The 16th April 2007 edition of Newsweek is their "Global Warming" edition, and contains some very mixed articles. As I started to read one of them, I thought "this seems really manipulative". Then I checked the author's name. Ahh. Richard S. Lindzen. Remember him ? From the film THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE ? My reply to the article is at the bottom of this post - very measured and polite, I hope... First off, here's the copy :- ======================================================= Why So Gloomy? What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing. In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface. Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions. Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy. Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries. Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable. Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies. © 2007 Newsweek, Inc. To which my considered reply is :- ======================================================== Dear Madam / Sir, I must object to the inclusion of a piece called "Why so gloomy ?" in 16th April 2007 edition of Newsweek, written by Richard S Lindzen. The writer is one-sided in my view and uses qualitative rather than quantitative arguments. Here are some examples :- "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science." The people who are saying that the earth is facing a crisis are doing so on the basis of the science. Therefore, the opinion that urgent action is required has everything to do with the science. "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe." If Global Warming were to be halted tomorrow, then all the warming so far seen offers compelling evidence that, projecting the trend into the future, there would be a total global average increase of somewhere between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. The warming we have already seen is impacting some areas of the world in ways that could be described as locally catastrophic - inundations, extinctions, crop failure, people migration, heat death, loss of plant and animal viability. With somewhere between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius of warming compared to pre-industrial levels, we will most likely experience what could be described quite accurately as catastrophic - using the scientific, mathematical definition of the word. Destabilised systems lead to chaos, and under certain conditions, catastrophic change is possible. Entire populations or plants and animals could be eradicated, water stress could cause massive human conflict and migration, global food production could be decimated. "What most commentators - and many scientists - seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature - a climate at which everything is just right." The scientific study of Global Climate Change recognises that the Earth is in a constant state of flux, and therefore the writer's comments are incorrect. There is an optimal temperature range for most of the species of plants and animals on the planet. Unless you disagree with the Theory of Evolution, you will understand that all the current plants and animals are suited to the range of temperatures they currently have in each latitude because of our evolutionary development pathways. Rapid changes in environmental conditions will be a high survival risk. For example, most human beings do not survive in prolonged temperatures of 41 degrees Celsius or over, unless afforded shading and cooling of some kind. "The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature-wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week." There is a big difference between local seasonal weather conditions and general overall Climate. It is possible to be more accurate about general warming trends over periods of decades than it is to be accurate about weather forecasts over the period of seven days. I am surprised that the writer chooses to disinform the readers with this confusion between weather and Climate, given that he is said to be a Professor of Meteorology. "A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. " This statement needs to be qualified. A warmer climate would prove more beneficial for some parts of the world, but not all of them. The Middle East and parts of Asia where there are high centres of human population, would not find a warmer climate to be beneficial for the human inhabitants, especially during the hottest periods of the year. "There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Again, this statement needs to be qualified. Until now, there has not been any consistent data that the number of extreme weather events is increasing, but there has been data correlating to the theory that the energy in the extreme weather events is increasing. So, for example, there are predictions of more highly strong hurricanes, although there are not predictions of higher numbers of hurricanes (on average). "Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing." I think that the reason the writer says this is that the poles are expected to warm faster than the mid-latitudes. However, this is a transition condition. It cannot be known accurately what the long-term conditions will be. New mechanisms of air and ocean heat transport may develop, which may create more volatile weather conditions. There seems to be no reason to suppose that the more turbulent conditions in the tropics will remain isolated there. "In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface." I would question the writer's assertion that "the ill effects of warming are overblown". The writer seems to confuse two mechanisms for sea level rise - isostatic rise since the end of the last ice age - and eustatic rise due to water expanding in the ocean as it warms up. Furthermore the writer omits to mention evidence of ice flow and ice cap melt, which may produce changes in sea level of metres rather than millimetres. Several metres of rise of sea level is a distinct risk at many locations around the world - including most of the world's large populated cities. "Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now." It is surprising to me that the writer considers current climate models "untrustworthy", since he is said to be a Professor of Meteorology. The meteorologists and other scientists who work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apparently trust the current climate models to a large degree. Does the writer have access to alternative climate models that he does trust ? And why does he consider that current climate models cannot be trusted ? Other people rely on them. Can he show that they should not ? "Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down - not up - the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere." Here the writer is clearly being obfuscatory in my view. Carbon comes in many forms including Carbon particles, Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide. It is true that dust and particles from many chemical processes including the burning of forests and Fossil Fuels contributes towards what is known as Global Dimming - where we are shielded from the full effects of the sun's energy. However, Carbon Dioxide has been proved to be effective at blocking reflection of the sun's energy, trapping it in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide gas is one of the gases causing Global Warming. "Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise - a dubious proposition - future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions." It is not a "dubious proposition" to propose that Carbon Dioxide emissions are a very major cause of the recent temperature rise. Other factors include the compromising of Carbon Sinks - such as felling forests and poisoning the oceans. I think that the writer is building a house on melting permafrost when he asserts "future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions." Regulations about cleaning up industry have cut the amount of Carbon particles being emitted into the air, and so the protection of Global Dimming is largely being removed. There is every reason to expect that when newly developed countries apply clean air regulations that we will see a sharp rise in Global Warming. "Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." What the writer chooses to ignore is that warming under a heat source takes time. Your bread is not instantly toasted. Your Earth is not instantly warmer. It's not a mystery at all. Actually, we have a short window of opportunity to act on reducing atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations before we do experience a high level of Global Warming. It is fairly inaccurate I think to say that there was a period of cooling in between 1940 and 1976. There seems to have been a spike of warming around 1940, probably due to the transport fuel use during to the Second World War. Then there appears to have been a lull in warming, due to the high levels of particulate production in the post-War industrial efforts. As the Clean Air Acts around the developed world came into force in the 1970s, Global Dimming reduced, and the full Global Warming started. This period of toasting will continue to take effect, and full sunburn could take somewhere between 20 and 200 years. It's therefore not surprising that we have not seen the full extent of Global Warming as yet, and that there is a further degree or so of warming to come to add to the degree or so of warming we have already had. And that prediction is based on the hope that emissions can be constrained. If emissions continue to rise unchecked, so will Global Warming. "Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998." As already mentioned, the reason for the lack of Global Warming apparent in the post-War period is probably due to Carbon particulate accumulation in the the upper atmosphere until regulations to clean up manufacturing were put in place. This extra Carbon dust in the air caused extra or varying cloud cover, that acted like a mirror to reflect sunshine, thus effectively dimming the sun. "Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. " This argument I feel is twisted logic. The original Global Warming theory was formulated not as a result of observations of Global Warming, but as a result of observations of increased Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Climate modelers have accurately predicted the rise in average global temperatures on the basis of their observations of increasing Greenhouse Gas concentrations in the atmosphere. "Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record - an effort that is now generally discredited." The schematic diagrams of the IPCC from 1990 have since been improved, showing that there was no major warming event in the Medieval period. It has been "expunged", because it wasn't there. What has been discredited is the idea that the so-called Medieval Warming Period was in any way significant. We now know it wasn't. "Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries." Nobody is denying that change has happened in the past, natural change. However, the rate of change of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, and the rate of change of global average temperature is a cause for great concern - it is outside all the "normal" ranges from the evidence and proxy records from history. "Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? " I don't think anyone in the IPCC is pretending anything, and they might possibly get removed from their posts if they did fabricate. "India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly." Correlation is not necessarily causation. And I would challenge whether there has been a uniform increase in Indian agricultural productivity since some areas are subject to greater drought than before. "Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable." This is a relative statement. Cold temperatures of minus 45 degrees Celsius can be fatal to those who are exposed to them without appropriate thermal protection. Heat temperatures of 45 degrees Celsius can be fatal to those who suffer them for several weeks, regardless of what they wear. People find both cold and heat dangerous and uncomfortable. "Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading." Reducing emissions will not help us adapt to Climate Change, but then reducing emissions is not meant to help us adapt to Climate Change. Reducing emissions is a way to help us to reduce Global Warming and the consequent Climate Change. If we reduce emissions, and stop high levels of Global Warming, then we will not need to adapt to Climate Change. Current levels of emissions are causing environmental damage. Whether or not we have Carbon caps we will end up paying more for all goods and services due to damages from Climate Change. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist, and I've been able to challenge what the writer has put. Why have Newsweek printed what I consider to be this writer's inaccuracies ? What he is writing is not "debate" from my point of view. By printing what this writer wants to say, Newsweek have given the writer a platform without allowing any other writer to question the assertions or offer alternative ideas. Also, Newsweek have clearly printed this without verifying the content, I believe. Yours warmingly, |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
Who is worse - him or Schwarzenegger in same issue?
Jo,
1. The threat to biodiversity is even clearer if you believe in creationism or intelligent design, since these leave even less room for species to adapt.
2. Lindzen's broadly right about ethanol and biofuels.
3. So I don't know who is worse - him or Arnie Schwarzenegger in same issue (my highlights):
Schwarzenegger's Crusade
CARBON CZAR: California's Hummer-loving governor is turning the Golden State into the greenest in the land, a place where environmentalism and hedonism can coexist. How a star turned pol's become the muscle behind saving the planet.
By Karen Breslau
Newsweek
April 16, 2007 issue - "Pimp My Ride" isn't the sort of television program one watches for a lesson in eco-consciousness. Each week on the MTV reality show, one lucky teenager's old clunker is transformed into an outrageously appointed dream car (imagine: a Ford Pinto with 600 horsepower, blinding chrome and hydraulic suspension that's the envy of every lowrider in your 'hood). Galpin Auto Sports in Van Nuys, where the cars are tricked out, is filled with row upon row of gleaming, vintage muscle cars—here a 1970 Ford GT two-seater (13mpg/city), there a 1968 Shelby GT 500 KR convertible (15mpg/city), each bearing a six-figure sticker price and a "gas-guzzler tax" of $1,300. For today's episode, "Pimp My Ride" has invited a man who knows a thing or two about muscle. Peering under the crimson and white hood of a pimped-out '65 Chevy Impala, Arnold Schwarzenegger all but caresses the new 800-horsepower engine, which has been overhauled to run on biodiesel for a special Earth Day episode of the show. "You can have an engine that's fast and furious and still reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 to 40 percent," Schwarzenegger declares for the cameras. "This is the future."
Once pilloried for driving his Hummer (he now has hydrogen and biodiesel models), Schwarzenegger is out to prove that environmentalism and hedonism can coexist. "That was the point of doing the show," he says later, over lunch. "To show people that biofuel is not like some wimpy feminine car, like a hybrid. Because the muscle guys, they have this thing: 'I don't want to be seen in the little, feminine car'."
That kind of talk might not sit well with the typical socially liberal environmentalist who belongs to the Sierra Club. But Arnold doesn't care. Re-elected and popular again in the polls thanks to his newfound "post-partisan" style, the Republican governor is peddling feel-good, consumer-friendly environmentalism that resonates not only with fluorescent-light-bulb-worshiping hybrid drivers, but also with big business and those who think "green" is a synonym for "Chicken Little." His faith in the power of technology and free markets to slow global warming is neither depressing nor polarizing. As a Republican, Schwarzenegger says, his environmentalism is easier to sell in some quarters. "I can pick up the phone and talk to a CEO and say 'You don't want your guys to fight that' easier than if I was someone known for going around talking about 'I want to protect this tree' or 'There's a fish I want to save.' They are not so suspicious."
His approach is a world away from Al Gore's alarming climate lecture, captured in the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." (For the record, Schwarzenegger says he's deeply impressed with Gore's work: he even popped into a Beverly Hills book-signing not long ago with his teenage daughter to tell the former vice president so in person.) If Gore is the nation's environmental conscience, Schwarzenegger is its environmental pitchman, making the fight against global warming accessible, palatable and relatively painless to big-living Americans, who generate more greenhouse gases than any citizenry on earth. "It's no different than what we tried in 'Pumping Iron'," Schwarzenegger tells NEWSWEEK, referring to the 1977 documentary that made him a celebrity. "It was all about ways of getting in and making body-building hip. You create a whole new conversation."
Imagine if Jimmy Carter had donned a heat-saving skullcap instead of his cardigan—or Gore had tried rapping his PowerPoint presentation. As governor of the nation's most populous, wealthiest and most environmentally progressive state, Schwarzenegger has extended the conversation well beyond California—where last year he signed first-in-the-nation legislation to reduce California's greenhouse-gas emissions across every sector of the economy. In the absence of clear guidelines from the Bush administration, Schwarzenegger has emerged as the nation's de facto carbon ambassador, carrying the green banner across the nation and the globe. "Washington has been stone-cold silent on this issue," says Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican, who has consulted with Schwarzenegger on ways to apply California's greenhouse-gas model in his conservative, coal-producing state. "Arnold is a Teddy Roosevelt for our generation. He's captured some very important political real estate in a thoughtful and articulate way."
Unable to run for president himself, the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger makes no bones about "filling the vacuum" on climate-change policy left by George W. Bush, with whom he's had a tepid relationship over the years. While Bush acknowledges that climate change is real—even if he has wavered on whether human activity is solely to blame—he has refused to impose mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions similar to those that Britain and other industrialized countries adopted under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Bush has consistently argued that any global agreement must include the rapidly growing economies of India and China, which so far are unfettered by any international climate restrictions. China, said Bush in defending his position after last week's Supreme Court ruling that the federal government was responsible for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, "will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time."
The administration's hesitation has allowed Schwarzenegger, who recently called America's sideline position "embarrassing," to take the lead. "What we're basically saying to the federal government is, 'Look, we don't need Washington'," Schwarzenegger tells NEWSWEEK. "And so let us create the partnerships and let us let the world know that America is actually fighting global warming." Schwarzenegger has met with his counterparts in British Columbia and Baja California to talk about setting up a carbon-trading scheme, which would allow companies able to exceed their emissions targets to sell emissions credits to those who need them via a carbon market. He's also negotiating with them for a "hydrogen highway" dotted with liquid-hydrogen fueling stations up and down the 5,300-mile Pacific coastline.
Last month Schwarzenegger signed a compact with four other Western states to establish a regional "cap and trade" system for greenhouse-gas emissions that would allow companies that reduce their emissions below certain target levels to sell credits to those that don't or can't. Among the signatories: New Mexico Gov. (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Bill Richardson, who told NEWSWEEK that Schwarzenegger's "star power" was more important to the development of the nascent American carbon-trading system than any bill in Congress. The system, similar to one launched in the European Union in 2005, would create financial incentives for companies to save energy and adopt cleaner fuel sources.
Schwarzenegger's carbon diplomacy has been especially well received in Britain, where he and Prime Minister Tony Blair have signed agreements to trade scientific and economic expertise, with the goal of creating a global cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas-emission credits.
In the stuffy world of climate-change policy, says the prime minister, Schwarzenegger has made himself a welcome player. "He adds a certain spice to it, that's for sure," Blair tells NEWSWEEK. "To have California, the sixth largest economy in the world onboard, sends a vital signal."
With an assist from Democratic lawmakers, Schwarzenegger has gleefully positioned California as the nation's low-carbon test lab. Last September, he cemented his position by approving California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires a 25 percent cut in the state's greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020—and an 80 percent cut by 2050—the most aggressive standard in the nation. The bill received only a single Republican vote, notes former assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who wrote the law. "As a Republican governor, he was walking a fine line with his own party," she says. One conservative Web site took Schwarzenegger to task for imposing a "neo-Euro-socialist" law on California.
The signing ceremony, in the midst of Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign, had all the fanfare of an international treaty, with the flags of the Kyoto signatory nations flying and diplomats in attendance. Prime Minister Blair even popped up on a jumbotron screen to lend his praise.
Schwarzenegger and Blair are both eager to position their respective economies as "green tech" hubs, where new jobs will be created in fields such as alternative fuels, new materials and green construction. "If you think this is the direction the world will take and it's only a matter of time, there are great commercial opportunities to be had," says Blair. In Britain, he says, more than 500,000 "clean tech" jobs have been created since the country began complying with the Kyoto treaty. Schwarzenegger predicts the job growth will be even more impressive in California. And he says that U.S. businesses, led by tech-savvy California firms, can reap immense profits by developing low-carbon manufacturing methods and fuel sources, and then exporting them to the rest of the world. California, he boasts, will dominate the global clean-tech sector, just as it does the world's entertainment and high-tech industries.
While California has adopted the most comprehensive legislation, a dozen other states restrict emissions from vehicle tailpipes or certain sectors like utilities. All together, more than 300 bills related to climate change are pending in 40 different states, and more than a dozen bills are before Congress, raising the specter of a regulatory patchwork quilt that would be a nightmare for businesses seeking to comply.
Schwarzenegger says he's approached every day by business leaders who've seen the handwriting on the wall and want to know what the rules of the game will be in the new, carbon-constrained economy of the near future. "I'm looking to protect business, they know that about me," he says. "But I'm also going to do what is good for the environment." Earlier this year he issued an executive order that would make California the nation's largest market for alternative fuels, by requiring a 10 percent reduction in the carbon content of all transportation fuels by 2020. After a disastrous second year in office during which Schwarzenegger battled nurses and teachers unions and called Democratic lawmakers "girly men," he transformed himself into a savvy consensus builder in his second term, introducing major health-care and environmental proposals with something for everyone.
To oil companies, Schwarzenegger stressed the profit potential of his new low-carbon-fuel standard—since they would control the distribution network of the nonfossil fuels to be sold in California. He dispatched another adviser to Detroit to tell the Big Three automakers that they had nothing to fear; their vehicles could run on the low-carbon fuels without costly manufacturing changes. And he enlisted environmentalists to praise the market-based virtues of the new fuel standard, which is projected to remove the equivalent of 3 million cars' worth of greenhouse-gas emissions a year. Proof of his success at coalition-building: at the signing ceremony, Schwarzenegger was flanked by a representative from Chevron on one end of the stage and by the Sierra Club on the other.
Schwarzenegger traces his green sensibilities to his childhood in postwar Austria, where he grew up with rationed food and electricity—and had to haul bath water from a well. "I'm a conservation fanatic," he says. "I still can't walk out of a room without turning off the lights. I can't stand it when the kids spend longer than five minutes in the shower."
When he arrived in Los Angeles in 1968, expecting to find pristine beaches and mountains, he found himself instead hacking in the smog and sidestepping garbage on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. "I thought, 'I'm going to fight those things'," he says. Even in the 1980s, Schwarzenegger lent his stardom to Hollywood environmental causes such as recycling and promoting conservation on his movie sets, campaigns organized by entertainment lawyer Bonnie Reiss, a close friend of Arnold's wife, Maria Shriver. Reiss, who later directed Schwarzenegger's after-school program for inner-city youth, says he was also deeply affected by the number of children he encountered suffering from asthma.
After marrying Maria, Schwarzenegger soaked up even more environmental activism from her cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a noted environmental lawyer. When Schwarzenegger first ran for office during the 2003 election to recall California Gov. Gray Davis, Kennedy recommended his friend Terry Tamminen, a well-known ocean advocate from Santa Monica, as the campaign's environmental adviser. Tamminen helped the novice candidate craft an environmental-action plan, which included generous subsidies for hydrogen and solar power, as well as the establishment of huge nature conservancies in the Sierras and a ban on offshore drilling. At a campaign event on an ocean bluff near Santa Barbara designed to roll out his green credentials, Schwarzenegger was trailed by protesters. "I was known as the Hummer guy," he says. "The environmentalists were saying, 'You're full of crap. You're not going in there to clean up the environment. You're going in there to kiss up to the oil companies.' And then we start producing legislation and they say, 'Whoa! I was wrong'."
By the time he ran for re-election last year, Schwarzenegger was confident enough to wrap himself in green. He toured the state in a green bus, plastered with a giant mural of Yosemite National Park. And he embraced California's new greenhouse-gas law as the centerpiece of his campaign, to the annoyance of some Democrats who wondered how Arnold had managed to hijack their signature legislative accomplishment. That was before Schwarzenegger won in a landslide, defeating a Democratic opponent who'd been labeled a polluter during his days as a real-estate developer. Now, in Sacramento, Schwarzenegger's second term is overseen by a Democratic chief of staff, and he goes out of his way to praise and consult Democratic lawmakers. The jousting over who gets credit for California's environmental achievements has given way to good-natured ribbing. "It takes a movie star and, hey, I used to be a middle-school teacher," says Pavley, the Democratic lawmaker recognized for authoring some of California's most far-reaching environmental laws, including the Global Warming Solutions Act, as well as a first-in-the-nation 2002 law restricting tailpipe emissions, which was upheld last week by the Supreme Court ruling.
While traditional environmentalists cut Schwarzenegger plenty of slack for his marketing antics, there is concern that his approach places too little emphasis on the need for Americans to reform their consumption habits, from running their air conditioners around the clock to driving (yes) their SUVs. "He likes to give the impression that you can have it all," says Bill Magavern, a Sierra Club representative in Sacramento. "He is overly optimistic about the ability of the market to solve our problems." After all, California's experiment with electricity deregulation was a disaster, as anyone who lived through a "rolling blackout" can attest. And in Europe, the fledgling carbon-trading market has been subject to wild price swings, because emissions credits were given away too freely, thus making them almost worthless. Schwarzenegger has dispatched squads of aides across the Atlantic, to make sure the mistakes are not repeated in California.
Schwarzenegger may have good credentials with the global-warming crowd, but there are still bones to pick. Last year the California League of Conservation Voters endorsed Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent, saying the governor didn't support enough legislation favored by environmentalists and that he appointed industry-friendly members to California's environmental regulatory commissions. Last year Arnold refused to support a ballot initiative that would have imposed a wellhead tax on oil companies to fund alternative-energy development. Schwarzenegger said he opposed the measure because it involved a tax. "One of the constraints in his policy is that he's very conservative in how to pay for it," says the Sierra Club's Magavern.
Others worry that the market-solves-all approach will make consumers and businesses overly reliant on "carbon offsets" that basically amount to a guilt tax on purchases that affect the environment—say, a new car purchase, or an airline trip. Buyers "offset" their greenhouse-gas emissions by donating money to a reforestation project or an alternative-energy investment. (Schwarzenegger recently announced that he now purchases carbon offsets for his weekly commutes by private jet from his home in Los Angeles to the capitol in Sacramento.) The legislature's goal, says Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, is to reduce California's overall "carbon footprint," not just to create a new pollution credit market. While some offsets are legitimate, others amount to mere "greenwashing" that allows consumers to assuage their carbon-stained consciences, without tightening their belts.
His swaggering style isn't for everyone, especially at a time when Americans, finally, seem willing to examine the inconvenient truth—and to make sacrifices for the cause. But, as Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain noted during a recent campaign swing, where he took time to appear at the Port of Long Beach and praise Schwarzenegger's low-carbon-fuel standard (endorsement, anyone?), California under Arnold is the "800-pound gorilla" of American environmental policy. And who's gonna make it ride in one of those wimpy, feminine little cars?
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17996834/site/newsweek/
Twisted logic, false foundation
Hi Jim,
You really must read Richard Lindzen's words carefully, as he is not saying what you might think he is saying the first time you read them :-
"Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change."
Note the use of the word "adapt".
He is rightly saying that actions taken so far have not improved our ability to adapt to Climate Change.
What he does not say is that the reason these actions have been taken was to mitigate against Climate Change.
The fact they haven't worked so far is another matter.
He is basically saying "there is no need to mitigate against Climate Change". He is pouring scorn on the fact that people are trying to mitigate against Climate Change. He does not believe that it is necessary to mitigate against Climate Change. He does not believe that Climate Change is a big problem.
More importantly, he does not seem to believe that mankind's activities are the main cause of Climate Change, so he does not think that changing those activities will change the causes of Climate Change.
He purports to believe that modern Climate Change is as natural as historical Climate Change, and that we can do nothing to stop it. That is why he only talks about adaptation.
In his frame of reference, nothing that we do can stop Climate Change. We can only adjust our lives and our industries to cope with the inevitable changes.
He is in denial of the facts : burning Fossil Fuels and logging forests is the major cause of Global Warming, which is causing Climate Change.
We need to curtail the burning of non-renewable Fossil Fuels and halt the unsustainable logging of old-growth forests.
And this will put a stop to further Global Warming, and the consequent Climate Change.
Newsweek Hides Denier's Link To Big Oil : Alertnet
Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Financial Ties to Big Oil
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494/
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 12, 2007.
A recent Newsweek op-ed by global warming denier Richard Lindzen claims the meteorologist has no industry ties, but his bio is as misleading as his writing.
So Newsweek is running an opinion piece about global warming titled: "Why So Gloomy?" The piece is authored by Richard Lindzen, a well-known meteorologist, and his thesis about the potential melt-down of our climate can be boiled down to this: Don't worry, be happy!
At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:
"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."
Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming. Hmmm.
Oh, but wait. That name … Lindzen … sure does sound familiar.
Yes! From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry" …
In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change…
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics--Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others--who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek -- he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal -- appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."
Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.
The NAS study endorsed "The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," saying it "accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Here's some highlights of what the IPCC report Lindzman endorsed considered to be "virtually certain" outcomes of global warming (they list other potential outcomes that were only "very likely," but I'm not including them here):
* The troposphere warms, stratosphere cools, and near surface temperature warms.
* As the climate warms, Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice extent decrease.
* The globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation increase.
* Most tropical areas have increased mean precipitation, most of the sub-tropical areas have decreased mean precipitation, and in the high latitudes the mean precipitation increases.
* Intensity of rainfall events increases.
* There is a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer (decreases in soil moisture). This is ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation that is not balanced by increases in precipitation.
* A majority of models show a mean El Niño-like response in the tropical Pacific, with the central and eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures warming more than the western equatorial Pacific, with a corresponding mean eastward shift of precipitation.
* Available studies indicate enhanced interannual variability of northern summer monsoon precipitation.
* Most models show weakening of the Northern Hemisphere thermohaline circulation (THC), which contributes to a reduction in the surface warming in the northern North Atlantic. Even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases.
In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorogist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.
Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant -- this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio -- it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.
That's common, and really bad for democracy. I, for one, am sick of it. If you are too then tell Newsweek that if they're going to run opinion pieces by industry-funded shills, they need to disclose those shills' financial interests.
Newsweek
251 W. 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
Tagged as: global warming, climate change, newsweek
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
Realclimate review
See also Realclimate review of the Newsweek article.