DeSmogBlog - Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Another Silly Climate Petition Exposed

Richard Littlemore — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:15:33 PST

In the realm of silly petitions, manufactured by a small, agenda-driven group and leveraged to extend the fiction of a legitimate scientific controversy, no document has ever been studied to this degree.

Thanks to John Mashey, a technology consultant, entrepreneur, member of the American Physical Society and tireless researcher, this document lies completely exposed as another phony front group play for attention.

Mashey's own explanation begins like this:

"The American Physical Society (APS) was petitioned by 206 people, about 0.45% of the 47,000 members, to discard its climate change position and declare decades of climate research non-existent. The Petition was “overwhelmingly” rejected, but this anti-science campaign offers a useful case study. The Petition signers‟ demographics are compared to those of APS in general.

Then, the social network behind the petition is analyzed in detail, person by person for the first 121 signers. This might seem a grassroots groundswell of informed expert argument with the existing position, but it is not.

Rather, it seems to have originated within a small network of people, not field experts, but with a long history of manufacturing such things, plausibly at the Heartland Institute‘s NYC climate conference March 8-10, 2009. APS physicists can, do, and will contribute strongly to solving the 21st century‟s conjoined climate+energy problem, but this petition was a silly distraction, and rightly rejected. However, its existence was widely touted to the public."

The whole, exhaustive document is attached. Fred Singer should be embarrassed.

For another take on this story, check out Adam Seigel's article: APS says "In your face deniers!"

Attachment	Size
2009 science bypass v3 0.pdf	2.04 MB

Friends of Science Ads Are Wrong and Should Be Pulled

Kevin Grandia — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:48:59 PST

global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.jpg

Isn't Halloween over? Then why is Friends of Science (FOS) rising from the dead with a new radio campaign.

Or maybe its April Fool's because the FOS ads are so inaccurate or misguided that they must be taken as a joke - or must be playing us all for fools.

The ads, currently running on radio stations across the country, make the claim that there, "Hasn't been global warming for over 10 years."

I put this to a couple of top climate scientists and both said, unreservedly, that this is an outright false statement. Both pointed to temperature data on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that very clearly shows that temperatures over the last 10 years have been some of the hottest on record.

According to NASA, the five hottest years on record have been:

1) 2005

2) 1998

3) 2002

4) 2003

5) 2006

Then, there's this graph of temperature measurements since 1880 that also clearly show it isn't getting any cooler.

And if for some reason you don't think NASA know what they're talking about, there's always the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which also measures global temperatue. Their measurements similarly debunk the claims made by the Friends of Science.

I know that media are hard up for ad revenue, but the Friends of Science ads are irresponsible; they should be pulled immediately.

There are two ways this can be done.

The first (and the most effective) is to call or email the radio station when you hear the ad and demand that the ad be pulled AND that the station run a correction.

In fact one media personality is pretty much calling for this on his own station already.

Then, send a complaint to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is in charge of regulating such things. Here's the information you need to make such a complaint.

Now, before the trolls start complaining at the foot of this post, let's deal with the complaints.

First, this is not an attack on "free speech." This is "paid speech" and it's wrong. If a company was advertising items for sale at a price they wouldn't honor, their ad would be pulled. FOS are advertising a world that doesn't exist, and recommending that we act on their erroneous counsel. It's wrong, it's dangerous and it should be stopped.

Second, there are surely some out there who will point to 1998 as the year that the Hadley Centre in the UK identifies as the hottest on record. Well, go slam your head against the evidence. "Statistics" and "damn statistics" should be left to people who are competent to deal with them. "Lies," on the other hand, should be tracked down, rooted out and dismissed.

U.S. Climate Envoy Slams Inhofe's Attempts To Influence Copenhagen

Brendan Demelle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:55:01 PST

At the U.S. delegation press conference this afternoon on the final day of the Barcelona climate talks, I asked U.S. deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing what effect, if any, Senator James Inhofe (R-Denial) might have on the process in Copenhagen, and whether GOP intransigence is hurting Obama’s ability to come up with a firm number on U.S. emissions reductions.

Pershing responded that the U.S. delegation traveling to Denmark will include “a wide variety of members of Congress as well as their staff,” from both parties, as is the tradition in international negotiations.

“They are engaged with us in discussions about what they think will be effective, but U.S. policymaking on the international arena and negotiations is in the purview of the executive branch, and will remain that way,” Pershing told me.

It is promising to hear Pershing confirm that the Obama administration isn’t going to let GOP shenanigans control the U.S. position on international climate policy. But there is no doubt in the minds of the delegates wrapping up the Barcelona talks today that the continued momentum of the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill over the coming weeks could mean the difference between failure and success in Copenhagen.

Watch the U.S. delegation press conference here. My exchange with Pershing is at the very end.

What Would Frank Luntz Do with the Copenhagen Climate Treaty?

Kevin Grandia — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:43:03 PST

070206_luntz_vmed_1p.widec_.jpg

When I'm trying to unravel public relations spin, I frequently find myself asking WWFLD (What Would Frank Luntz Do)?

As you'll recall Frank Luntz is a chief Republican spin-doctor famous for his memo on climate change.

We have seen a lot of spindoctoring at the Barcelona climate talks underway this week in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate treaty summit to be held in mid-December.

As I've pointed out in previous posts, the most egregious spin has been the attempts by politicians to re-frame a successful outcome in Copenhagen as being a "politically binding" deal as opposed to a "legally binding" one.

"Politically binding" is great Luntz-speak. The term looks impressive, but is completely meaningless.

So WWFLD?My guess is that his communications memo would look something like this:

MEMO: Copenhagen Agreement “legally binding” language recommendation

Situational Analysis:

There is heavy pressure on the United States and other countries like the EU, Denmark, Canada and Australia to deliver a “legally binding” agreement at the upcoming UNFCCC summit in Copenhagen, Denmark scheduled for mid-December.

Many developed nations are not in a position to deliver a legally binding deal due to various reasons. At the same time there is great pressure being put on politicians by civil society, grassroots organizations and environmental groups for there to be a successful outcome at the Copenhagen meeting.

In order to consolidate the opposing goals of a “legally binding” and the need for the public to perceive a successful outcome in Copenhagen, I would recommend reframing the definition of what is considered a success. To do this, political leaders must shift the perception of success as being a “politically binding deal as a opposed to a “legally binding” one.

Key Messages:

We are committed to seeing a successful outcome in Copenhagen that is politically binding.

We are working towards a deal with a strong commitment by all nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal Industry Coloring Book Spins "Clean Coal" for Kids

Kevin Grandia — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:08:49 PST

Someone just sent one of the most ridiculous pieces of propaganda the coal lobby has produced to date.

Put out by the West Virginia Coal Association and their Friends of Coal front group, the "Let's Learn About Coal" coloring book, pretty much speaks for itself:

This coloring book is just dying to be edited and mashed, so fire up your photoshop and the best three "new versions" of this get a free copy of our new book Climate Cover Up.

You can download a full copy of the coloring book here: "Let's Learn About Coal."

Attachment	Size
LetsLearnAboutCoal.pdf	1.07 MB

Who is the Bernie Madoff of Climate Change?

Kevin Grandia — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:39:11 PST

madoff.jpg

DeSmog co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore have been taking to the airwaves regularly over the last few weeks to tackle recent news stories and promote Climate Cover-Up.

On Monday, Jim was interviewed by Josepha Planta of www.thecommentary.ca – you can listen to the interview here.

On Tuesday, Jim and Richard were featured on Thom Hartmann’s Midday show on WYPR – one of the most listened-to progressive talk shows in America. Also featured during the same show was notorious (and widely discredited) climate denier Fred Singer. Singer’s argument of the day, as far as we could tell, was that the fact that it was a nice day meant climate change was not real.

Dr. Cindy Parker, Co-Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was another guest. She put the perspective of real, credible, and up-to-date climate scientists well:

“I am uncomfortable with the fact that radio talk shows such as this continue to give Dr. Singer airtime to present his views as if they were science and as if there was still some scientific debate…because there isn’t any scientific debate. 2500 scientists from around the world versus Dr. Fred Singer – that’s not a reasonable debate.”

As Jim put it “Asking Fred Singer for advice on climate change is like asking Bernie Madoff to manage your money.” Touché.

You can listen to that show in full here.

A politically binding climate change agreement is great... if you're a politician

Kevin Grandia — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:41:23 PST

iStock_000008908938XSmall.jpg

The biggest news coming out of the Barcelona climate talks being held this week is the re-framing of a successful climate change treaty as being one that is "politically binding" as opposed to "legally binding."

With all the long hours I've been putting into to covering these climate talks, I'm sure my wife is wishing our marriage was a politically binding agreement, as opposed to a legal one.

This double-speak-aganza started earlier this week with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen telling Reuters that, "it is a challenge for every single industrialised country in the world to deal with the climate change issue and that's why we are working very strongly to reach a politically binding agreement in Copenhagen..."

President Rasmussen said he was optimistic that a politically binding deal could be reached in Copenhagen. No kidding he's optimistic. Who wouldn't sign on the dotted line to an agreement that has absolutely no ramifications if the terms are not met?

Politicians invented the art of making promises they can't keep and now we're expected to bank on their promise to deal with the most pressing environmental challenge the world has ever seen. Call me cynical, but I think I'll be stocking up on sand bags and sunscreen tomorrow.

The spin continued with, of all people, the head of United Nation's climate treaty process, Yvo de Boer, saying, ""It is absolutely clear that Copenhagen must deliver a strong political agreement and nail down the essentials."

Then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon echoed de Boer. saying "several key countries were not ready to sign up to binding targets and that the best the world could hope for from the summit would be 'political commitments.'"

All this "politically binding" talk is great if you're a government official who is looking for a way to pretend that the last two years of climate treaty talks have amounted to something more than an impressive sounding document that has no teeth.

"Politically binding" is even better if you're a politician looking for a way to appear like you're committed to resolving the issue of climate change, without having to actually commit to doing anything you cannot weasel your way out of later. Watch more countries jump on this do-nothing train in short order.

Maybe while they're at it they could change highway speed laws from legally to politically binding. It would save me a ton in speeding tickets.

Groups Impersonated by Big Coal Testify Before Congress

Mitchell Anderson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:11:53 PST

bonner-logo.jpg

DeSmogBlog spoke this week to one of several groups impersonated by Big Coal to block the Waxman Markey Bill, and they are not happy.

Lisa Maatz, director of public policy and government relations for the American Association of University Women (AAUW) had just finished testifying before a Congressional hearing in the fraudulent letter scam:

“It was very clear to me that this was specifically targeting certain members using the names of reputable groups because those groups could be influential with those members, and it wasn’t just a fluke, it wasn’t just an accident.”

No doubt. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal industry umbrella group, is on track to spend an incredible $44 million on lobbying efforts in 2009. This includes almost $3 million dedicated to “outreach to individuals and groups representing the interests of minorities, seniors, business, and veterans.”

Bonner and Associates sent out numerous forged letters misrepresenting just such grassroots groups. In the case of the now-closed AAUW Charlottesville office, Bonner used the personal address of the former chapter president and the name of the late and well-loved AAUW historian Anne Waldner.

Maatz wonders: “How did they come up with that name? Clearly some work was done to find something that would feel on the surface as legitimate.”

Maatz also said she hopes that legal charges will be pursued to discourage this kind of corporate deception. “Quite frankly the AAUW hopes the Attorney General will starting looking into this with an investigation to see there is the possibility of criminal charges being involved”

Maatz also believes the incident presents an opportunity, and an argument, to pass legislation making such deceptive Astroturf practices illegal.

“I would like to see the Department of Justice take a hard look at this. I can’t imagine that this is the first time that forged letters have been sent to Congress, given the volume of mail that they get. This is probably just the first time they were caught. We need to look into what happened, why it happened and what kind of solution we want to propose to try and forcefully discourage it in the future.”

Perhaps the difference between Astroturf and real grassroots is best summed up by one the 100,000 real life members of the AAUW when she learned that Big Coal was impersonating their good name:

“As a former President of the Charlottesville AAUW Branch, I was shocked to learn from Gwen Dent, our last President, that the cited letter used her home address without her permission and cited the name of our dear lamented longtime historian, Anne Waldner, who died before the ‘cap and trade‘ issue ever came up. So, not only were Bonner and Associates engaging brazenly in theft of the AAUW logo, their theft of address and identity was grossly insulting.”

SuperFreaks: Smart, arrogant, ill-informed

Richard Littlemore — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:52:08 PST

super_freakonomics.JPG

At the risk of piling on, we'd like to add our voice to those who are disappointed by the clumsy unprofessionalism of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's new book, SuperFreakonomics - at least in regard to its handling of climate change.

Assuming that Levitt and Dubner's foray into disinformation was accidental rather than intentional, I would speculate that there are two reasons why the authors bungled this section. First, they made a popular assumption that because someone is smart about one thing, they are smart about everything. Second, they were happy to get their information from people who were basing their opinions more on their world view than on the careful calculations of actual science.

If you are interested in the specific factual weaknesses in SuperFreakonomics, you can get a long version from Joe Romm at RealProgress or a shorter, but equally devastating dissection from Tim Lambert at Deltoid. (I especially like the clarity of Tim's headline: "Why Everything in SuperFreakonomics about Global Warming is Wrong.")

For the defensive, but ultimately unconvincing response from Dubner, you can check out the SuperFreakonomics blog on the New York Times site.

But let's look at the smart guys. Levitt and Dubner went for their climate change lesson to Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft software architect about whom Bill Gates us reported to have said, "I don't know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan." Pretty impressive.

Myhrvold's mentor is the "spectacularly talkative astrophysicist" Lowell Wood, of whom Levitt and Dubner report: "Myhrvold thinks Wood is one of the smartest men in the universe." Fabulous.

L&D continue, "Off the top of his head, Wood seems to know quite a bit about practically anything: the melt rate of Greenland's ice core (80 cubic kilometers per year); the percentage of unsanctioned Chinese power plants that went online in the previous year (about 20 per cent); the number of times metastatic cancer cells travel through the bloodstream before they land ("as many as a million")."

Here we start running into the real trouble. First, just because someone is good at Trivial Pursuit doesn't mean they'll be a reliable scientist, especially if they presume to work in fields outside their area of expertise. Second, having a confident grasp of interesting bits of science is so much more impressive when what you are saying is actually correct.

I don't know much about metastatic cancer or unlicensed Chinese power plants, but according to the latest paper in Geophysical Research Letters, the melt rate of ice in Greenland's core has risen from 137 cubic kilometres in 2002-2003 to 286 cubic kilometres - per year - in 2007-2009. Wood is either no longer good with numbers (he's 65; it happens to us all), or he's a decade or more out of date. Either way, he's just not that credible.

This, however, doesn't stop him from offering enthusiastic answers to a bunch of other questions on which his knowledge seems, at best, shaky and, at worst, agenda-driven to the point of dishonesty. For example, when condemning the entire community of climate modellers, he says that they dishonestly manipulate their results in order to increase their chances to get research funding. ("Everybody turns their knobs" - that is, adjusts the control parameters and coefficients of their models - "so they aren't the outlier, becuase the outlying model is going to have difficulty getting funded.") If he has evidence of this, he should report it. If not, he should apologize.

This is a favourite denier talking point, as are some of Wood's other bromides like the alleged scientific failure to take water vapour into account. It's the kind of blather that superannuated old contrarians (stand up Feeman Dyson) spout in order to entertain themselves at dinner - in which context this could all be interesting and fun. But Levitt and Dubner, without working quite hard enough to check the facts, offer it all up as worthy material on which to rest international policy. Not.

For anyone interested in reading more about Wood and his longstanding enthusiasm for geoengineering, there is a great Rolling Stone piece by Jeff Goodell (I presume the same Jeff Goodell who wrote the excellent book, Big Coal). It turns out that Wood is a proud Cold Warrior, one of the "brains" behind Rongal Reagan's failed - but so interesting - Star Wars plan. It turns out that Wood has been wanting to loft dangerous things into the stratosphere for a long time.

For anyone interested in reading more about climate change, there are many credible sources - scientists who actuall study in the field or, perhaps even better, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body whose Nobel prize winning work is also sometimes out of date, but never quite so dramatically as Lowell Wood's.

As for the Freakonomics guys, I loved their first book and I suspect, now that I have finished with the flawed fifth chapter of this one that I will enjoy the rest. Unfortunately, given the casual sloppiness of Chapter 5, I just won't be able to take much of it very seriously.

Barcelona Climate Talks: US Congress, Science and International Treaties

Kevin Grandia — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:23:50 PST

unfccc barcelona.jpg

I'm in Barcelona, Spain for the last round of climate negotiations prior to the big show set for mid-December in Copenhagen. I just touched down, so pardon any poor grammar, I'm a little bleary eyed at the moment.

The goal of the Barcelona meeting is to whittle down the final document that will be presented to leaders at the Copenhagen international climate summit. This document will ultimately become an international treaty that will be the road map for worldwide greenhouse gas emission cuts over the coming decade.

The Barcelona meeting is also a time for political brinkmanship between nations to begin. First out the gate this morning was Yvo de Boer, the man in charge of the entire United Nations treaty negotiation process, who had choice words for the United States.

"We need a clear target from the United States in Copenhagen," said de Boer. "That is an essential component of the puzzle."

De Boer's words were chosen carefully, as most are in such negotiations. By singling out the United States he is setting the tone for the week.

This isn't surprising given that it is still unclear what the US is willing to commit to - either domestically with their clean energy bill currently making its way through the US Senate, or internationally with the US negotiating team continuing to waffle on the important issues of financial support for developing nations, and a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Lofty rhetoric and no details is the name of the game for the US negotiating team.

You can't blame the US negotiators here in Barcelona though, they are only the government servants acting on the wishes of their political masters. Their most imposing master being the US Congress. As de Boer pointed out today in his press conference, there is no sense in the US committing to a climate deal that is unacceptable to Congress. This will only result in another Kyoto Protocol-like situation where the US signs a deal on the world stage only to have it vetoed back home.

To add a further twist, there's really no point in world leaders signing a treaty that does meet the greenhouse gas emission targets that scientists are telling us we need to meet, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 40% reduction by 2020 based on 1990 levels. There's been no indication to this point that the US is willing to do this.

I'll hold my breath a little longer in the hopes of seeing the framework for a strong deal to come out of the negotiations here in Barcelona this week. But historically there's only one thing Congress dislikes more than science and that's international treaties.