/tag/50-million-climate-refugees/
As far as I remember, it was shortly after researching for this Boston Globe article that the author, Ross Gelbspan, switched from listening to us climate skeptics to claiming we’re all “in the pay of Big Oil”… if only! 😉
In case some of you haven’t heard of Gelbspan, he has been remarkably influential in promoting the “Big Oil” conspiracy theory.
Apparently, the motivation for his shift from balanced reporting to “skeptics=evil” occurred after Dr. James McCarthy (now head of Union of Concerned Scientists) told him that he shouldn’t have listened to the skeptics Gelbspan interviewed for the article. Why? Simply because McCarthy was convinced he was right, so he assumed everyone that disagreed with him MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.
Anyway, McCarthy urged Gelbspan to ASSUME skeptics were all corrupt and instead “follow the money”. This apparently prompted Gelbspan on his mudslinging voyage, resulting in books like “The Heat is On”.
Of course, once published, Gelbspan’s work then became quotable by other people who wanted an excuse to ignore climate skeptics… including McCarthy! Soon after, the Union of Concerned Scientists did their own mudslinging report, called “Smoke and mirrors” or something like that…
Around this time, inspired by Gelbspan, James Hoggan set up DeSmogBlog and asked him to join in. (For those who don’t know, Hoggan runs a PR firm which represents a number of green companies… and ironically, Exxon’s rival, Shell!)
Greenpeace also did a similar report called “Exxon Secrets” (or something like that), inspired by Gelbspan.
Of course, now there were several interlinked sources ALL saying the same thing “ignore the skeptics – they’re all in the pay of big oil”. The fact that they all originated from just a few sources, and were based on rather flimsy arguments didn’t matter. Instead, people who started to read up on skeptics like Singer, Lindzen, etc, would find dozens of links, apparently from several different sources – Gelbspan, DeSmogBlog, Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace.
They started quoting these sources, and by doing so, they became secondary sources, e.g., George Monbiot wrote an entire chapter in his “Heat” book, allegedly “proving” that the skeptics were evil. The proof was merely a repetition of Gelbspan, DeSmogBlog, UCS and Greenpeace. But, then people who read Monbiot’s book would quote him as a NEW source without realising it was a just a collection of quotes from the same sources: Gelbspan, McCarthy, Hoggan, Greenpeace and co.
—
P.S. Lest Prof. Lewandowsky think I’m promoting a conspiracy theory ;), I must stress I DON’T think the “Big Oil conspiracy theory” is itself the result of a conspiracy. (although it certainly would be ironic!!!)
Instead, I think McCarthy, Gelbspan, Monbiot, etc genuinely believe what they are saying. So, the fact that they quote each other isn’t a conspiracy – it’s just confirmation bias.
Rocky Road: ‘This completely distorted mindset was refuted with a particular paragraph in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, (p. 735 in my copy):
“We never make assertions, Miss Taggart,” said Hugh Akston.’
Except that in this statement, Akston is making an assertion. Perhaps he was just being economical and meant ‘mere’ or ‘unsupported’ assertion.
But taking Akston’s assertion at face value, it is unsupported. In which case, his statement does not support this assertion: ‘This completely distorted mindset was refuted with a particular paragraph in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged’.
Interestingly, Akston then goes on to tell Miss Taggart that, ‘We do not tell–we show’; and then claims, ‘We do not claim–we prove’.
To be charitable, perhaps Rand was doing irony.
Actually I preferred Bollocks as an answer. At least it’s a knee jerk reaction and not some pseudo massaged response.
OK the figures are official figures of the refugees from the horn of Africa. I’m not going to link it you all have Google, stop being so lazy and go find it. Oh sorry you don’t want to hear that so why should you bother. As you don’t want to hear it you will never look for it.
OK now to proving that CO2 caused it.
I’m not going to. If you can’t read 150 years of scientific literature then my lone voice is not going to convince you. You have taken your position; namely that an increase of CO2 into an atmosphere does not increase the heat content of the environment which contains that increased atmospheric CO2 mix. Given that it continues to receive the same, or even slightly less, energy input.
As this is obviously so completely and utterly bollocks, what more could I say more that would convince you? In my estimation nothing. Your minds are closed on a path which is in complete contradiction to well documented and tested, science. Everything you say is in justification of your position. There is not one single piece of original work which expands either knowledge or science on this site. In fact quite the opposite.
So I will continue to stand on the sidelines and cheer you on in your inconsistencies.
Neil T , Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you have a three year olds debating skills. I told you so I told you so , I know more than you I know more than you . What are you going to do next ? Go tell your mommy we are bad and will not listen to you ?
NeilT says:
September 20, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Nice deflection, there, NeilT, which is a polite way of saying Epic Fail!
Because if your “lone voice” could indeed come up with definitive proof of what you assert, you wouldn’t have to toss out the lame “150 years of scientific literature” excuse–one would be enough.
Your allegation of popular support for CAGW is very similar to what Einstein said regarding the book “100 Authors Against Einstein”, which was:
“If I were wrong, then one would have been enough”.
I’m challenging you to produce even ONE! Epic fail, there NeilT; Epic Fail!
(Just how am I supposed to find that one for you if it doesn’t exist? I don’t appreciate getting the run-around.)
Brendan H says:
September 20, 2012 at 11:33 am
No, Brendan–there’s a big difference between showing or proving and “making assertions”.
And if you devolve into saying that’s an example of irony, that’s a mere assertion too.
@NeilT “what more could I say more that would convince you?”
You could explain why the Venusian atmosphere (over 90% CO2) ,over the same pressure range as Earth’s atmosphere, is almost EXACTLY the temperature it should be according to its distance from the sun.
It is OBVIOUS that the CO2 concentration has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on temperature.
Rocky Road: ‘No, Brendan–there’s a big difference between showing or proving and “making assertions”.’
I know, which is the point: Akston asserts, he also tells, and he claims. What he fails to do is show or prove. All he’s doing is boasting to Miss Taggart about how great he and his friends are at showing and proving, but without actually showing and proving.
‘And if you devolve into saying that’s an example of irony, that’s a mere assertion too.’
If I do, yes. But I didn’t. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t even claim mere assertion for my irony comment, just speculation. So what? Assertions – supported and unsupported – are an unavoidable part of human communication. There are at least two in this paragraph, and this sentence is arguably a third.
But if you’re very keen to show and prove, let’s get back to your original assertion: ‘This completely distorted mindset was refuted with a particular paragraph in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…’
Show and prove away.
The impression I get from the Ayn Rand piece is that Akston strives to achieve dominance by force of will or from status and consensus such that he can merely make assertions yet because of his power have the other person feel that he or she has been shown the proof.
The subordinated person then feels , falsely, that he or she has arrived at a decision freely when in fact that is not the case.
It is a chilling scenario on a par with the similar ‘conversion’ of Winston Smith at the end of 1984 and it is that type of control that authoritarians always seek. Indeed it is at the heart of their method as shown to us by Orwell and Rand.
For the rest of us it takes a strong mindset and a good education to have any chance of resisting such pressure so as to be able to demand proper showing and proving.
It is an adult version of playground bullying, pure and simple.
Stephen Wilde: ‘The impression I get from the Ayn Rand piece is that Akston strives to achieve dominance by force of will or from status and consensus…’
Ayn Rand might be a bit surprised by your interpretation since Akston is one of her heroes, in fact the mentor and a father figure to the main hero, John Galt.
Within the novel, the intent of this passage and others is to persuade, or ‘show’, Dagny Taggart that she should join Akston’s band of brothers, since the heroes are superior in every way to the looters and moochers in control of the government and industry.
In fact, some commentators regard Akston as the fictional embodiment of Rand’s ideal academic.
Given that, it’s interesting that you interpret Akston’s speech as an instance of authoritarian bullying – surely not what Rand intended, but certainly telling, just not in the way that Akston is claiming.
That shows how differently a passage can be interpreted when taken out of the wider context.
I have the book. Now I must read it.
To All,
On Kivalina, see the article “Appeals court rules against village in global-warming suit, http://www.adn.com/2012/09/21/2634170/appeals-court-rules-against-village.html, reporting on a decision released last evening by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
“A federal appeals court has ruled against the Northwest Alaska village of Kivalina, which sued energy companies over claims that greenhouse emissions contributed to global warming that is threatening the community’s existence.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a U.S. District Court ruling that Kivalina didn’t have standing to sue oil, coal and power companies.
The eroding village sought monetary damages to help with the estimated $400 million to relocate.”
The Court of Appeals decision, like the lower court decision it upheld, concluded that “the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) action that the Act authorizes, displaces Kivalina’s [federal common law tort] claims” against the energy companies. The panel noted that:
“Kivalina’s survival has been threatened by erosion resulting from wave action and sea storms for several decades. … But in recent years, the sea ice has formed later in the year, attached later than usual, broken up earlier than expected, and has been thinner and less extensive in nature. As a result, Kivalina has been heavily impacted by storm waves and surges that are destroying the land where it sits. Massive erosion and the possibility of future storms threaten buildings and critical infrastructure in the city with imminent devastation. If the village is not relocated, it may soon cease to exist. Kivalina attributes the impending destruction of its land to the effects of global warming, which it alleges results in part from emissions of large quantities of greenhouse gases by the Energy Producers.
****
[The village alleged the activities of the Energy Producers] constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights, including the rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina. Kivalina’s complaint also charged the Energy Producers with acting in concert to create, contribute to, and maintain global warming and with conspiring to mislead the public about the science of global warming.”
The Court ruled that Kivalina lacked standing to bring a “public nuisance” tort claim under federal common law because that the Clean Air Act and EPA authority thereunder “displaces” any federal common law claims. The nature of the remedy sought by Kivalina, damages rather than injunctive relief, did not alter that conclusion. Kivalina’s remedy, if any, said the Court of Appeals, “must rest in the hands of the legislative and executive branches of our government, not the federal common law.”
The similar tort claims brought by Kivalina under Alaskan state law were dismissed earlier in the case, without prejudice to refiling in Alaskan state court. Those state law claims are being met by a defense of federal preemption, which is arguably reinforced by this appellate ruling. But this judicial odyssey is not yet over.
The full appellate decision can be downloaded here – http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/21/09-17490.pdf.
I hope this is useful.
MK
Love how not one but two people offer a partial quote of Steven Schneider as if it somehow supports this absurdly titled blog post. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”, he said, as correctly reported by Eugene S Conlin and approximately guessed at by “tallbloke”. How very curious that neither of them offered the rest of the quote: “I hope that means being both”.
I wonder why on earth they would have omitted that rather relevant part of the quote? Did they feel that was honest? Did they feel that was effective? I think it was neither.
NeilT, NeilT my man. Come on. In science the ONUS is down to those who make claims to provide the evidence. I made 2 simple challenges to you and you refused. Why should anyone take you seriously???
Now pay attention to what the climactic models say:
East Africa to get less rain
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0984-y
East Africa to get more rain
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/%7Emnew/research/publications/hulme_et_al_african_climate_CR_2001.pdf
You do realise that your resistance to provide evidence does not make you look good at all.
PS I, as a sceptic, don’t have to provide any evidence at all. That’s how science works.
@ Blog Lurker, September 20, 2012: Much obliged for the James McCarthy tip. Although I already had McCarthy’s name in my massive notes pile, many names carry no immediate importance with me until their relevance whacks me upside the head via tips like this. E.g. Anthony Socci, an Al Gore staffer I’d never heard of, but inadvertently had in my notes in relation to some critical point concerning the smear of skeptics. The few words I initially had about him ballooned up to something over 4000 words in my notes. Now, I’m finding some entertaining things about the McCarthy/Gelbspan association…. thanks!