Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Climate Science is not Settled.


Sept. 19, 2014
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

The science is settled. It's been settled for a long time. Perhaps you should look up the science from a science publication and not some op-ed from the wall street journal. They may know lot's about wall street but they don't know shyte about science. How can I prove that the science is settled? Easy look at the science papers that are published about climate change and see what they say. I don't have time to go through over 10 thousand papers and add them up but there is one that took the time to do such a thing. Lets see what they said......

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Cook et al 2013
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Abstract
<!-- Start of Brightcove Player -->
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

A link to the video that explains the study...
[video]http://bcove.me/c1li8rcl

It's clear how science lines up on this and to claim other wise is not being truthful.
 
OBD perhaps a balance debate is in order.

[cjuGCJJUGsg] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
 
You just carry on keeping that mind closed.
Man is not even close to know how to forcast what is going to happen in the future.
They are still trying to figure out how the oceans, clouds, sun.etc. effect the earth.
They cannot project out 6 months let alone 50 years.
All that wonderfull stuff that the WARMERS have put put like Al GORE sure do not seem to be happening like they said.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Guess not.
 
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.
No it's not.... More bull shyte from your wall street journal..
Here is a piece that explains what is going on.


WSJ's Noxious Climate Coverage Surrounding Historic March
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/22/wsjs-noxious-climate-coverage-surrounding-histo/200842

The Wall Street Journal sandwiched their coverage of the largest climate change march in history between commentaries that cast doubt on global warming and the need for action, fulfilling the newspaper's trend of pushing harmful rhetoric against international climate negotiations.
On September 21, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the People's Climate March to raise awareness about the need for climate action. The New York City march, which was "by far the largest climate-related protest in history," received front page attention nationally and around the globe:
frontpages.png


But the Wall Street Journal, headquartered a few blocks from the march, did not include their story on the action on the front page -- it was buried in the local section. Moreover, the paper criticized the march and cast doubt on the state of climate science, providing ammunition for critics to argue against climate action in the days ahead.
The day before the march, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed headlined "Climate Science Is Not Settled," which cast doubt on the influence of human activities on global warming and argued for more debate about climate science's "uncertainties." Steven Koonin, former chief scientist of BP, claimed that the "climate has always changed and always will" to downplay the influence of human activities on climate change -- a favorite Fox talking point that is as inherently misleading as asserting that just because people have died naturally they can't be murdered.
The op-ed's flaws were broken down in a lengthy post from Climate Nexus. They explained that Koonin's extensive discussion about uncertainty ignores what those uncertainties actually entail, writing that the range of uncertainties will result in outcomes "from bad to worse." The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli expanded that even the best case scenario will result in severe impacts, including "widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, up to 30% of global species at risk for extinction, and declined global food production."
Moreover, Koonin's assertion that the "impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself" is false, according to Nuccitelli, as scientists have determined that human impacts have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950.
Many experts say that the "uncertainties" around climate science are not an excuse for inaction, but rather should be looked at with a risk management perspective -- an apt description, as many top insurance companies are incorporating climate change into their long-term strategies and calling for climate action. Koonin himself admitted this, but only after discussing uncertainties for the bulk of the piece. According to a study from the University of Oxford, focusing on what uncertainties remain on the basic premise of manmade global warming -- as Koonin did -- can denigrate public understanding of climate science and the need for action.
Climate Nexus and Nuccitelli both noted that Koonin's op-ed was (for the most part) technically accurate, but that his framing would lead readers to reach inaccurate conclusions. They were right: the op-ed was picked up the next day by conservative news site Newsmax.com, which asserted that Koonin's op-ed "strikes a blow against climate change activists." And the National Review Online cited it as a "pathbreaking piece" in an article claiming that the scientific consensus on climate change is "crumbling" and equating acceptance of climate change to "hysteria."
The United Nations is holding a climate summit this week in New York City -- the core reason for Sunday's climate march. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in a keynote address that the summit will set the agenda for international negotiations later this year, which many are hoping will result in a global agreement to take action on climate change. But the Wall Street Journal treated the summit with cynicism in an editorial which, like Koonin's op-ed, cast doubt on climate science. The editorial board doubted any agreement from the climate summit would be effective, and wrote that "the climate lobby should return to the climate science and explain the hiatus that has now lasted for 16, 19, or 26 years" -- even though the supposed "hiatus" has been explained again and again.
The Wall Street Journal previously sowed doubt on the landmark international reports that form the groundwork for the U.N.'s climate negotiations. The paper has a history of downplaying environmental threats to bolster their decades-long campaign against environmental regulations. As Nuccitelli put it, the longer the Journal and others advocate against climate action, the worse it will be:
The bottom line is that while there are and always will be uncertainties in climate science that require further research, it's already been several decades since we've understood climate change well enough to justify taking serious action to solve the problem. The longer we wait, the costlier those actions become, and the worse the impacts of human-caused global warming will be. The hundreds of thousands of people who marched yesterday understand that, but the Murdoch media hasn't caught up yet.

 
Yup, warmers at it again.
 
You just carry on keeping that mind closed.
Man is not even close to know how to forcast what is going to happen in the future.
They are still trying to figure out how the oceans, clouds, sun.etc. effect the earth.
They cannot project out 6 months let alone 50 years.
All that wonderfull stuff that the WARMERS have put put like Al GORE sure do not seem to be happening like they said.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Guess not.

Well matter of fact I do have a closed mind when it come to such things.

We did land a man on the moon and we did it more then once.
The world is round not flat as some would like us to believe.
The earth orbits the sun and not the other way around.
JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald not some guy on a grassy noel.
Elvis is dead and has not been seen at your local Wal-Mart.
The pyramids were built by Egyptians not little green men from space.

Did I miss any????

Yes man can predict the future......
It's called physics.
If a person were to climb to the top of tall building and jump off the roof.
I predict that it's not going to turn out well for them.
 
OMG, man can predect the future..
You and Al Gore .
 
Man can tell the future.
LOL.




National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later
Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014
Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.


The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”. By 2011 we can read “Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.” In October 2007 Mr Justice Burton of the UK High Court ruled, for the purpose of teaching, against unqualified use of this passage summarised from the Gore book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Mr Gore’s assertion was that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus that it cannot be established that the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed.

3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19 This estimate was conventional wisdom until the specialist satellite era, when measurement technology improved. As the NOAA figure shows, Jason 1 (data from 2002) and Jason 2 (2009) have complicated the story, with data showing ocean levels falling at times. The Jason instruments were specifically designed for ocean level measurement. More time is needed before the modern estimate of ocean change can be calculated. It is noted that Ocean Heat Content, OHC, a cause of ocean level change, has barely changed since measurements became acceptable through an increase in the number of Argo buoys in year 2002 or so.

And so it goes, as listed below. The following abbreviated quotes from NatGeo 2004 need examination in the light of accumulated knowledge. Note that peer-review, having been repeatedly found wanting in the years before 2012, is not a requirement for commentary, though it can be desirable. In several important ways, such as immediacy, the modern blog world has adequate accurate commentary, to allow suggested revisions or retractions of the quotes below.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
4. “But the recent rate of global sea level rise has departed from the average rate of the past two to three thousand years and is rising much more rapidly – a continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes…” P.19
5. “Even relatively small storm surges in the past two decades have overwhelmed the system of dikes, levees and pump stations … upgraded in the 1990s to forestall the Gulf of Mexico’s relentless creep.” P.19
6. “Vulnerable to sea-level rise, Tuvalu, a small country in the South Pacific, has already begun formulating evacuation plans.” P.19
7. “The scenarios are disturbing even in wealthy countries like the Netherlands, with nearly half its landmass already at or below sea level.” P.19
8. “The 20th Century has seen the greatest warming in at least a thousand years, and natural forces can’t account for it all.” P.20
9. “Both greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to continue rising.” P.20
10. “Thick smoke towers over a forest near Fairbanks, one more sign that Alaska is getting hotter…. Computer models predict that CO2-induced warming could eventually raise the incidence of fires by more than a half.” P.25
11. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to break up, which scientists consider very unlikely this century, it alone contains enough ice to raise sea level by nearly 20 feet.” P.27
12. “Ocean temperatures are rising in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought (NOAA)” P.27
13. “Oceans are important sinks …. and take up about a third of human-generated CO2.” P.28
14. “ … three greenhouse gases … orchestrating an intricate dance between the radiation of heat from Earth back to space (cooling the planet) and the absorption of radiation in the atmosphere (trapping it near the surface and this warming the planet).” P.29
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
16. “Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now, all these impacts have been documented in Alaska.” P.33
17. “The Fleishmann’s glass frog is barely hanging on …. As Earth’s temperatures rise, scientists are exploring climate’s role in a worldwide amphibian decline.” P.34
18. “Alpine plants are edging uphill and beginning to overrun rare species near mountain summits.” P.41
19. “This is the first instance in which humans appear to be accelerating the change, and warming could take place so quickly that species will not have the time to adapt and avoid extinction.” P.41
20. “At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no more room to run”. P.41
21. “Coral necropolis …. Increasingly the planet’s coral is in hot water, parboiled in periods of calm, sunny weather … In 1998 the world’s coral suffered its worst year on record, which left 16% bleached or dead.” P.41
22. Re: turtle breeding “Storms amplify the trend (to more females) shearing away trees that provide cooling shade to nests on beaches. ‘Severe weather events … really knock the socks off in favour of the females’.” P.47
…………………………………………………….
Fast forward to page 73 because there are enough quotes already, to find –
23. “A warming world will harm some – and benefit others. Home heating costs will likely fall in New England … The prospects are grim for drought-plagued Ethiopian children, who could see rainfall decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Widespread poverty and dependence on subsistence agriculture make Africans the most vulnerable to climate change.” P.73.

There are a couple of boxed headers along the way. Two are

24. “IT’S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM; IT’S AN OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.” P.33.
25. Then “WE’LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE ACTUAL CHANGES IN 30 YEARS. BUT IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NatGeo has apologised for some past errors. The July 2004 edition had some images of hunters with tusks captioned to be from a dead elephant found in the bush. Trouble was, the tusks had numbers on them showing capture several years before in another country. Earlier, there was the apology and subsequent stronger rules when an altered image of the Pyramids of Egypt was printed on the NatGeo cover of Feb 1982. That lead to a statement of NatGeo rules for altered images.
 
Man can tell the future.
and this as your open mind proof

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”.
LOL.

Kilimanjaro - 1912
kili1912.jpg



Kilimanjaro-1938
Kilimanjaro-1938-uwm.png



1993 to 2000
Kilimanjaro_glacier_retreat.jpg


Furtwängler Glacier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furtwängler_Glacier

The Furtwängler Glacier is located near the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Furtwängler Glacier is a small remnant of an enormous icecap which once crowned the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro. This icecap has retreated significantly over the past century; between 1912 and 2000, 82 percent of the glacial ice on the mountain has disappeared.[SUP][1][/SUP] The retreat of glacial ice on the summit is expected to continue and by the year 2020, all the glaciers on top of the mountain may be gone,[SUP][2][/SUP] although seasonal snows will continue to cover the higher sections of the mountain for several months of the year. The glacier is named after Walter Furtwängler, who along with Siegfried König, were the fourth to ascend to the summit of Kilimanjaro in 1912.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Between measurements in 1976 and 2000, the area of Furtwängler Glacier was cut almost in half, from 113,000 m[SUP]2[/SUP] to 60,000 m[SUP]2[/SUP].[SUP][4][/SUP] During fieldwork conducted early in 2006, scientists discovered a large hole near the center of the glacier. This hole, extending through the 6 meters (20 feet) remaining thickness of the glacier to the underlying rock, was expected to grow and split the glacier in two by 2007.[SUP][1][/SUP]

NASA image from 2004 with locations of major glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro. Areas not identified are generally small remnant glaciers or snowfields. Click on image for detail.


The 2006 study found that no new glacial ice has accumulated on any of the glaciers on the mountain in the 21st century. This may mark the termination of a unique 11,700 year record of climate variability in Africa. Only ice cores previously obtained and preserved in the freezers of the laboratories of glaciologists will remain.
A 2010 study, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change, has suggested that glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro has also been influenced by deforestation on the mountain's lower slopes, by reducing the flow of moisture up the mountainside.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The demise of the Furtwängler Glacier, and the other remaining Kilimanjaro glaciers, may reduce tourism because the novelty of glacier ice in proximity to the equator is one of the attractions of the area. Even more immediate is the potential adverse impact on the availability of fresh water from springs and wells that are partially supplied by glacier melt. An investigation of the fraction of fresh water supplied by this source was undertaken in 2006 by Ohio State University.[SUP][1]

KilimanjaroDP.jpg

[/SUP]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMG, man can predect the future..
You and Al Gore .

Please ... I wish I was half the man he is...
I don't agree with his politics but a least he is trying to do something.
Not like his counter part VP- of enhanced interrogation (waterboard) and his boss that since his retirement he brings to the world his painting of puppies.

You team is just so sad..... You got nothing but op-ed's on rags, no science.
 
When your team tries the science here is what it amounts to.
Like I said ... so sad.

[Py2XVILHUjQ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
 
Let's have a look at rags vers science

[lH5D9P6KYfY] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ&index=6
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I was heartland I would ask for my money back.......
http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=16
By January 2013, my savings were drawn down to a critical level. The Heartland Institute, a prominent supporter of skeptical climate scientists (and consequently a major target of global warming advocates as well) generously offered me a $12,000 strings-free grant to enable me to continue devoting time to this subject. I have carte blanche to write whatever I wish to write, whenever I wish to write it, without any direction from Heartland, its donors, or anyone else.

I read his "report" and to be frank.... he seems to be off his rocker.
I'm not going to tear his "report" apart one line at a time as that's just a waste of my time.
Lets' just look at page one and his first claim.....

No one has ever offered an iota of evidence of a
quid pro quo arrangement among industry officials
and skeptic scientists, despite legions
of people repeating the claim.

Back at post # 424 you quoted this...
Guest opinion by Dr. Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I posted up the info on the "Lord" but I didn't post up anything on Dr. Willie Soon
Would he be on of those skeptic scientists that there is no evidence being bought and paid for?
Lets do a little research and see what the internet says.
Or as I like to say... follow the money...

Interesting what's this youtube on Dr Soon
[HfnK5SgxrXo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnK5SgxrXo

How can that be, your guy say's he researched and found no evidence. .......
I used Google and in 5 minutes and found this......
And that led me to this....

[TABLE="width: 595, align: center"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Funder[/TD]
[TD]Grant Description from source[/TD]
[TD]Grant Year(s)[/TD]
[TD]Grant Amount[/TD]
[TD]Source[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Electric Power Research Institute[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1994-1999[/TD]
[TD]??[/TD]
[TD]Soon published papers[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1994-1997[/TD]
[TD]??[/TD]
[TD]Soon published papers[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mobil Foundation[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1995-1997[/TD]
[TD]??[/TD]
[TD]Soon published papers[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Texaco Foundation[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1996[/TD]
[TD]??[/TD]
[TD]Soon published papers[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD]Sun's impact on climate over the last 1000 years[/TD]
[TD]2001, 2002[/TD]
[TD]$58,380[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD]1000 years of solar variability[/TD]
[TD]2003[/TD]
[TD]$60,053[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD]The 11-22 year climate responses[/TD]
[TD]2004, 2005[/TD]
[TD]$50,178[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ExxonMobil Foundation[/TD]
[TD]listed by Exxon as a grant to SAO[/TD]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]$105,000[/TD]
[TD]ExxonMobil Worldwide Giving Report 2005[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charles G. Koch Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Koch/Mobile Charitable foundation[/TD]
[TD]2005, 2006[/TD]
[TD]$110,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD]Understanding Arctic Climate Change[/TD]
[TD]2005, 2006[/TD]
[TD]$50,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ExxonMobil Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Listed by Exxon as "project support" to SAO.[/TD]
[TD]2006[/TD]
[TD]$105,000[/TD]
[TD]ExxonMobil Worldwide Giving Report 2006[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Southern Company[/TD]
[TD]Understanding Arctic Climate Change[/TD]
[TD]2006, 2007[/TD]
[TD]$110,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Petroleum Institute[/TD]
[TD]The solar influence of arctic climate change[/TD]
[TD]2006, 2007[/TD]
[TD]$55,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ExxonMobil Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Exxon-Arctic climate change[/TD]
[TD]2007, 2008[/TD]
[TD]$55,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA/Exxon Giving Report[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ExxonMobil Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Exxon-soon solar variability[/TD]
[TD]2008-2010[/TD]
[TD]$70,106[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA/Exxon Giving Report[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Free to Choose[/TD]
[TD]The sun's influence on climate change[/TD]
[TD]2008[/TD]
[TD]$19,383[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Southern Company[/TD]
[TD]Solar variability and Climate Change signals from temperature[/TD]
[TD]2008, 2009[/TD]
[TD]$120,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charles G. Koch Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Understanding solar variability and climate change[/TD]
[TD]2010[/TD]
[TD]$65,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Southern Company[/TD]
[TD] Understanding solar radiation and climate change[/TD]
[TD] 2011[/TD]
[TD]$60,003[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charles G. Koch Foundation[/TD]
[TD]Understanding solar radiation and climate change[/TD]
[TD]2010-2012[/TD]
[TD]$55,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Donors Trust[/TD]
[TD]Understanding solar radiation and climate change[/TD]
[TD]2011[/TD]
[TD]$50,000[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Southern Company[/TD]
[TD]Understanding solar radiation and climate change[/TD]
[TD]2011-2012[/TD]
[TD]$59,942[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Donors Trust[/TD]
[TD]Understanding solar radiation and climate change[/TD]
[TD]2011-2012[/TD]
[TD]$64,935[/TD]
[TD]Smithsonian FOIA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOTAL[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2001-2012[/TD]
[TD]$1,322,980[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/#sourcedocs

1.3 million bought and paid for by .... your side...

I'm no fan of green peace so lets check their claim.....
Here is the links to the "freedom of information act" documents.

Smithsonian Institution
Office ofGeneral Counsel

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: kert.davies@greenpeace.org
February 26, 2013

Mr. Kert Davies
Greenpeace

702 Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Your Request for Smithsonian Records (request number 39314)
Dear Mr. Davies:

This responds to your e--mail dated and received in this Office on February 12, 2013 in which
you requested "grant records for Dr. Willie Soon [ofthe Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
from June 2012 through February 2013." During our phone conversation that same
afternoon, you clarified that you were seeking a table listing the grants Dr. Soon had received
during the specified time period. The Smithsonian responds to requests for records in
accordance with Smithsonian Directive 807 - Requests for Smithsonian Institution Information
(SD 807) and applies a presumption ofdisclosure when processing such requests. SD 807 does
not require that we perform research for requesters, answer written questions, or create a record
in response to a request. The policy is posted on our website at

In an effort ofbe ofassistance, SAO compiled the enclosed list ofgrants received by Dr. Soon
from June 2012 through January 2013, which includes the most recent information.

This concludes the Smithsonian's response to your request.
Sincerely,


Jessica Sanet
Assistant General Counsel
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/603297-willie-soon-foia-response-grants-08-08-2012.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/682765-willie-soon-foia-grants-chart-02-08-2011.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/603297-willie-soon-foia-response-grants-08-08-2012.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/yve...es-prompt-civil-liberties-complaint-1.2780666


Yves Fortier's oil patch ties prompt civil liberties complaint

Yves Fortier sat on board of company behind Keystone pipeline

A civil liberties group is objecting to Canada's spy watchdog assigning Yves Fortier to investigate alleged spying on environmental activists, citing a conflict due to his former petroleum industry ties. (Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press)

A civil liberties group is objecting to Canada's spy watchdog assigning Yves Fortier to investigate alleged spying on environmental activists, citing a conflict due to his former petroleum industry ties.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association's lawyer has written to the Security Intelligence Review Committee asking that Fortier "recuse himself from any participation" in the matter since he once sat on the board of TransCanada Pipelines — the company behind the Keystone XL project.
■U.S. to delay Keystone pipeline decision
■CBC Calgary holds Keystone pipeline town hall
■TransCanada targetted by U.S. activist hedge funds

Fortier, one of three review committee members, was recently appointed to lead an investigation into the association's complaint that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service gathered and shared information about activists opposed to Canada's energy policies.

The association filed the complaint with the review committee in February after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies consider protests and opposition to the petroleum industry as possible threats to national security.

Groups are not 'criminal organizations'

The complaint also cited reports that CSIS had worked with and shared information with the National Energy Board about so-called "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board's hearings on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project, which would see Alberta crude flow to westward to Kitimat, B.C.
■Alleged CSIS, RCMP spying on Northern Gateway pipeline protesters

The groups included Leadnow, ForestEthics Advocacy Association, the Council of Canadians, the Dogwood Initiative, EcoSociety, the Sierra Club of British Columbia and Idle No More, the indigenous rights movement.

"None of these groups are criminal organizations, nor do they have any history of advocating, encouraging, or participating in criminal activity," says the Feb. 6 complaint.

Pipeline boreal forest
The controversial Keystone project will have pipelines linking Canada's oil sands region to Texas refiners. (Todd Korol/Reuters)

The CSIS Act is clear that "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent" cannot be regarded as threats to national security, the complaint adds.

Former cabinet minister Chuck Strahl stepped down as chairman of the review committee earlier this year after it was revealed he had registered as a lobbyist on behalf of Enbridge's Northern Gateway project.

The complaint says while Strahl "had done the right thing," remaining review committee members with current or past ties to the petroleum industry — namely Fortier and Denis Losier, who sat on the board of Enbridge NB — should not be involved in the matter. (Losier has since left the committee.)

Appearance of bias

Paul Champ, a lawyer for the civil liberties association, says a copy of the complaint was sent to CSIS director Michel Coulombe but no reply was received.

Earlier this month, the review committee informed Champ that Fortier had been assigned to the complaint.

Fortier, an accomplished lawyer and former ambassador to the United Nations, has served as a director for many Canadian corporations. He was appointed to the review committee in August 2013.

'This is a highly serious complaint and should be handled in a manner that is in every way beyond reproach.'- Letter from the BCCLA

Fortier's assignment to the civil liberties association's complaint prompted a Sept. 25 letter from Champ to the committee reiterating the B.C. group's position that despite Fortier's "exemplary reputation," his involvement creates an appearance of bias.

"Indeed, he is clearly a Canadian of extraordinary accomplishment and rectitude who has made significant contributions to Canada," the letter says.

"Still, the BCCLA submits that this is a highly serious complaint and should be handled in a manner that is in every way beyond reproach, with justice not only done, but seen to be done."

Josh Paterson, executive director of the civil liberties association, said he hopes the review committee "will consider it very carefully, and that Mr. Fortier might decide to step back from this one."

The review committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Aside from Fortier, the other current review committee members are Gene McLean, a private security specialist, and Deborah Grey, a former MP who is serving as interim chairwoman.


© The Canadian Press, 2014
 
Tue, 2014-09-23 11:54Carol Linnitt
Carol Linnitt's picture
.

Critics Call Harper Government’s New Climate PR Campaign ‘Orwellian’
environment canada, climate change, pr campaign

Facing criticism in the lead up to today’s UN Climate Summit, which prime minister Stephen Harper is not attending, the Harper Government released a new public outreach campaign through Environment Canada, praising the country’s action on climate change.

The campaign points to four pillars of Canada’s climate progress including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, investing in climate adaptation, “world-class scientific research to inform decision-making,” and international leadership in climate action.

Already critics are pointing to the apparent disparity between the Environment Canada campaign and Canada’s waning reputation on the international stage for its climate obstruction, the muzzling of scientists, the elimination of environmental legislation and massive cuts to federal research and science programs.

“Reading the Harper government’s claims about its climate efforts is like reading one of Orwell’s books,” Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environment Management, said.

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

“Eliminating policy is to implement policy. Blocking and abandoning global negotiations is to lead global negotiations. Muzzling scientists is to have science inform decision-making. Working hard to increase carbon pollution is to decrease it. Black is white. Dishonesty is truth.”

Jaccard told DeSmog Canada, “We can no longer say that we are unsure what meaningful action on climate would look like.” Provinces across the country could follow Quebec’s lead and join California’s cap-and-trade system, he said, which would increase the effectiveness of the whole system, “making it much harder for some U.S. politicians to continue to present this as an economy killer.”

Recently prime minister Stephen Harper publicly criticized a polluter pay solution to growing emissions, saying no country would undertake climate action that might harm the economy. Onlookers were quick to critique Harper’s economy versus environment framing, an outmoded way of viewing the transition to clean energy, a growing sector of the global economy.

Katie Gibbs, co-founder of the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, told DeSmog the Harper government’s cuts to science positions and research stations prevents the country from responding strongly to the challenge of climate change.

She said Environment Canada “has undergone many staff and funding cuts which means they simply don't have the research capacity that they used to.”

“This hurts the government's ability to make science-informed decisions on many environmental issues, including climate change,” she said.

Gibbs also pointed out that a special working group within Environment Canada that was tasked with working on oil and gas regulations with industry appears to have been disbanded in early 2013.

Similarly, the Harper government also disbanded the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), a government solutions think tank, after the body recommended the government implement carbon pricing.*

“Instead of listening to the experts at NRTEE, the government cut their funding,” Gibbs said.

“The government needs to listen to the experts: scientists, policy analysts and economists all agree that some form of carbon pricing is need to get our CO2 emissions down to safe levels.”

Despite Environment Canada’s claim that Canada is taking climate action, there are no binding emissions regulations for oil and gas development in the country. Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

“The government has been saying since 2011 that they were going to introduce regulations for oil and gas sectors but it hasn't happened yet,” Gibbs said.

Canada is one of the only major developed nations to have no climate legislation.

According to Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that likely has to do with the current government’s close ties to the oil and gas sector.

“Our current federal government confuses what is good for oil companies with what is good for Canada and so refuses to recognize all of the amazing opportunities that would be open to us if we started pushing action on climate change rather than desperately trying to hold it back,” he said.

“There are, however, some promising signs at the provincial level such as Ontario's coal phase out and Green Energy Act, B.C.'s carbon tax and Quebec's focus on electrification of transportation.”

But he adds, in order to take meaningful action on climate change, the current government may need to distance itself from industry influence.

A report by the Polaris Institute showed industry lobbyists met with the federal government 463 per cent more than environmental organizations between 2008 and 2012.

“Meaningful action on climate change requires kicking the oil industry lobbyists out of the backrooms so we can get on with finally putting a price on pollution and investing in green alternatives like great public transit, wind and solar power, and more efficient homes, offices and factories,” he said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the NRTEE proposed introducing a carbon tax. They called for carbon pricing.
 
More troubles for BC's big LNG plans

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/09/26/LNG-Troubles/

Malaysia's state-owned oil corporation Petronas may pull the plug on its $10-billion proposed liquefied natural gas project in Prince Rupert. Shamsul Abbas, the company's CEO, told the Financial Times of London last week that the future of the project remains uncertain due to international competition from advanced U.S. LNG projects, as well as B.C.'s modest proposed tax on LNG profits. "Rather than ensuring the development of the LNG industry through appropriate incentives and assurance of legal and fiscal stability, the Canadian landscape of LNG development is now one of uncertainty, delay and short vision," Abbas told the Times. He also accused the B.C. government, which has granted significant subsidies to the shale gas industry in terms of low royalties, infrastructure incentives, free water and free geoscience, of offering "a lack of appropriate incentives." But Rich Coleman, B.C.'s minister of Natural Gas Development, told the CBC that he's not worried because there's "good progress being made at the table." Petronas holds a 62 per cent share in the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG terminal. The project, which would also require a $5-billion pipeline, would industrialize Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. Ship activity could threaten salmon runs from the Skeena River. The terminal would cool and liquify shale gas piped from northeastern B.C. Another Petronas-owned company, Progress Energy, would drill and frack shale gas formations in Alberta and B.C. The B.C. government, which now collects barely $300 million a year in royalties from the shale gas industry, recently proposed a 1.5 per cent tax on LNG profits to be followed by a tax as high as seven per cent once projects have paid off their capital investments. The ill-defined tax, which has been repeatedly criticized by the industry and their lobbyists, would provide the owners of the resource, British Columbians, with less revenue than that now earned by Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Australia, and Oregon, according to an Ernst and Young study. Due to their escalating costs, technical complexity and market volatility, LNG projects are experiencing challenges around the world. Big corporations have cancelled several major projects in Australia, for instance. More than 14 LNG projects have been proposed for the province, but not one has made a final investment decision. Last July, U.S.-based Apache pulled out of the Kitimat LNG project due to pressure from investors concerned about the company's bottom line. A 2014 publication by the KPMG Global Energy Centre reported that "out of the last 12 LNG projects, 10 went over time and or budget -- many by 40 to 50 per cent." In addition, the Oxford Energy Institute reported that liquefaction unit costs for LNG (the gas must be chilled to be transported) have tripled or even quadrupled since 2000. - See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/09/26/LNG-Troubles/#sthash.cpk0meb7.dpuf

gas.PNG
 
Causes of California drought linked to climate change


Date:

September 29, 2014


Source:

Stanford University


Summary:


The extreme atmospheric conditions associated with California's crippling drought are far more likely to occur under today's global warming conditions than in the climate that existed before humans emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases, scientists say.



Share This

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Email to a friend
 Facebook
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
 Google+
 Print this page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Scientists agree that the immediate cause of the California drought is a particularly stubborn "blocking ridge" over the northeastern Pacific -- popularly known as the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, or "Triple R" -- that prevented winter storms from reaching California during the 2013 and 2014 rainy seasons.

Credit: Daniel Swain, Stanford School of Earth Sciences


[Click to enlarge image]






The extreme atmospheric conditions associated with California's crippling drought are far more likely to occur under today's global warming conditions than in the climate that existed before humans emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases.


Associate Professor Noah Diffenbaugh and graduate student Daniel Swain explain the 'ridiculously resilient ridge' and its role in the California drought.

The atmospheric conditions associated with the unprecedented drought currently afflicting California are "very likely" linked to human-caused climate change, Stanford scientists write in a new research paper.

In a new study, a team led by Stanford climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques to show that a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure hovering over the Pacific Ocean that diverted storms away from California was much more likely to form in the presence of modern greenhouse gas concentrations.

The research, published on Sept. 29 as a supplement to this month's issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is one of the most comprehensive studies to investigate the link between climate change and California's ongoing drought.

"Our research finds that extreme atmospheric high pressure in this region -- which is strongly linked to unusually low precipitation in California -- is much more likely to occur today than prior to the human emission of greenhouse gases that began during the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s," said Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

The exceptional drought currently crippling California is by some metrics the worst in state history. Combined with unusually warm temperatures and stagnant air conditions, the lack of precipitation has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and incidents of air pollution across the state. A recent report estimated that the water shortage would result in direct and indirect agricultural losses of at least $2.2 billion and lead to the loss of more than 17,000 seasonal and part-time jobs in 2014 alone. Such impacts prompted California Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a drought emergency and the federal government to designate all 58 California counties as "natural disaster areas."

Scientists agree that the immediate cause of the drought is a particularly stubborn "blocking ridge" over the northeastern Pacific -- popularly known as the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, or "Triple R" -- that prevented winter storms from reaching California during the 2013 and 2014 rainy seasons.

Blocking ridges are regions of high atmospheric pressure that disrupt typical wind patterns in the atmosphere. "Winds respond to the spatial distribution of atmospheric pressure," said Daniel Swain, a graduate student in Diffenbaugh's lab and lead author of the study. "We have seen this amazingly persistent region of high pressure over the northeastern Pacific for many months now, which has substantially altered atmospheric flow and kept California largely dry."

Blocking ridges occur periodically at temperate latitudes, but the Triple R was exceptional for both its size and longevity. While it dissipated briefly during the summer months of 2013, it returned even stronger by fall 2013 and persisted through much of the winter, which is normally California's wet season.

"At its peak in January 2014, the Triple R extended from the subtropical Pacific between California and Hawaii to the coast of the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska," said Swain, who coined the term "ridiculously resilient ridge" last fall to highlight the unusually persistent nature of the offshore blocking ridge.

Like a large boulder that has tumbled into a narrow stream, the Triple R diverted the flow of high-speed air currents known as the jet stream far to the north, causing Pacific storms to bypass not only California but also Oregon and Washington. As a result, rain and snow that would normally fall on the West Coast was instead re-routed to Alaska and as far north as the Arctic Circle.

An important question for scientists and decision-makers has been whether human-caused climate change has influenced the conditions responsible for California's drought. Given the important role of the Triple R, Diffenbaugh's team set out to measure the probability of such extreme ridging events.

The team first assessed the rarity of the Triple R in the context of the 20th-century historical record. They found that the combined persistence and intensity of the Triple R in 2013 was unrivaled by any event since 1948, which is when comprehensive information about the circulation of the atmosphere is first available.

To more directly address the question of whether climate change played a role in the probability of the 2013 event, the team collaborated with Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of environmental Earth system science and an affiliated faculty member of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Rajaratnam and his graduate students Michael Tsiang and Matz Haugen applied advanced statistical techniques to a large suite of climate model simulations.

Using the Triple R as a benchmark, the group compared geopotential heights -- an atmospheric property related to pressure -- between two sets of climate model experiments. One set mirrored the present climate, in which the atmosphere is growing increasingly warm due to human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In the other set of experiments, greenhouse gases were kept at a level similar to those that existed just prior to the Industrial Revolution.

The interdisciplinary research team found that the extreme geopotential heights associated with the Triple R in 2013 were at least three times as likely to occur in the present climate as in the preindustrial climate. They also found that such extreme values are consistently tied to unusually low precipitation in California and the formation of atmospheric ridges over the northeastern Pacific.

"We've demonstrated with high statistical confidence that the large-scale atmospheric conditions, similar to those associated with the Triple R, are far more likely to occur now than in the climate before we emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases," Rajaratnam said.

"In using these advanced statistical techniques to combine climate observations with model simulations, we've been able to better understand the ongoing drought in California," Diffenbaugh added. "This isn't a projection of 100 years in the future. This is an event that is more extreme than any in the observed record, and our research suggests that global warming is playing a role right now."

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEd8h79mUSs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Stanford University. The original article was written by Ker Than. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cite This Page:

MLA
APA
Chicago


Stanford University. "Causes of California drought linked to climate change." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 September 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140929133559.htm>.
 
Climate detectives reveal handprint of human caused climate change in Australia


Date:

September 29, 2014


Source:

University of New South Wales


Summary:


Australia's hottest year on record in 2013 along with the accompanying droughts, heat waves and record-breaking seasons of that year was virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused global warming, scientists say.



Share This

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Email to a friend
 Facebook
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
 Google+
 Print this page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







The impacts of man-made climate change were felt in Australia during its hottest year on record in 2013.

Credit: UNSW, P3, Helena Brusic.


[Click to enlarge image]






Australia's hottest year on record in 2013 along with the accompanying droughts, heat waves and record-breaking seasons of that year was virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused global warming.


New research from ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) researchers and colleagues, over five different Australian papers in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), has highlighted the powerful influence of global warming on Australia's climate.

"We often talk about the fingerprint of human-caused climate change when we look at extreme weather patterns," said Prof David Karoly, an ARCCSS researcher with the University of Melbourne.

"This research across four different papers goes well beyond that. If we were climate detectives then Australia's hottest year on record in 2013 wasn't just a smudged fingerprint at the scene of the crime, it was a clear and unequivocal handprint showing the impact of human caused global warming."

In 2013, heat records fell like dominoes. Australia had its hottest day on record, its hottest month on record, its hottest summer on record, its hottest spring on record and then rounded it off with the hottest year on record.

According to the research papers presented in BAMS, the impact of climate change significantly increased the chances of record heat events in 2013. Looking back over the observational record the researchers found global warming over Australia (see attached graphic): doubled the chance of the most intense heat waves, tripled the likelihood of heatwave events, made extreme summer temperature across Australia five time more likely increased the chance of hot dry drought-like conditions seven times made hot spring temperatures across Australia 30 times more likely.

But perhaps most importantly, it showed the record hot year of 2013 across Australia was virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused global warming. At its most conservative, the science showed the heat of 2013 was made 2000 times more likely by global warming.

"When it comes to what helped cause our hottest year on record, human-caused climate change is no longer a prime suspect, it is the guilty party," said ARCCSS Australian National University researcher Dr Sophie Lewis.

"Too often we talk about climate change impacts as if they are far in the future. This research shows they are here, now."

The extreme year of 2013 is just the latest peak in a trend over the observational record that has seen increasing bushfire days, the record-breaking warming of oceans around Australia, the movement of tropical species into temperate zones and the shifting of rain bearing storm tracks further south and away from some of our most important agricultural zones.

"The most striking aspect of the extreme heat of 2013 and its impacts is that this is only at the very beginning of the time when we are expected to experience the first impacts of human-caused climate change," said Dr Sarah Perkins an ARCCSS researcher with the University of New South Wales.

"If we continue to put carbon into our atmosphere at the currently accelerating rate, years like 2013 will quickly be considered normal and the impacts of future extremes will be well beyond anything modern society has experienced."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of New South Wales. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cite This Page:

MLA
APA
Chicago


University of New South Wales. "Climate detectives reveal handprint of human caused climate change in Australia." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 September 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140929105351.htm>.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top