Jane Goodall says global disregard for nature brought on coronavirus pandemic

Renowned conservationist and activist Dr Jane Goodall is hoping the coronavirus pandemic will be a wake-up call, warning the crisis is a result of human disregard for nature and animals

By Kirsten Diprose and Matt Neal

PHOTO: Dr Goodall says people need to think differently about the environment in order to avoid pandemics. (Australian Story, file photo)

Key points:

• Dr Jane Goodall, marking 60 years of field research and discovering that chimpanzees make and use tools, says animal habitat loss and intensive farming are part of the viruses jumping species
• She says as forests disappear, animals come in closer contact with each other and humans
• Dr Goodall equates the human disregard for nature as also the root cause of climate change

Dr Goodall said we should have known a pandemic-like coronavirus was coming because other viruses, such as SARS and HIV, also jumped the species barrier from animals.

Both SARS and COVID-19 are types of coronavirus and have been traced to live animal markets, or wet markets, in China.

But Dr Goodall said the loss of animal habitats and intensive farming are part of the problem, making it easier for viruses to spread from one animal to another and then to humans.

“We have to learn to think differently about how we interact with the natural world,” she said.

“And one of the problems is that as more and more forests have disappeared, so animals themselves have come in closer contact with each other.

Various species of bats are reservoirs for viral diseases such as coronaviruses and Hendra.
iStockphoto: CraigRJD

“Most of these viruses that jumped to us have come through an intermediary. So there’s a reservoir host like a bat and in [the case of COVID-19] it’s thought to have jumped into a pangolin and then into us.”

Not just wet markets

Dr Andrew Peters, an associate professor in wildlife health and pathology at Charles Sturt University, backs Dr Goodall’s assertions that human interference with animal habitats is a concern when it comes to diseases.

“There’s going to be intense focus on the wet markets in China as a focus for human spill-over of viruses from wildlife, and that’s rightfully so,”

Dr Peters said.PHOTO: Dr Andrew Peters says human impacts on the natural environment are a factor in viruses crossing from animals to humans. (Supplied: Shane Raidal/Charles Sturt University)

“But the thing we mustn’t lose sight of is there are a whole lot of other things we do in the natural environment that can lead to these kinds of spill-overs occurring.

“In Australia we’ve seen a number of emerging infectious diseases, including Hendra virus, which is obviously a very well known and deadly virus that infects horses and humans from bats.

“The causes of that are thought to be deforestation on the coastal plain of Australia and the pressure that puts on bat populations as they move down to the coast in winter.”

Dr Peters said humans need to reconsider their relationship with the natural world, and the impact we’re having on animals.

“The majority of human new emerging infectious diseases come from wildlife,” he said.

Six decades with the chimps

PHOTO: A baby chimp born at Monarto Zoo, which was named Hope by Dr Goodall. (Facebook: Monarto Zoo)

Dr Goodall is marking 60 years since she first entered the jungles of Tanzania at the age of 26, to study chimpanzees.

It was her unorthodox approach of immersing herself in their habitat that led to the discovery in 1960 that chimpanzees make and use tools.

The 86-year-old is also concerned the global chimpanzee population could become infected with COVID-19.

Coronavirus questions answered

Breaking down the latest news and research to understand how the world is living through an epidemic, this is the ABC’s Coronacast podcast

“The genetic makeup between humans and chimps differ by only just over one per cent,” she said.

“So almost certainly if the infected humans are anywhere near the chimps they are liable to catch it.”

A tiger at the Bronx Zoo in New York reportedly tested positive to COVID-19 earlier this month, suspected to have been infected by a zoo employee.

This is the first known instance of a tiger contracting the new coronavirus.

“We at the Jane Goodall Institute are taking very, very drastic measures to try and protect the chimpanzees in our two sanctuaries in Africa and the wild chimps which is, of course, much harder,” she said.

‘Treating climate change like a pandemic’

Dr Goodall said it is the same disregard shown by humans towards nature that is also the root cause of climate change.

“The way we have treated the planet with our reckless burning of fossil fuel and coal mines — you know all about that in Australia, and how it is heating up the planet,” Dr Goodall said.

“You have certainly suffered from the terrible fires and that’s because the planet is getting hotter and drier, the droughts are getting longer, and it’s all we have done to the natural world.”

PHOTO: Primatologist Dr Jane Goodall at the Perth Zoo with one of the locals. (ABC News: Briana Shepherd)

What the experts are saying about coronavirus:

• From a scientific point of view, the argument that it’s a manufactured virus has been totally discredited
• “We’re very lucky in the fact that the virus is pretty lousy at surviving on its own.”

She said the global community should have been treating climate change long ago as if it was a pandemic “because it’s actually far more devastating in terms of loss of life and people being driven from countries simply because the habitat is so inhospitable”.

“So why haven’t we been? Why haven’t we been treating climate change as the disaster it is?” Dr Goodall said.

“You only have to look around at some of the political leaders in different countries to understand why. Because people don’t want to think about making the changes necessary because it would impact their success in business.”

But Dr Goodall said there is reason to hope with the way leaders and communities are working together to fight coronavirus — evidence of what humanity is capable of.

“Maybe it has taken something like this COVID-19 to wake us up and realise you can’t eat money,” she said.

“If we go on destroying nature in this way, go on disrespecting the other beings whom we share this planet, it’s a downward trajectory.

“So hopefully this [coronavirus response], which is affecting the whole world, will give us the jolt we seem to need to start behaving and thinking in a different way”.

A new documentary Jane Goodall: The Hope, based on Dr Goodall’s long career, will be released April 22 by National Geographic to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Earth Day.

We greatly thank you for your on-going generous financial and enthusiastic personal support in appreciation for this site!

CLICK ABOVE to DONATE

https://www.facebook.com/groups/377012949129789/

https://twitter.com/ageofblasphemy

TWITTER

Mad Catholic Monk Tony Abbott & Co; Destroying the “democratic life of this nation”

Speak boldly

Written by: Kaye Lee

The editorial in the Age today suggests that “the Abbott government is cynically moving to de-legitimise certain institutions that perform vital roles in the democratic life of this nation.”

This latest reprehensible attempt to silence the Human Rights Commission is, as Penny Wong points out, part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

This is a Government that seeks to intimidate people who don’t agree with their policies and to silence independent voices.

Within hours of being sworn in, the Prime Minister’s office issued a press release, announcing three departmental secretaries had had their contracts terminated and the Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson would be stood down next year.

Dr Don Russell lost his job as head of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; Blair Comley was the head of the Resources, Energy and Tourism Department; and Andrew Metcalfe, a former Immigration Department chief, was sacked as head of the Agriculture Department.

AusAID was integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and its director-general Peter Baxter resigned.

“AusAID has been delivering an aid program that eradicates poverty in the world’s poorest communities, while DFAT’s objective is to promote and protect Australia’s national economic and political interests.”

The head of Infrastructure Australia, Michael Deegan, stepped down in February 2014 after he lashed out against the Abbott government for eroding the advisory body’s independence.

Infrastructure Australia disagreed about the priorities being pushed by government.  For example, they had listed Sydney’s WestConnex motorway as an ”early stage” project, despite Premier Barry O’Farrell’s and Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s determination to proceed with the project.

”Grand announcements, ‘funding commitments’, glossy brochures, and project websites do not change the reasons (why some projects had not progressed on his organisation’s priority list.),” Mr Deegan said in an email. ”Many proposals lack merit.”

Infrastructure Australia was required to report to the federal government on how climate change would affect federal infrastructure policy. It was set up to assess infrastructure investments on their productivity merits instead of their vote-buying potential. As climate change could inflict damage worth $9billion annually to Australia’s infrastructure by 2020, it makes sense for our infrastructure advisory body to think about how to bring those costs down.

But the Abbott government expunged this instruction as part of its rewrite of Infrastructure Australia’s mandate. This is despite infrastructure co-ordinator Michael Deegan’s warning that rising sea levels and heat stress are among climate impacts threatening ‘‘a significant proportion of Australia’s existing infrastructure assets … and adaptation will require changes to the scope and mix of infrastructure investment’’.

Mr Deegan also noted that ‘‘a significant proportion of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the various infrastructure sectors, notably energy and transport’’.

No wonder he had to go, along with the Climate Commission and the Climate Change Authority.

Talking about global warming is a death sentence to funding.

The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have had their funding slashed with hundreds of jobs lost and research programmes abandoned.  With no Minister for Science to point out the value of research it is seen as an avenue to save money and control the areas being studied.

As a direct consequence of the $111 million budget cut, the organisation will lose 489 researchers and support staff by mid-2015.  Another 300 positions will be cut after an internal restructure. The union estimates CSIRO is set to shrink by about 20 per cent over two years.

In August, management confirmed eight infectious disease researchers at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong, the country’s only facility for researching live samples of deadly diseases such as Ebola, would lose their jobs.

Eight staff have left the Aspendale laboratory, which focuses on marine and atmospheric research, since the budget was handed down in May. Those leaving Aspendale include senior scientist Paul Fraser, who has taken a voluntary redundancy. Dr Fraser, head of oceans and atmosphere, has been honoured by NASA and also helped establish one of the world’s two most important climate research centres at Cape Grim in Tasmania.

Water research also appears to have been targeted. The office of water science research and the national water commission will be abolished, while the sustainable rural water use and infrastructure program’s budget has had a $400 million trim.

At CSIRO’s largest Victorian site, in Clayton, 15 staff have left or are in the process of leaving. The laboratory, home to research areas including advanced materials, nanotechnology, energy, mining and minerals work, had already lost staff under Labor’s efficiency drive. Among them was organic chemist San Thang, who was made redundant in September. It came as Dr Thang and two colleagues were nominated as frontrunners for the illustrious Nobel Prize in chemistry. Dr Thang has been made an honorary fellow – an unpaid position allowing him to both continue his work and to supervise PhD students.

In addition to the budget cuts, CSIRO also lost about $4 million indirectly when the government folded the Australian Climate Change Science Program into the new National Environmental Science Program.

A further 175 government bodies were cut in the last MYEFO, building on previous decisions to defund agencies in the 2014-15 budget, “taking the total reduction in the number of government bodies since the election to 251″.

Two groups whose funding ceased were the Biosecurity Advisory Council and the National Biosecurity Committee Stakeholder Engagement Consultative Group.  In light of the recent outbreak of Hepatitis A due to contaminated imported berries one wonders who is advising Barnaby on how to proceed.

Other bodies to be disbanded included the Diabetes Advisory Group and the Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia.  This is unbelievably short term thinking as the cost of these problems to our society are astronomic.

The Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) Joint Working Group to Provide Advice on Students with Disability was also disbanded which fits in with George Brandis’ decision to replace the Human Rights Commissioner for the Disabled, Graeme Innes, with the IPA’s Tim Wilson – Commissioner for bigots and presumably the “anonymous source” quoted in the government attack on Gillian Triggs.

Reading through the list of bodies that have been axed makes me wonder who the hell is looking after these crucial advisory roles.

The Prime Minister for Women has watered down gender reporting while the Minister Assisting assures us that, whilst she likes women, she also likes men so couldn’t possibly be a feminist – a view shared by the highest placed woman in our government, Julie Bishop, who tells us that “it’s only a downward spiral once you’ve cast yourself as a victim.”

Righto.  Domestic violence, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment are our own fault and we should stop whinging….is that the message?

The Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs promptly cut over half a billion in funding from Indigenous programmes and disbanded the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, replacing them with Gerard Henderson’s son-in-law Warren Mundine.

Speaking of Gerard Henderson, he was appointed Chairman of the panel tasked with awarding the PM’s non-fiction Literary Awards.  He chose to give the history award to “a poorly sourced anti-union tome” which was described as a rudimentary, badly-structured book full of hearsay by another panel member.  But it fed into Abbott’s anti-union agenda.

From the outset, Abbott has spent many millions of dollars in a frenzied attack on unions seeking to demonise and undermine the only group with the power to present a collective voice in bargaining to protect workers’ rights.

In December, the Abbott government reintroduced legislation to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, despite 82% of the sector believing it was important to keep the charity regulator.

ACNC Advisory Board Chair and Productivity Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said: “…the key beneficiaries of the repeal of the ACNC are really only those organisations who do not want independent public accountability or transparency but which seek to continue to receive large benefits from the Australian community.”

Unsurprisingly, it was George Pell who told Kevin Andrews to get rid of the watchdog.  Scott Morrison appears to have recently backed away from the idea calling it a low priority while he gets his “family package” together.

Huge cuts to the funding of the ABC, questionable board appointments, and threats to journalists that they will be jailed if they report on “special operations”, are all designed to muzzle the watchdogs.

Whether it’s scientists, charities, Aborigines, people with disabilities, refugees, unions, feminists, preventative health groups, Muslims, infrastructure specialists, journalists, public servants, or even colleagues….Abbott does not want to hear from us unless it’s to agree.

Bill Wright, a priest and church historian who was vice-rector at St Patrick’s seminary whilst Tony was there, said many found him “just too formidable to talk to unless to agree; overbearing and opiniated. Tony is inclined to score points, to skate over or hold back any reservations he might have about his case.”

Nothing has changed.

The Abbott government may not want to pay for advice but that sure as hell isn’t going to stop me from giving them some.

May Gillian Trigg’s strength and defiance be an example to us all and may we all raise our collective voices to defend those who this government would mute.

Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces

Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces

—By Chris Mooney

Are religion and end times thinking now wrapped up with the denial of global warming? Igor Zh./Shutterstock

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn’t just evolution under attack, it’s also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now, it protects climate education too.

How did these issues get wrapped up together? On its face, there isn’t a clear reason—other than a marriage of convenience—why attacks on evolution and attacks on climate change ought to travel side by side. After all, we know why people deny evolution: Religion, especially the fundamentalist kind. And we know why people deny global warming: Free market ideology and libertarianism. These are not, last I checked, the same thing. (If anything, libertarians may be the most religiously skeptical group on the political right.)

And yet clearly there’s a relationship between the two issue stances. If you’re in doubt, watch this Climate Desk video of a number of members of Congress citing religion in the context of questioning global warming:

Indeed, recent research suggests that Christian “end times” believers are less likely to see a need for action on global warming.

And now new research by Yale’s Dan Kahan further reaffirms that there’s something going on here. More specifically, Kahan showed that there is a correlation (.25, which is weak to modest, but significant) between a person’s religiosity and his or her tendency to think that global warming isn’t much of a risk. Perhaps even more tellingly, Kahan also found that among highly religious individuals, as their ability to comprehend science increases, so does their denial of the risk posed by global warming. Here’s some data he presented:

Among the highly religious, more science comprehension translates into less concern about global warming. Dan Kahan

“I have to say, those effects are bigger than I would have expected,” wrote Kahan of his findings. The researcher went on to say that he isn’t sure why greater religiosity predicts greater denial of climate change. But in his data—with a representative sample of over 2,000 Americans—it clearly does.

There are two major possibilities. And there is probably some truth to both of them.

There is the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” theory. In other words, anti-evolutionists and climate deniers were both getting dumped on so much by the scientific community that they sort of naturally joined forces. And that makes sense: We know that in general, people gather their issue stances in bunches, because those stances travel together in a group (often under the aegis of a political party).

But there’s also the “declining trust in science” theory, according to which political conservatives have, in general, become distrustful of the scientific community (we have data showing this is the case), and this has infected how they think about several different politicized scientific issues. And who knows: Perhaps the distrust started with the evolution issue. It is easy to imagine how a Christian conservative who thinks liberal scientists are full of it on evolution would naturally distrust said scientists on other issues as well.

Further research will no doubt unravel what’s going on here. In the meantime, we can simply observe: In the political science wars that have wracked America for well over a decade, both sides are consolidating their forces.

Related articles

• Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces (climatedesk.org)
• Why Climate Change Skeptics & Evolution Deniers Joined Forces (motherjones.com)
• Why climate skeptics and evolution deniers joined forces (grist.org)
• Creationists and Climate Skeptics Unite (slate.com)
• Bible-bashing climate change and evolution – an American phenomenon (nuclear-news.net)
• How do you get people to give a damn about climate change? (grist.org)
• Former U.S. ambassador David Jacobson takes aim at climate change skeptics (vancouversun.com)
• How Do You Get People to Give a Damn About Climate Change? (motherjones.com)
• 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #48 (skepticalscience.com)

Reality Check: We all need it (Book review)

Reality Check: We all need it (Book review)

Posted by idoubtit

There are some writers for which you know pretty much exactly what you are going to get. Donald R. Prothero is one of those writers. I expect a well-researched, comprehensive treatment of the topic with a flavor of emotion here and there. That’s what I got with Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten our Future, 2013, Indiana Univ Press.

The core of the book is summed up in the John Burroughs quote given on page 1:

To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another.

Once you observe the methods of creationists as the classic example of science denialists, you can recognize the same tactics in those that reject climate change. I have also noted the same tricks in environmentalists or those holding contrarian views about vaccines, the paranormal, and various consumer products.

The premise of Reality Check is that when “a well-entrenched belief system comes in conflict with scientific or historic reality” the believers in this system will actively discount, ignore or distort the facts that go against it. They may stop at nothing to defend their belief – they will lie, hide evidence, manufacture evidence, pay people off, bully, harass, discredit, and even threaten the scientists who are  supporting the “inconvenient” conclusion.

The book highlights denialism rampant in the fields of environmentalism, global warming, evolution education, vaccine information, AIDS treatment policy, medical claims, energy policy and population size and growth. Each chapter exposes the hidden agendas of those who reject the scientific consensus and provides the reader with the solid, established evidence.

As one example, Reality Check exposes the devious doings of the tobacco industry. I learned the history of the manufactured controversy surrounding the dangers of smoking about 5 years ago in my Master’s degree program in Science and the Public. I was appalled. I had no idea that there were people running an industry that was knowingly making people addicts and killing them just so they can keep their profit margins. The lies and deceptions were hard for me to accept but it was real! The facts are out there now and we know the truth about tobacco.

Citizens and consumers would be smart to learn the pattern of denialism as outlined in this book. Democracies need well informed citizens. Instead, we have a population that seems to prefer their news spoon fed from the internet or television, choosing outlets that support only their worldviews to begin with. There is no deliberation taking place, no deep thinking. Many are happy to exist only in their echo chambers never hearing the whole story.

The absolute strongest part of the book is the second chapter entitled “Science, Our Candle in the Darkness”. It enlightens the reader about what science is, what it isn’t, and how some exploit the public’s weakness in understanding how science works to convince them that the consensus is inaccurate. The “Baloney detection” section was particularly pointed, as Prothero explains the harm in false claims: “Pseudoscience robs people of their time or money or resources they really need in moments of stress and hardship and sells them phony answers and snake-oil just for temporary reassurance.” (Page 19)

Fake claims anger me. Fake claims backed by an agenda are even more devious and dirty. This compels me to do skeptical advocacy as I do. I know Don Prothero feels the same. Don is a wealth of knowledge.  What he has to say is important, not because it provides him income or notoriety. It’s because it’s the right thing to do. It’s what society needs to know in order to function to its highest purpose. I would pull out Chapter 2 and make it required reading in all senior high school classes. Kids need to be armed with information that can save them from losing money, health or wits by falling for nonsense ideas, quack cures and fast-talking dealers.

I learned many new things from this book, which is why I read books in the first place. Reality Check can be used as a college textbook and students will find their own personal well-entrenched belief system challenged. I recommend it for anyone interested in science, society or politics.

Related articles

• Donald Prothero wins 2013 James Shea Award (iupress.typepad.com)
• How do you get people to give a damn about climate change? (grist.org)
• Podcast: Donald Prothero discusses the dangers of denying science (iupress.typepad.com)
• The Dangers of Pseudoscience (richarddawkins.net)
• My Atheist Talk Stuff [Greg Laden’s Blog] (scienceblogs.com)
• How Do You Get People to Give a Damn About Climate Change? (climatedesk.org)
• Reality Check: We all need it (Book review) (idoubtit.wordpress.com)

Global Warming Has Not Slowed

Global Warming Has Not Slowed

We’re seeing an onslaught of misinformation on climate in the build up to the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change release later this week.

Here’s some truth to push back.

Related articles

• Global Warming Slowdown Not Likely to Last: Study (medindia.net)
• Global warming in danger zone (theage.com.au)
• Climate report heralds grave fears for state of the planet (smh.com.au)
• Climate change: IPCC issues stark warning over global warming | Environment | The Observer (theguardian.com)
• Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century (theguardian.com)
• Dangers of chilling on climate change (thehindu.com)

Exclusive: Billionaires Secretly Fund Attacks on Climate Science

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming sceptics

Via:- Steve Connor

The headquarters of Koch Industries in Wichita, Kansas

A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate “counter movement” to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.

Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Some commentators believe that such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate scepticism – some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.

The Knowledge and Progress Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.

The Donors Trust is a “donor advised fund”, meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.

Anonymous private funding of global warming sceptics, who have criticised climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobil. One such organisation, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch, claimed that the “Climategate” emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the “biggest hoax the world has ever seen”.

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Dr Brulle said: “We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.

“By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise.”

Related articles

• How the ‘Kochtopus’ stifled green debate
• Editorial: All interests must be declared
• Top climate scientist denounces billionaires over funding for climate-sceptic organisations
• Study forecasts global increase in freak weather
• How the ‘Kochtopus’ stifled green debate

Related articles

• Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science (Audit Trail Leads To Charles Koch) (democraticunderground.com)
• Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science (independent.co.uk)
• How the ‘Kochtopus’ stifled green debate (independent.co.uk)
• Are Billionaires Secretly Funding Attacks On Climate Science? (huffingtonpost.com)
• New Report Shows Extent of ‘Kochtopus’ Empire of Climate Denial (commondreams.org)
• Cash vs climate science (nzherald.co.nz)
• How the Koch Brothers Manipulate Climate Change Studies (nakedcapitalism.com)
• WindBaggers hire “Grassroots” Anti Wind Activists: 20 Bucks a Head to Break Wind (climatecrocks.com)

The 2013 Climate Change Wake-up Call

The 2013 climate change wake-up call

Is an extreme heatwave enough for people to start taking the science of climate change seriously in Australia? Dr Paul Willis hopes so.

By Paul Willis

Bureau map for January 8 shows area of deep purple over Australia. Shades of deep purple and magenta have been added to the forecast map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (BoM)

Related Stories

• Why are rising CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels?, Science Online, 14 Mar 2012
• Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission, A new report from the Federal Government’s Climate Commission says the heatwave and bushfires that have affected Australia this week have been exacerbated by global warming.
• Heat drives bureau back to the drawing board, The Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to introduce new colours to some of its charts because of recent extreme heat in Central Australia.

The hot weather that has besieged the nation since the beginning of the year and the associated bushfire threat has, I hope, been something of a cathartic experience for Australia. Finally an event that can be linked to climate change has been of such magnitude and impact that many people are now sitting up and taking notice.

Even so, we have been slow off the mark to discuss the linkage between extreme weather events and climate change and those discussions were still limited in extent. I’m hoping that the extreme heatwave is a ‘shot across the bow’ notice that we need to take climate change seriously — but already the climate denial camp are viewing these extreme events as business as usual.

The USA had a similar experience last year with Superstorm Sandy: a nasty, unprecedented weather event of horrendous impact that was also in line with the predictions made by climate science over the last couple of decades. Most of the US and indeed most of the world were shocked at the pictures of widespread devastation delivered by a single, freakish storm. Sandy came off the back of an even more devastating drought across much of the USA during the preceding northern summer that has also been linked to climate change.

Finally many Americans started to ask if these were the hallmarks of climate change. The country which has been the most inactive of nations with respect to recognising climate change and implementing measures to mitigate against its worst effects started to sit up and take notice. Climate change suddenly became very real and very serious. And to just drive the message home a little more clearly, last week it was announced that 2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental USA.

But perhaps the greatest influence on the American climate epiphany was not caused by the weather, nor did it even originate within their borders.

Economics counts more than science

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, insurance underwriting giant Munich Re issued a report  just before Superstorm Sandy hit their eastern seaboard. After analysing weather data from 1980 to 2011 they identified that the overall burden of losses from weather catastrophes was US$ 1,060 billion (in 2011 values). Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest single event ever recorded in the US with US$ 62.2 billion insured losses and overall losses of US$125 billion (in original values). The report went on:

“… Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America” and “Anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend”.

When an organisation like Munich Re issues a report like that, people, business and politicians sit up and take notice. The bottom line is that, due to the identified increased risk of damage and loss due to more severe weather events in North America, they are going to charge more for their insurance underwriting services. They have made a link between climate change and the wallets of America. And it’s when a dollar cost can be placed on something as esoteric as climate change science that people begin to take notice — we live in societies governed by economists, not scientists.

This message was reinforced this year when noted American economist Joe Stiglitz came out with nine ways that climate change is already hurting the US economy and some of these effects are huge. Stiglitz argues that climate change is likely to cost the US economy $3.8 billion per year by 2020, $6.5 billion per year by 2040 and $12.9 billion by 2080.

One would hope that most Americans awoke to 2013 with some very sobering prospects for their continued indifference and intransigence to climate change. And that’s right when Australia was delivered its climate clout: a savage reminder that what the climatologists have been saying for the last 20 years or more is real and has potentially devastating local consequences.

 

Heatwave coverage a slow burn

The New Year heralded the beginning of a widespread and intense heatwave across Australia. With this heatwave came a catastrophic risk of bushfires which went on to burn out large areas of several states. This infographic from activist group GetUp! neatly summarises the heatwave and bushfires as they stood on 10 January and places them in the context of climate change.

Let’s be clear here: attributing specific weather events to a general cause such as climate change is a tricky proposition. It’s akin to asking which individual cigarette is going to cause the lung cancer that kills the smoker. But, just as smoking has now been shown conclusively to cause cancer, there will also be an increasing occurrence of extreme weather events as predicted by climate change. While this or any specific event cannot be predicted by climate change models, the facts that they occur and their nature, is exactly what climate change models have been predicting.

While news bulletins and front pages across the nation were filled with stories covering the heatwave and bushfires, the Australian media was slow off the mark to explore the link between these events and climate change. After more than a week of record temperatures and scorching bushfires, there were no articles that suggested climate change had a part to play in the catastrophe.

Then on 8 January, The Conversation introduced climate change into the debate, and the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) provided expert comments to the media that explored climate change as a causal factor for the twin disasters. An AusSMC rapid reaction early that day included these comments from Dr Markus Donat, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre, at the University of New South Wales:

“In recent studies we have analysed how extreme temperatures have changed globally. For most regions, including Australia, we found that extremely high temperatures have become more frequent and more intense, while extremely low temperatures are occurring less frequently than they did in the middle of the 20th century.

“Counting the number of very warm days (in this specific case defined as the warmest 5 per cent during the 1951-1980 period) we found that during the most recent 3 decades 1981-2010 the frequency of days in this warmest category has increased by 40 per cent globally.”

It’s a contextual statement not so much directly linking the current events to climate change but providing the wider framework within which the heatwave and the fires could be interpreted. It was reused in the media 77 times over the following couple of days.

Later the same day in another release from the AusSMC, Liz Hanna, a convenor at the Climate Change Adaptation Research Network – Human Health, at the Australian National University, provided these more impassioned comments:

“Those of us who spend our days trawling — and contributing to — the scientific literature on climate change are becoming increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilisation. We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the timescale is contracting. This trepidation on the part of scientists and researchers, and in some cases flagrant resistance by stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry, to allow the real story to be fully revealed and comprehended by the public at large, has allowed the stalling of action to save the planet, and ourselves.

“To speak of heat alone, heat already kills more Australians than the road toll. If it is not already double, it soon will be.” …

“People who cannot access cooled environments are also at risk. The response of turning on air conditioners only exacerbates the problem of global warming. The only correct response is to slow down, and ultimately reverse, the warming.”

(I’ve reproduced Donat’s quote in full but edited the quote from Hanna as it was provided by the AusSMC).

Hanna’s comments received wider publication than Donat’s with over 202 publications using parts of her commentary. But, of those 202 publications, 182 were reprints of an article by Ben Cubby at Fairfax leaving just a handful of others that discussed the climate-heatwave-bushfire link. Thus, despite there being good and forceful comments from respectable researchers made readily available to the Australian media, the take up was rather poor and some media organisations ignored the issue completely.

The story was picked up overseas by the BBC as well as bloggers, and George Monbiot at The Guardian in the UK drew particular attention to how the heatwave was confronting evidence against climate change denial in Australia specifically naming Tony Abbot, Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer and The Australian.

 

Force of denial

Almost as soon as the discussion got started in Australia, the forces of denial and ignorance sprang back into life. On 9 January acting Opposition Leader, Warren Truss, was quoted thus:

“Indeed I guess there’ll be more CO2 emissions from these fires than there will be from coal-fired power stations for decades.”

This is, indeed, only his guess with no numbers or data to back it up. This off-the-cuff statement of belief was comprehensively pulled apart by Philip Gibbons, senior lecturer at the Australian National University, in The Conversation. Gibbons showed, in fact, that the amount of carbon released by the current bushfires is around 2 per cent of the annual emissions from Australia’s coal-fired power stations. To equal those annual power station emissions would require incinerating a forest the size of Tasmania.

Other media outlets maintained the business as usual climate denial. In The Weekend Australian on 12 January, the environment editor, Graham Lloyd, wrote a rather confused piece taking some details that have been changed in climate outlook predictions to cast doubt on the credibility of climate science.

It included a statement that, “The jury is out on the cause of the round of heatwaves hitting Australia”, with no clear idea who that ‘jury’ is. Ever fussing in the cracks trying to obfuscate a clear picture of what is actually going on, once again our national paper gets it hopelessly wrong on this issue. And this was after The Australian published this piece on 3 January covering predictions from the Bureau of Meteorology for an increase in both the frequency and intensity of future heatwaves. A rather confused agenda.

Let us hope that future discussions around climate change and what to do about it will be free of invented factoids and misinformation. It’s time to take the science seriously. We are witnessing the consequences of ignoring that science and pretending that climate change isn’t occurring. It’s a heavy price we are paying and that debt is only going to increase if we don’t wise up.

About the author:

Dr Paul Willis is the director of RiAus, Australia’s unique national science hub, which showcases the importance of science in everyday life.  The well-known palaeontologist and broadcaster previously worked for ABC TV’s Catalyst program. This article was first published on the RiAus website.

Related articles

• Australian bush fires: Extreme heatwave goes off the scale (guardian.co.uk)
• Wild weather: Extreme is the new normal. (newscientist.com)
• Australia heatwave part of global trend – IPCC chief (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
• Climate change turns up the heat (thehindu.com)
• The 2013 climate change wake-up call (abc.net.au)
• Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission (abc.net.au)

Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Greed-Driven Shills for Corporate Oligarchs

Meet The Climate Denial Machine

Via JILL FITZSIMMONS

Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is “a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.” The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the “controversy” over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat. When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.

Here, Media Matters looks at how conservative media outlets give industry-funded “experts” a platform, creating a polarized misunderstanding of climate science.

• Heartland Institute And James Taylor
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
• Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
• Heritage Foundation
• Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
• American Enterprise Institute
• Marc Morano
• Anthony Watts
• Steve Milloy
• Joe Bastardi
• Matt Ridley
• Larry Bell

Heartland Institute And James Taylor

The Economist has called the libertarian Heartland Institute “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” Every year, Heartland hosts an “International Conference on Climate Change,” bringing together a small group of contrarians (mostly non-scientists) who deny that manmade climate change is a serious problem. To promote its most recent conference, Heartland launched a short-lived billboard campaign associating acceptance of climate science with “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” including Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Fidel Castro. Facing backlash from corporate donors and even some of its own staff, Heartland removed the billboard, but refused to apologize for the “experiment.”

Heartland does not disclose its donors, but internal documents obtained in February reveal that Heartland received $25,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 and anticipated $200,000 in additional funding in 2012. Charles Koch is CEO and co-owner of Koch Industries, a corporation with major oil interests. Along with his brother David Koch, he has donated millions to groups that spread climate misinformation. Heartland also receives funding from some corporations with a financial interest in confusing the public on climate science. ExxonMobil contributed over $600,000 to Heartland between 1998 and 2006, but has since pledged to stop funding groups that cast doubt on climate change.

Despite their industry ties and lack of scientific expertise, Heartland Institute fellows are often given a media platform to promote their marginal views on climate change. Most visible is James Taylor, a lawyer with no climate science background who heads Heartland’s environmental initiative. Taylor dismisses “alarmist propaganda that global warming is a human-caused problem that needs to be addressed,” and suggests that taking action to reduce emissions could cause a return to the “the Little Ice Age and the Black Death.” But that hasn’t stopped Forbes from publishing his weekly column, which he uses to spout climate misinformation and accuse scientists of “doctoring” temperature data to fabricate a warming trend. It also hasn’t stopped Fox News from promoting his misinformation.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute has sponsored paid advertisements, op-eds, and blogs that misrepresent scientific research to downplay the threat of climate change. CEI’s director of energy and global warming policy Myron Ebell shed light on their motivation to muddle the science on the PBS Frontline special “Climate of Doubt”:

We felt that if you concede the science is settled and that there’s a consensus, you cannot — the moral high ground has been ceded to the alarmists.

By dismissing the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change as “phony,” CEI can justify standing in the way of government action to reduce emissions. To make its case, CEI dispatches its “experts” — many of which have no scientific background — to do media appearances and op-ed pieces casting doubt on climate science and opposing any potential solutions. Ebell has been cited by Fox News, Forbes and even CNN as an energy and environmental policy expert. Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis Jr. has written in Forbes, National Review and the National Journal opposing clean air rules.

CEI has received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Texaco, General Motors and the Koch Family Foundations among other fossil fuel interests over the last decade.

Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute

Perhaps the most visible member of CEI’s environmental team is Chris Horner, a lawyer who often appears on Fox News to cast doubt on climate science and claim that scientists are manipulating temperature data to manufacture a warming trend. At both CEI and The American Tradition Institute (ATI), Horner has filed Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests in an attempt to access anything to embarrass climate scientists.

The American Tradition Institute (ATI) is a free-market think tank focused on blocking environmental regulations and “battling radical environmentalist junk science head on.” ATI was launched in 2010 by the American Tradition Partnership (ATP), an industry-backed advocacy group that has fought campaign finance disclosure laws and was accused in the 2010 election cycle of corruption and money laundering. ATI is funded primarily by ATP and a handful of individuals and foundations with ties to the oil industry.

ATI Executive Director Tom Tanton is an energy industry consultant who has conducted research for the American Petroleum Institute and formerly served as the vice president of the oil industry-funded Institute for Energy Research. Weather forecaster Joe Bastardi and climate skeptic blogger Steve Milloy serve as advisors to the think tank.

Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce

The Manhattan Institute is a free-market think tank that advocates a “pro-growth” agenda on fossil fuels and downplays the scientific consensus on climate change. It’s website states that it is “unclear” whether human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, adding: “Despite the certitude with which the media and politicians treat the issue, the science remains muddled.”

The Manhattan Institute has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch Family Foundations over the last decade. It previously questioned the science on the health effects of tobacco after receiving funding from the tobacco industry.
Robert Bryce, a Senior Fellow at the think tank, regularly authors op-ed pieces for prominent mainstream and conservative publications and appears on Fox News promoting fossil fuel production and downplaying the potential of renewable energy. On climate change, Bryce has said: “I don’t know who’s right. And I don’t really care.” In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bryce claimed that the “science is not settled, not by a long shot.” He went on to suggest that a report of neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light is sufficient reason to question climate science.

Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation, one of the country’s most influential conservative think tanks, casts doubt on the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change and opposes efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. A 2010 white paper states: “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman has said that “global warming is clearly not a crisis and should not be addressed as one.” Citing presentations on “Climategate” at a Heartland Institute conference, he accused UN scientists of conspiring to “manufacture a global warming crisis.”

Heritage runs an online database of policy “experts” that includes climate contrarians Fred Singer, Cato’s Patrick Michaels, Heartland’s Joseph Bast, CEI’s Myron Ebell and Chris Horner, and JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy.

The Heritage Foundation has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch Family Foundations.

Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, contributes to the climate confusion by amplifying the voice of Patrick Michaels, the only climate scientist on our list of prominent climate contrarians. Michaels, who previously estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry, is Cato’s sole climate change expert. He is frequently quoted by major media outlets and has a Forbes column that he uses to downplay the threat of climate change. Other scientists have criticized him for misrepresenting their work.

Cato was co-founded by Charles Koch and has received millions from the Koch family. Past corporate donors include ExxonMobil, General Motors and the American Petroleum Institute.

American Enterprise Institute

In 2007, The Guardian reported that the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles critical of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. The Guardian noted that AEI has received substantial funding from ExxonMobil and that former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond — a vocal climate change skeptic — served as AEI’s Vice Chair. AEI criticized the story, saying they merely sought to subject the IPCC report to “serious scrutiny and criticism” but were not doubting the “existence of global warming.”

Nevertheless, AEI scholars have repeatedly downplayed the threat of climate change. Steven Hayward, who writes for National Review, has said that climate concerns are based on “propaganda” and that efforts to reduce emissions are “based on exaggerations and conjecture rather than science.” Former AEI president Christopher DeMuth acknowledged in 2001 that the earth has warmed but claimed “it’s not clear why this happened.” But some other AEI scholars have endorsed a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Marc Morano

Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. He previously worked for Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) — both vocal climate change deniers.

Although he has no scientific background, Morano has declared that the science of manmade climate change is “collapsing.” He has called global warming a “con job” and said that climate scientists “deserve to be publicly flogged.” Morano often appears on Fox News to spread misinformation on climate change, and Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly used his material to attack climate scientists.

Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT dismisses the scientific consensus on climate change and maintains that “real world evidence” shows that “global warming claims are failing.” To spread its message, CFACT organized the Copenhagen Climate Challenge — a conference of climate contrarians — to coincide with the UN climate conference in 2009.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts, a former television weatherman and climate skeptic who believes the U.S. temperature record is “unreliable,” runs the blog Watts Up With That. The blog features the fringe views of climate misinformers like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors and conservative media have previously seized on its misleading content.

In 2009, Watts was a driving force behind the controversy over leaked “Climategate” emails. In September 2012, he was at the center of a controversial PBS segment that aired his views as a “counterbalance” to climate experts without mentioning his ties to the industry-funded Heartland Institute. Watts was paid by the Heartland Institute for his work on temperature stations and is a regular speaker at Heartland conferences.

Steve Milloy

Steve Milloy is a lawyer and former tobacco industry consultant who was hired by the American Petroleum Institute to develop a PR strategy to downplay the threat of climate change. He has called those concerned about global warming “whacked out, intellectually and morally bankrupt.” The Washington Times regularly publishes columns by Milloy, and he frequently appears on Fox News to dismiss the need for government action to address climate change and air pollution.

Milloy runs JunkScience.com, which has previously obscured the risks of pesticides, ozone depletion, breast implants, asbestos and secondhand smoke and now seeks to similarly “debunk” global warming.

The site was initially sponsored by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a now-defunct PR front group funded by tobacco giant Philip Morris to downplay the danger of cigarette smoke. TASSC later received funding from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Occidental Petroleum and other corporate donors. JunkScience.com is currently run by the Citizens for the Integrity of Science (CFIS), which does not disclose its donors.

Joe Bastardi

Joe Bastardi is a meteorologist for WeatherBell Analytics, where he provides weather forecasts for energy companies and other corporate clients. He also serves as an advisor to the American Tradition Institute and a Fox News contributor. Although he has no climate expertise, Fox regularly turns to him to analyze climate research. Bastardi, who has called manmade global warming “an obvious fraud,” has often been criticized by scientists for his “utter nonsense” on climate change.

Bastardi is not the only dubious source of climate misinformation on Fox News. Fox anchors and contributors regularly mock the threat of climate change and suggest that winter weather invalidates global temperature records. Rather than talking to actual climate scientists, the network turns to industry-funded climate denialists — including CEI’s Chris Horner, the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce, Climate Depot’s Marc Morano and JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy — to mislead its viewers on climate science. Fox Nation, a branch of FoxNews.com, regularly cites the British tabloid The Daily Mail and distorts climate research to declare that global warming isn’t happening.

Matt Ridley

Science writer Matt Ridley frequently uses his Wall Street Journal column to dismiss the threat of climate change and argue that climate scientists should not be trusted. Ridley has suggested that “the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible” and has compared climate scientists to eugenicists. The Journal does not disclose that Ridley is an unpaid advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was founded by the chairman of a company that represents several major oil companies.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has also cast doubt on climate change, calling it a “fad-scare” and claiming that the science is “disputable.” In January 2012, the Journal published an op-ed by 16 scientists and engineers — most of which do not conduct climate research — to muddle the science and undermine action on climate change, yet reportedly rejected a climate change essay by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Larry Bell

Larry Bell, an architecture professor who has not published any peer-reviewed climate research, wrote Climate of Corruption, in which he argues that “politics is responsible for the global warming hoax.” Forbes provides Bell a weekly column where he often casts doubt on manmade climate change, which he incorrectly says is “based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions” when in fact there are several observed lines of evidence of rapid climate change.

Related articles

• Climate Change Study: IPCC underestimating sea level rise (indybay.org)
• Media Matters for America : False Balance and Fake Experts (point4counterpoint.wordpress.com)
• Denial-a-Palooza: Heartland Institute’s 5 Most Offensive Attacks On Science and Public Health (desmogblog.com)
• “Missing” global heat may hide in deep oceans (uk.reuters.com)
• Denial-a-Palooza Hits Germany and DeSmog is There… Kind Of (desmogblog.com)
• Heartland Institute Launches New Anti-Clean Energy Effort (chicagoist.com)
• Heartland Calls Wahhmbulance. Anticipates Frontline will Report Truth. (climatecrocks.com)
• Denial-a-Palooza: Does German Media Really Believe There is No Link Between Cigarettes and Lung Cancer? (desmogblog.com)
• Help scientists who are being attacked by Climate of Doubters (profmandia.wordpress.com)

Deranged British Climate Change Denier James Delingpole in Wall Street Journal

The precipitous decline of a once-great newspaper.

Today at the Wall Street Journal we find an appalling article titled Climategate 2.0, by one of Britain’s most deranged and dishonest climate change deniers, James Delingpole — who often appears on the crazed radio show of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Every sentence in this first paragraph is an outright lie:

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world’s top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet….

No, these private emails were stolen, by someone with an obvious agenda to sabotage the UN climate summit.

Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data…

Absolutely false. Neither batch of emails shows scientists “fudging” anything. Seven independent investigations confirmed that the first release showed no scientific wrongdoing whatsoever, and the scientists were utterly vindicated. The second release is just a warmed over rehash, with even less substance than the first; if the deniers behind this illegal theft had any real bombshells, they would have released them already.

…conspiring to bully and silence opponents…

Again, absolutely false. The scientists do discuss the bullying and lying tactics of climate change deniers, and how to respond to them, however — the same sort of bullying and lying you see in this article by Delingpole.

… and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

And this is also absolutely false. The emails show discussion about various aspects of the scientific data, and as always in science, disagreements about the meaning of some findings. There’s no evidence whatsoever in these emails of doubt about the “reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory.” None.

The rest of Delingpole’s article continues in this vein, shamelessly lying about the meaning of these stolen emails. The Wall Street Journal should be humiliated to have fallen so low that they would publish such a dishonest article about such an important subject. Disgusting.

UPDATE at 11/28/11 9:27:06 am

Here’s the man tapped by the Wall Street Journal to write about climate change, demonstrating his deliberate ignorance on the subject — and admitting openly that he never even reads any scientific sources. Instead he relies on other people’s “interpretations.”

Via:- Deranged British Climate Change Denier James Delingpole in Wall Street Journal

Related articles

• Deranged British Climate Change Denier James Delingpole in Wall Street Journal (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/01/25/watch-climate-change-denier-james-delingpole-admits-he-doesnt-do-science/
• http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame
• http://crunkfish.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/shock-climate-change-denier-cites-dodgy-evidence-eaglegate/
• http://www.theecosocialist.com/1/post/2011/2/well-known-climate-change-deniers-caught-with-their-trousers-down.html
• http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/29/205420/delingpolegate-monbiot-slams-anti-science-columnist-for-leading-telegraph-into-vicious-climate-over-email/
• http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/11/climate-sceptic-james-delingpole-driven-by-ideological-war/
• Suspected White House Shooter’s Right Wing Ideas (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)

What to expect from a Rick Perry administration: active suppression of science

What to expect from a Rick Perry administration: active suppression of science

Regular readers know I am no fan of Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry. The reasons for this are legion, including his stance on evolution and global warming.

Now there’s evidence it’s even worse than I thought: The Guardian is reporting that Governor Rick Perry’s administration in Texas is actively suppressing science. A report about the environmental impact of global warming on Texas was apparently edited by officials, “… deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction.”

This action smacks of scientific suppression and censorship. And before you accuse me of overreacting, the scientists involved in writing the report felt this editing was so bad that the original authors of the report asked for their names to be removed from the final version. Yegads.

This story was originally reported in the Houston Chronical, and Mother Jones has an example of the changes made. It’s starting to pop up in other venues as well like Climate Progress and Climate Science Watch.

Looking it all over, the charges that science is being suppressed hold up pretty well. John Anderson is a researcher at Rice University, and author of a chapter of the report heavily redacted by the agency in question, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). His opinion is clear:

That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the [TCEQ]. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. “The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax,” said Anderson.

Terrific. I’m not terribly surprised by this; after all, Perry nominated creationists to head up the Texas State Board of Education not just once, but three times. Putting a climate change denier in charge of an environmental commission is par for his course.

When Bush was President, science suppression was rampant when it disagreed with political ideology (which was very, very common). If Perry is elected, we can expect more of the same. I’m very glad to see Perry sinking in the polls right now, but as far as science goes, the other options aren’t much better.

As I’ve said before, if you’re a Republican and you support science, you need to make your voice heard. It’s now long-since become de rigeur for GOP candidates to deny all manners of science if they want to get elected. It may not be too late. Speak up… or forever be denied your peace.

via:- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/18/what-to-expect-from-a-rick-perry-administration-active-suppression-of-science/

Related articles

• What to expect from a Rick Perry administration: active suppression of science (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Texas officials censored climate change report (newscientist.com)
• Christopher Brauchli: Texas Censors Science (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rick Perry’s Climate Censorship Takes Cues from George W. Bush (treehugger.com)
• Texas State Agency Censors Environmental Report, Removing Climate Change References (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Scientists Revolt in Perry Climate Change Clash (newser.com)
• Scientists confront Perry administration over censorship in Texas (blogs.nature.com)
• ‘Governor’ Rick Perry has climate change erased from reports (inquisitr.com)
• Are We About to See a “New” (National Version) Rick Perry? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Kids sue TCEQ to preserve the future and halt climate change (texasvox.org)
• Rick Perry: a campaign of gaffes and mis-steps (telegraph.co.uk)
• Global Warming Doubter Rick Perry (gaylekimball.wordpress.com)