iBiome

climate change is a hoax. cigarettes are good for you. what do scientists know?

This paragraph in Leshner's op ed:

In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.

reminded me of growing up in the 70's, while the long battle over the health effects of smoking was still under way, with the cigarette companies denying links between smoking and cancer, or the addictive effects of cigs on young people, and the earlier ad campaigns to combat the mounting evidence turned science against itself.

Publisher of Science takes on the deniers

In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Alan Leshner hammers the nonsense from Sarah Palin:

Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.

Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause for concern.

Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million (ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000 years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.

via www.washingtonpost.com

Palin's "Boycott Copenhagen" Op-Ed: Annotated

Going after The Onion's niche, the Washington Post seeks Sarah Palin's "thoughts" on climate change. Marc Ambinder takes her apart:

The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

Remember, the "revelation" was born from an potentially illegal e-mail hack. "So-called" -- untrue. These are experts. Their science has been validated, independently. Their "actions" here consist of insulting climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and peer-reviewed journals. The "concerns" that Palin speaks of are the result of years of accumulated science denialism that now, conveniently, has been seemingly "validated" by the fog of a grand conspiracy, suddenly revealed.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference.

True -- although the politicization came about as a response to an extremely well-funded political campaign by those whose bottom lines would be most harmed by carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and the like

The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they  would change our economy for the worse.

via politics.theatlantic.com

If you can't discern climate from weather, you have no business yakking about climate change in a major publication. 

I like the point Ambinder makes about politicization.  Scientists are not by nature spin doctors or politicians.  That's why can you never get them to "guarantee" or offer "100%" certainty about anything.  Steeped in the peer review process, the research community is typically unprepared (and inadquately funded) to offer an effective defence against well organized lay attacks on their credibility.   When they do engage, they are often clumsy or perceived as 'arrogant' by a public with a poor understanding of how science works.  Having the facts on your side is not always enough.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

from the folks who, among other things, hunt for oil.

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

via www.geosociety.org

hippies

a conspiracy to do what, exactly?

watching "climategate" swirl around I keep asking myself what these people are thinking. here is a typical denialist screed:

The project is all about wealth transfer and pan-global re-alignment of spheres of influence, not climate. These ingrates managed to dumb down the population enough to pull the wool over their collective eyes and now they drag this complacent and debt laden society to the very brink of coolapse.

via blackkettle.wordpress.com\

Let me try to connect the dots. Thousands of over-educated underpaid climate scientists are part of a massive global conspiracy!! to take over the world through faked data, academic infighting, and powerpoint presentations.  Honestly, what would be the motivation for all of these scientists to abandon their professional integrity to take on super-rich business interests and the religious right?  What's the payoff? Free doughnuts in the lunchroom? 

Similar to the evolution / holocaust / vaccine denial mobs (with a fair degree of overlap) the climate change deniers, by virtue of financial interest or religious zeal (or both), fly in the face of overwhelming evidence with an arsenal of fake experts, out-of-context quote mining, bad faith arguments, and outright lies. You really must have a head full of nonsense to buy this stuff.

well...except for that 9/11 thing.......but other than that....New Orleans? that wasn't a terrorist attack, that was.....uh...perhaps we're getting a bit off topic.....

ex Bush press secretary Perino claims no terrorist attacks on U.S. during Bush presidency:

Apple, Climate Change, and the Chamber of Commerce

I agree with almost everything Matt Yglesias says here about the Chamber of Commerce and their stance on climate change, particularly in the context of the departure of high profile companies like Apple from the Chamber.  I don't see how opposition to climate change policy can be in the interests, even short term, of their corporate stakeholders.

The fundamental problem the Chamber of Commerce is going to have on this is that they’re really really wrong. Not like how they’re morally wrong about, say, labor rights or workplace safety rules. They’re analytically mistaken about the interests of the United States business community. If we take action to avert ecological catastrophe, economic growth will still happen. Capitalism will march on. Big companies will be big, and people will earn lots of money managing them. Yes, the present-day owners of coal companies or manufacturers specifically wedded to unusually energy-intensive processes will be in trouble. But “business” in a broad and general sense will keep on keeping on. People will still want gadgets and furniture, will shop at stores, will buy and sell, and generally keep being customers for business.

The real risk is being run by doing nothing. It’s doing nothing that might end the party, and lead to various kinds of nightmare scenarios. And over time, more and more firms are going to see that they have no particular stake in underpricing pollution. One maybe of the Chamber board is a guy from Anheuser-Busch. A serious climate bill’s not going to put him out of business. Nor, to just pick board affiliated companies whose lines of business I recognize, is it going to put State Farm Insurance or IBM or AT&T or Pfizer or Accenture out of business. But the executives at those companies and their kids and their customers are all going to face all the problems caused by untrammeled climate change. And why, genuinely, should a pharmaceutical company or a telecom company be fighting to stop people from stopping an ecological disaster? It genuinely doesn’t make sense.

via yglesias.thinkprogress.org

Glibertarian - my new favourite word

The media and airwaves seem filled with these people.  The definition:

No, do be a glibertarian you have to first be a big “L” libertarian, and then only apply your libertarianism to other peoples problems. Glibertarians replies to any situation where someone else is hurt is “fuck you I got mine”, “told you so” or “nanny nanny boo boo”.

via www.balloon-juice.com

David Frum is reasonable

Frum takes on the wingnut habit of throwing the 'fascist' label at liberals in the context of the US health care debate. He nails it here:

Can We Get a Grip?.

Contra Rush Limbaugh, history’s actual fascists were not primarily known for their anti-smoking policies or generous social welfare programs. Fascism celebrated violence, anti-rationalism and hysterical devotion to an authoritarian leader. To date, the Obama administration has fallen rather short in these departments. Perhaps uncomfortably aware of the shortcoming, the hardliners have developed — okay, invented really — their own mythology about Obama “brownshirts.” (The popular conservative website RedState.org literally uses the term.) The complaint rests on a single case — that of conservative activist Kenneth Gladney, who got into a scuffle at a townhall in St. Louis, Missouri. The altercation was captured on video and you can watch it on YouTube. What you’ll see is a man, already on the ground, and another man stepping back in order to avoid tripping over him. The man on the ground is Gladney. Gladney walked away from the confrontation and later went to hospital, where he was treated for light injuries and released the same day. Whatever happened and whoever started it, this happily bloodless encounter bears not even the most glancing resemblance to the brutality that made Hitler’s brownshirts notorious. And yet, look up Gladney’s name online and he’s suddenly a poignant martyr. Can we get a grip here? It is possible to express opposition to a president’s policies without preposterous name-calling — without diminishing and disparaging the unique experiences of those who did actually suffer from actual persecution by actual Nazis. After all, you know who else trafficked in hysterical exaggeration? That’s right: Hitler!

David Cameron joins the fray

UK Conservative Leader responds to US wingnut attacks on the National Health Service:

We are proud of the NHS.

Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS - including my own family. One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill - no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got - you know that the NHS will look after you.