Global warming denial rears its ugly head around the world, in English
Posted on 18 August 2014 by dana1981
“In Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s chief business adviser Maurice Newman offered a prime example of global warming denial last week. Writing in The Australian, Newman suggested that we’re headed for a period of global cooling due to declining solar activity and related influences from galactic cosmic rays, calling mainstream climate science “a religion.”
As Graham Readfearn showed in his fact check of The Australian opinion piece, Newman got the science badly wrong in almost every way imaginable. Scientific research has consistently shown that a grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming, and that galactic cosmic rays do not exert a significant influence on the Earth’s climate. To argue otherwise, Newman relied on selective cherry picking of some research, and a misinterpretation of other studies.
Due to his lack of a scientific background, combined with his likely ideological biases, it’s understandable that Newman would get the science wrong on this issue. The problem is that Newman has the ear of Australia’s Prime Minister. Worse yet, the country’s biggest-selling national newspaper printed his error-riddled editorial, misinforming its readership in the process. As a result of this sort of thinking, the Australian government recently revoked its carbon tax without a replacement plan to meet its carbon pollution reduction targets.”
Comments 1 to 10:
Ashton at 02:22 AM on 19 August, 2014
Unfortunately I think you’ll find that almost always reports in the MSM (yes even the reviled MUrdoch papers) reach many, many more readers than does SkS, Real Climate. Open Mind etc. Given that, it is unlikely this analysis will have much effect on the average citizen…..
Ashton has hit the nail on the head. The truth of the matter is downplayed if not ignored by the major media players. Deniers are given equal coverage as if there was equal representation. Sadly, money and politics determine media content and a very few scientists are paid to spread questionable if not bogus claims. These few get mainstream publicity as if they represented a large block of opinion. The MORI poll in this article shows the extent of public belief in anthropogenic causes of global warming. What can we do? Speak out, challenge people who mouth disproved “evidence” and vote for people who see the truth of the matter.
Why she held up the sign
“because I don’t feel like this is a moment where we should feel comfortable.”
“For me, it goes back to the idea that we’re not allowed to feel these sentiments,” she said. “We always have to be stoic. We always have to make certain people comfortable and I really didn’t want to make anyone comfortable at that time. I felt angry. I felt fearful for my young brother and my younger cousin. And I currently feel fearful for the son I might have and I wasn’t trying to make people feel comfortable because I don’t feel like this is a moment where we should feel comfortable. We should be questioning the fact that this continues to happen and I wanted that to be expressed.”
“Scientists say the oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were at the beginning of the industrial revolution about 250 years ago.
Climate scientists say greenhouse gas emissions resulting from coal burning are a main cause of global warming.”
What will it take before we realize and change our way of living? Is ecocide enjoyable for some?
“The evidence of the harm that industrial civilization is doing to this planet is all around us. It is being felt every day.
Look around. Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are gone. Salmon are collapsing. Passenger pigeons are gone. Eskimo curlews are gone. Ninety-eight percent of native forests are gone, 99 percent of wetlands, 99 percent of native grasslands. What standards do you need?
What is the threshold at which you will finally acknowledge that it’s no tredeemable?” Derrick Jensen
Loving connection with Earth
“Even elements of the environmental movement approach the earth as an object to be preserved, rather than as a spiritual reality to be respected. This misconception may prove to be fateful, for, as Tony Gonnela Frichner of the Onondoga Nation has pointed out, ‘How can you “save the Earth” if you have no spiritual relationship with the Earth? There is an intellectual abstraction about the environment but no visceral participation with the Earth. Non-Indians can’t change the current course of destruction without this connection.’ ”
—Joseph Epes Brown, “Teaching Spirits: Understanding Native American Religious Traditions,” (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001).
We won’t sacrifice for what we don’t love. Why do so few love the Earth? Because they are not taught that the earth is alive, loving and lovable.
What the Frack?
What Cows Can Tell Us About The Dangers Of Fracking
BY ANDREW BREINER POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
“Evidence on the way fracking affects the health of humans is scarce, in large part because drilling companies go to great lengths to keep that information hidden. That’s why two Cornell University researchers turned to cows to find out just how toxic fracking pollution is. The results were alarming, if not exactly surprising.
Since drilling companies refuse to reveal the exact chemicals in fracking solutions, and typically settle and impose nondisclosure agreements on any individuals harmed by the practice, there is nearly no record of how it impacts people’s health to live near a drilling operation. Doctors in Pennsylvania are even barred from revealing to their patients what chemicals they may be poisoned by.
Although property owners often file suit claiming symptoms like breathing problems and burning eyes and skin, they are typically forced to drop those claims before the driller will agree to settle. That way, there’s never confirmation that fracking harms people’s health. This study constitutes an important step towards that confirmation.”
“Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the rest of the world since 2000, and this could have triggered changes to global wind patterns, which have brought extreme weather to lower latitudes, the researchers said.”
New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention
Posted on 12 August 2014 by dana1981
“How frequently have you featured in the media regarding your views on climate change?
The answers to this question reflect whether the media is really fair and balanced on the subject of global warming. A truly balanced media would give equally proportional attention and coverage to climate scientists in the mainstream and on the fringes. For example, if 20% of contrarian climate scientists reported frequent media attention, a fair and balanced media would also give frequent coverage to 20% of mainstream climate scientists.
Instead, fringe contrarian climate scientists reported that they receive frequent media coverage twice as often as mainstream climate scientists.”
Specifically, 30% of those few who said that greenhouse gases have caused an insignificant amount of global warming (or even cooling) reported frequent media coverage, compared to just 15% of climate scientists who said greenhouse gases have caused strong global warming.
This disproportionate media coverage of fringe climate contrarians is a problem known as “false balance,” and has plagued not only politically conservative media outlets, but also purportedly neutral news organizations like the BBC. It stems from journalists believing it’s “balanced” to give “both sides” of every issue equal coverage, even if one of those sides represents the views of a small fringe of qualified experts.
The practice is no different than giving equal time to evolutionary biologists and Creationists, or to medical doctors and those who claim smoking doesn’t cause cancer. This new study confirms that according to the scientists themselves, fringe climatecontrarians who hold views well outside the mainstream are receiving disproportionate media coverage.”
Someone owes Bill McKibben an apology over the Keystone pipeline
“A key piece of support for this argument was a State Department estimate that the pipeline would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions, because the oil would simply be shipped by rail. This gave credence to the Chait view, since it implied that McKibben hadn’t just picked a less-than-ideal issue as a stand-in for climate change as a whole, but was spending a whole lot of time and energy on an initiative that would literally have almost no impact on climate change.
However, a new study has re-examined the issue and come to a sharply different conclusion. Finding that the State Department analysis didn’t consider the effect the pipeline might have on the world oil market, it quadruples state’s high-end estimate of what effect Keystone XL might have on carbon emissions, from 27 million tons of additional carbon dioxide per year to 110 million tons.”
Oil companies fracking into drinking water sources, new research shows
“Companies say that fracking has never contaminated drinking water. The EPA launched three investigations over the last six years into possible drinking water contamination by oil and gas activity in Dimock, Pa.; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyo. After initially finding evidence of contamination at the three sites, the EPA shelved the investigations amid allegations by environmentalists and local residents that the regulator succumbed to political pressure.”
Fracking Companies Fight Texas Families’ Air Pollution Suits, Fearing Precedent
“Two major oil companies have asked a Texas judge to dismiss a civil lawsuit that could draw new attention to the toxic air emissions from oil and gas production.”