wilderness issues lecture series
Climate Change Coverage Lacking, Experts Say
By Peter Metcalf, 3-05-08
 | |
|
When it comes to the hot topic of climate change, the news media needs to do a better job of clarifying the science and shifting the conversation toward solutions, a trio of panelists agreed Tuesday night as part of the ongoing Wilderness Issues Lecture Series at the University of Montana.
The challenge for the media in providing sufficient and accurate coverage of environmental news, particularly climate change, is partly due to its nature, the panelists said.
The media likes breaking stories, or at least stories that have a clear sequence of events, “but stories like those on climate and the environment don’t break, they ooze. They ooze over time,” said panelist Frank Allen, president and executive director of the Institute for Journalism and Natural Resources and a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
They are also inherently complex. Translating the science for the public and exploring the varied contexts of an issue requires a lot more space and time than a normal-length news story, so many news organizations choose not to, said panelist Michelle Nijhuis, a contributing editor with High Country News.
“Selling a climate story to a national editor is a tough thing to do,” she said.
High Country News gave her two years to fully explore the science of climate change and its potential impacts on the West. In 2006, her five-part series on climate change won the Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science journalism.
Environmental stories also tend to be high on doom and gloom and low on hope, a combination that discourages many editors or publishers, the panelist said.
“Some scholars would argue that the primary purpose of media is to get eyeballs to ads. If that’s the case, you don’t want to tell stories that make people grumpy and sad” and have them stop reading, said associate professor of communications studies Steve Schwarze.
In recent years, competition from the Internet media has made deep cuts into print media ad revenue. These declines coupled with debts accumulated from a string of recent mergers and acquisitions have led many newspapers to lay off staff in order to maintain profit margins, Allen said.
The remaining, smaller news staff must now cover more beats, which compromises a reporter’s ability provide a complete story, Nijhuis added.
For years the media’s coverage of climate change tried to bring balance, but at the expense of accuracy, Schwarze said. A recent study on climate change coverage showed that news agencies place an “emphasis on balancing the voices like those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with those of what I call the climate contrarians,” he said.
This resulted in even coverage of both “sides” of the issue, but did not reflect accurate ratios of opinion in the scientific community, nor was this discrepancy explained, Schwarze said. So when it comes to climate change, balanced reporting did not equal accurate reporting.
The additional weight given to climate change skeptics and other non-peer reviewed science has stalled the reporting and thus the public dialogue on climate change, the panelists said. These skeptics are often paid by energy giants such as Exxon Mobil or Peabody coal as part of an deliberate mis-information campaign aimed at undermining the consensus view on climate change and the science that supports it, they said.
“We are always making decisions in the face of uncertainty,” Nijhuis said, and uncertainty shouldn’t stall discussion of what action society should take.
But, the panelists agreed that emerging trends in coverage of climate change issues are promising. More small and regional papers are running stories on the local impacts of climate change, making it more meaningful for local audiences, they said.
Click here for the Wilderness Issues Lecture Series schedule.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
There are 38,794 articles discussing 'climate change.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
March 4, 2008, 2:14 pm
Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference
By John Tierney
Tags: carbon tax, climate change, global warming
Yesterday I asked you to analyze a report presented at the Heartland Institute’s conference of global-warming skeptics. A lot of readers had the same reaction I did after I read the report and attended the conference yesterday: There are some interesting points here, but who knows? The skeptics point to some genuine discrepancies between the climate models and what’s actually happened; they’re probably right in criticizing the United Nations’ I.P.C.C. for not paying enough attention to the impact of solar variations on the Earth’s climate. But climate is so complicated, and cuts across so many scientific disciplines, that it’s impossible to know which discrepancies or which variables are really important.
Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,” the “energy crisis,” the “cancer epidemic” from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades– and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change. So I’m glad to see contrarians raising awkward questions and pointing out weaknesses in predictions made with computer models. As S. Fred Singer, the editor of the skeptics’ report, said at the conference yesterday: “Models are very nice, but they’re not reality and they’re not evidence.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Don't get me started on the Heartland Institute. When I was studying physics as a graduate stdent at Caltech some 42 years ago, the story was that fusion energy would be available in 25 years. When I talk with the theoretical physicists there now, they talk about it being 50 years in the future. Might be another non-solvable problem.
The 'ol science is settled according to consensus. Sheesh, what a load of manure. The models are constantly being adjusted because other considerations come to light. Recently, warming in the North Atlantic was found not to be due to GW, but to wind patterns. Science keeps evolving as we go. Dr. William Briggs has this on consensus: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/
Furthermore Craig, you are correct: science IS evolving. It is consistently progressing towards a more complete understanding of climate disruption. You are using sources which are blogs. Blogs, as this article points out, are not peer-reviewed. Blogs are interesting to read, but are opinionated and generally not factual. High School English teachers won't even accept blogs as credible fact sources in student essays. How can we possibly accept them here?
Also, jwscott, I thought I should point out that snowpack is set to increase throughout the high-elevation west. This is due to increased precipitation. The temperatures in Colorado are rising, but they still have not risen above freezing. The result: more snow. But please don't be so short-sighted. Climate change is a GLOBAL phenomenon. While you're experiencing more snow this winter, people in Africa are experiencing drought. More snow at your house, doesn't make it all right. The scope of your vision is too narrow to fully appreciate the climate calamity we are facing.
But let's bring this discussion back on track. What about the media? Obviously it's essential in our society. With folks like Glenn Beck, who states he will "cover The Heartland Institute`s global warming truth or swindle conference going on here in New York City like it was the second coming of Jesus himself," it is clear that there is media bias on both sides of the debate. But still, the difference between the IPCC and the Heartland Institute can be summed up in one word: CREDIBILITY.
Just like our friend Pete Geddes, the Heartland Institute has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil to hold conventions and spew disbelief. The IPCC is funded by the UN.
How can a journalist honestly provide such in-depth coverage to a corporate-funded faux-climate-conference? I don't know. But I think it's important to look at just where our news comes from, not just what the news is.
Your thoughts?
ps: I was at the lecture. We even talked about all of you! You're famous!
Just don't forget, Brett, that science is ultimately judged by the lay public, and their stupid politicians. Unless the questions of the trogs are answered to the satisfaction of the trogs, the science won't drive the policies.
Never mind that science has been wrong or led to wrong political decisions in the past. If you choose to ignore the inherently social context of science and its role in that context, you're toast.
My citation to Dr. Briggs column was about consensus. Which of his examples that you take issue?
http://www.checklisttowardzerocarbon.wordpress.com
Regarding Exxon's postion on climate change this is what they have published: http://www.exxonmobileurope.com/Europe-English/Citizen/Eu_VP_climate.asp
So what is the story that needs to be covered? Maybe the story that really needs to be covered is the continuing railing against large corporations who may present a cost effective way at producing usable energy... that being the refining of oil and gas.
Maybe the story that needs to be covered is the total lack of thought that laymen show in regards to the so called solutions? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Bio-fuels? All produce CO2--lots of it, in their production and use. So what is the solution again? Why are these "better" than gasoline?
The fact that people don't want to hear is that CO2 concentrations will never be going down in our lifetime simply because the world's population is increasing and that means more power production, more manufacturing, more food production, more transportation of people and goods--simply more CO2. So if man-made CO2 is the cause of warming it is not going to be going down any time in the next century unless the world population suddenly declines.
We will burn hydrocarbons until they are too expensive to extract, because they represent the easiest and most cost effective (read: least amount of energy required to process for a) usable source. Nothing is going to change that.
Use less energy, make less CO2. Become more efficient. CO2 is only the indicator of how (in)efficient we are in managing our known resources. Laymen reporters.... Stop telling our children that the next magic green bullet is the answer.
Maybe this will help? California has some hydrogen powered vehicles. They are finding they cost significantly more to run than using diesel. I could have told them THAT fact before they started. AND, that they use MORE ENERGY...
Let's start with Chemistry 101:
Most efficient combustion of any hydrocarbon:
CH4 + O2 --> CO2 + H2O
(here we have methane combustion)
Combustion of any hydrocarbon, including bio-diesel and ethanol, create CO2 and water.
Hydrogen combustion:
H2 + O2 --> H20
Only problem we have is WHERE DOES THE HYDROGEN COME FROM?
Electrolysis of water with electricity? Reformation of natural gas in a catalytic reformer? More energy is required to make hydrogen than just burning the hydrocarbon used to make it. More carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) are produced in making hydrogen then simply burning the light hydrocarbon used to make it.
Visit this government site:
http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/cocoon/morf/hydrogen/site_specific/fuel_heating_calculator?canprint=false
Enter Heating, fuel amount=1, units=standard cubic foot for hydrogen.
Now change the fuel to natural gas....
The thermodynamic reality?
About 300 BTU / SCF for hydrogen.
About 1000 BTU / SCF for natural gas.
Conclusion? Natural gas has 3 times more energy in it.
It also burns cleaner than diesel.
Yes, it still produces CO2, but so does Hydrogen--in its creation it makes MORE carbon dioxide in the current processes of reformation of a hydrocarbon.
**Why not just burn the hydrocarbon the hydrogen is made from rather than use LOTS of ENERGY to make something with LESS ENERGY?**
I don't get it.
There is already a network of CNG stations/tanks/refueling sites.
We are ready to go on this solution that is so much more efficient and requires so much less effort than the so called hydrogen economy! The only other question is, does the amount of energy needed to refine/compress/store/transport this CNG exceed that of the entire life cycle of pumping/transporting/refining/storing gasoline?
Now for some side activities:
Use the same link above and change the fuel to ethanol and units to gallon.
Do the same for gasoline. Hmnnnn.
So the real problem is not reporting. It is people not taking the time to understand the realities of how much energy it takes to make our world run.
http://www.atu.org/atwork/transit_news/vta-hydrogen-buses-cost-much-more-to-run-than-diesel.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet even before the program was announced for this week’s conference, even as Heartland was (without success) inviting Mr. Gore and scientists on his side to come debate, the event was dismissed as impossibly tainted by money. At RealClimate , the blog that touts its devotion to sober scientific analysis, the Heartland Institute was written off as “a front group for the fossil fuel industry,” the same them that was picked up by some commenters on this blog.
Here’s a response from Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president: “Donations from energy companies have never amounted to more than 5 percent of our budget in any year, and there is no corporate sponsor underwriting any of this conference. These criticisms are just a standard left-swing smear...”
If readers insist on debating the pecuniary motives of scientists and their patrons, I’d be curious to see figures comparing how much money corporations, foundations and government agencies today give to global-warming skeptics versus how much they give to the other side. Again, I’m not suggesting that the researchers taking this money are corrupt, or that scientists will suppress the truth if it turns out the current prevailing view of climate change is wrong. If contradictions emerge, scientists will debate and revise their theories eventually.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I suggest reading the entire column to see how Mr. Tierny deconstructs Brett's fingerpointing.
But it will take longer to figure out what’s happening if dissent is stifled and skeptics are demonized. The skeptics in the minority start off with a disadvantage in getting their message heard simply because of the media’s bias for bad news and horror stories. When there’s a well-financed majority dominating the public debate, I find it odd to hear its members objecting to anyone else receiving money or attention.
Chaos, I'm with you, who is selling these carbon credits, and where does the money go? Is it taxable income? Are their books open to examination? Do they ever sell more carbon credits than they have? If they buy them, do they buy more than they sell, do they mark them up? Are they all the same price? To me it sounds like the old snake oil, but now in imaginary bottles.
The Coast Range of Oregon has had snow above 2000 ft. for over three months. I was looking at it today in the full wally sunshine and warmth of approaching spring, and one particular clear cut that was reburned in a wildfire last year is still white, not a stump or dark spot yet to show. Truly beautiful to have seemingly perpetual snow on both sides of the Willamette Valley. I have lived here since 1946, and this is the most snow I have seen for this long of time in the Coast Range. The east flowing streams have that clarity and deep green color of slow snow melt. Those streams are usually muddy or thick looking even in summer. At this time, they look pure, cold, and life giving. I want some more of this global warming.
First, it's not clear what conclusion we are supposed to draw from the hits on Google News. Measuring changes in news coverage over time, examining the distribution of these articles, or doing a content analysis are just a few of the things that would help us understand the broad trends in climate change coverage. To be sure, there is plenty of research yet to be done!
Second, I think there is a legitimate concern from all quarters about labeling in this controversy. The "contrarian" label is one I use advisedly--one that accurately represents the role that those voices are playing in the public discourse about climate change. One might say that such a label is biased, but labels that do not bring attention to scientists' participation in the concerted opposition campaign would actually be more distorting. Journalists and scholars who have brought attention to this campaign have indeed improved the public dialogue. (See the link below for more on this.)
On a more personal level, I strongly take issue with anyone who claims that I (or the other panelists, for that matter) called people who disagree with us corrupt or stupid. I don't believe recordings of the event will support that.
Third, questions about the money flow are interesting, but that is only one aspect of the broader communication issue. The issue is not the money itself, but how private interests have enlisted surrogates (scientific spokespersons, think tanks, front groups) to circulate messages that serve those interests. As a result, these messages can appear to be "reasonable, common-sense" positions that are widely shared, rather than the self-interested advocacy of a company. By some definitions, such an orchestration of a message that hides its real source and interests is an instance of propaganda.
You can see a terrific online lecture about this by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at UCSD:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
~Steve
The title to this column is "Climate Change Coverage Lacking, Experts Say."
Today, Google News shows about 39000 references to articles covering climate change. If the experts are wrong about the extent of media coverage, what else have they overlooked like the winds that have lead to North Atlantic warming?
Take a look at todays photo on the home page of newwest. It tells the "climate change" story without a word.
I am always amazed to see all of the concern about the funding of those who dare speak out against global warming, but never a peep on how the advocates can afford so many meetings and "studies" supposedly without funding. I guess when snow is falling on the rest of us it is dollars falling from the sky for them.
In the following link, change * to .
http://money*cnn*com/2007/01/25/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_gunther_exxonmobil.fortune/
This effort by Exxon to start a listening and communication process seems promising.
My life experience is that anytime I have been a part of something that ended up in print, on tv, as news, or as reporting, what I had said was edited to where it did not make sense to me, or what was written did not paint the picture I had seen as an eyewitness.
Journalism school is about crafting the written word, ethics one would hope, and how to get the story out. Nothing about that prepares the journalist to challenge scientific findings. And, without the help of the science community putting out press releases, little investigative reporting would be done to uncover the latest in findings. Journalists get essentially the information fed to them. And then they edit it.
My life has been one experience with "the best science" after another, and all too many times the "best science" proves to be incomplete, or just plain wrong. My life experience. I was a logger, a forester, a timber, land, and log buyer. I cleaned miles of creek, thus ruining them, because the best science said it was critical. I was told by a government biologist that salmon carcasses end up in the ocean and were of no value to feeding young fish as he had been taught at university. We over stocked every planted acre as per rule and regulation. The list of wrong headed actions that were done because of rule and regulation developed using "best science" is long. So, I have a lifetime of real experiences that tell me to not accept science with a strong political following. Al Gore is reason enough to challenge global warming. His expertise was as a journalist before politics. As just another reporter, his credentials and side show are not what I will lay down my economic life for.
1. Boiled down, the panelists said: "There's really only one side to the story, and to give two sides distorts the science." If you tell someone who disagrees with you that there's only one way of thinking--my way--you are telling them that you think they're lacking in the IQ dept.
2. The reporter said the panelists noted that "skeptics are often paid by energy giants such as Exxon Mobil or Peabody coal as part of an deliberate mis-information campaign aimed at undermining the consensus view on climate change and the science that supports it..." Accusing someone of taking money to tell lies sure sounds like accusing them of corruption.
PS: Michelle Nijhuis receives money from High Country News, which receives money from a lot of environmental groups which have strong political agendas. Did that invalidate what she had to say on the panel? Or does this criticism only work one way?
Secondly most of us tend to judge the veracity of others by our own honesty.
Third too many researchers are trying to prove a specific point, rather than starting with an open mind. I think we saw the pitfalls of that mindset with the jack rabbit debacle in Yellowstone by Joel Berger. I suspect a great deal of the global warming hype is falling victim to the same thing. The whole thing is based on temps of a relatively few years of information and entirely different measuring tools that were ever available before. they keep trying to diminish the evidense that gw might not exist, especially in the terrible extent predicted. The hurricane predictions were fortunately way off the mark, we are experiencing a record breaking cold winter all across the world. Does this winter mean we are heading into another ice age, I doubt it, one winter is really no more significant thatn a decade of warmth is indicative of any significant changes.
My other concern with research is paid government employees supplementing their income with research grants.
Environmental groups need to realize that name calling diminishes their argument tremendously.
The point isn't to give Berger more grief, but to point out--as Marion as done--that folks on the global-warming side of the issue have as much incentive as anyone to to fudge the facts. Not only are they getting research money from environmental groups, but there's money coming from foundations, government programs, universities, and various businesses such as those that engage in recycling, sale of carbon credits, etc.
Simply put, when folks like those on this panel talk about skeptics being funded by Exxon Mobil, it suggests that they might be more interested in scoring political points than they are in getting the science right. If they really wanted to get the science right, they would be cleaning up the mess in their own back yard, starting with Berger.
(I will admit, I wasn't at the lecture, so the panelists might have been critical of Berger's work. If so, I apologize to them and congratulate them for their consistency.)
What do you guys think of this particular thought, regardless of whatever motivations you have?
Did you attend the lecture?
Addressing the remainder of the forum, I did attend the lecture and found there to be a calling for journalistic activism. I don't believe that was the intention of the panelists or the study, the idea was bound to arise. I believe it is journalism's job to act as a broker mechanism. It is the activists job to be activists. If journalists take, or are perceived to take an activist angle, they will loose all credibility. As a broker mechanism, even the most ignorant dissenters cannot discredit the journalists. This allows media to maintain a public discussion on the issue.
As I said, it is the activist's job to be activists. If activists keep holding lectures and rallies, the media will have to report on them. If people write op-eds and letters to the editor, the issues of climate change will grow as an issue.
Think for a moment about the civil rights movement. It was not the media that called for change. It was the activists who made too much noise for anyone, especially the media, to ignore.
People keep expecting the government, public officials, and industries to save them from climate change.
Like Winona LaDuke said on her recent to UM, "no one is going to save us."
The truth is, its not the government, public officials, or industry that's destroying our planet. Its us, whether by our actions or our apathy.
Does that invalidate what Allen had to say on the panel? If not, why not? Or is the issue that people who take corporate contributions can say certain things but not others? If so, who decides what it is that is acceptable to say, and what is not acceptable to say? Who is the High Priest of the Global Warming Word?
The point is, this whole thing can get rather tricky. And everyone who is kicking in money is doing so because they want a seat at the table, a voice in the debate, some influence in the process.
Also, as Chaos Tamer notes, you can't automatically assume that you're going to get the straight story from someone who is getting their money from a source other than industry. Consider the Joel Berger example.
Another example is case of the Iraq death study published in the Lancet a few years ago, and funded by George Soros. The study, which claimed 650,000 Iraqis had died in the war, was rushed to print just 3 weeks before the 2006 elections. Two months ago, National Journal magazine investigated and found the "study" had vastly over-estimated the number of deaths because it was conducted by people with ideological axes to grind, it used bad research techniques, and so on. And yet the "study" got through the peer review process, apparently because the results jibed with what the reviewers wanted to believe.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
Case in point: I watched a special on all the amputees, bad veterans health service, and the intimation that many, many people had lost limbs, all in military service in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I went to the internet, and at the time of program taping, there had been less than 600 who had lost limbs. Oh. None would be better, but 600 after 4 years of war did not seem to be a huge number. I thought at least that many had lost limbs in industrial accidents and car wrecks outside of war and combat here in civilian life. Was the amputee story about brave people coping, or an anti-war piece that just did not tell all the story, all the facts.
Two weeks ago: Story in USA Today about all the cities in the US that had yet to experience a fatality of a home town man or woman. Their population bottom limit was 100,000. The top of the list was Oakland, CA., Mayor Dellums running the place having taken over from Jerry Brown. No Oakland or Richmond (Rep. George Miller District) or Daly City or Billings, MT., deaths in the wars in the Middle East.
I sort of fixated on Oakland. At 400,000 population, the statistical anomoly seems out of whack to me. There are little burgs in Oregon with less than 3,000 pop. that have lost more than one in action. It turns out, that while the Iraq and Afghanistan deals have been ongoing, 700 Oakland murders have taken place. Last year (2007) 650 people were shot but not killed in Oakland. It is the 4th ranked most criminal place in the US, with Detroit numero uno. Those kinds of places have more than 4000 capital offenses per 100,000 population.
So, the deal is that you have a 700 times more chance of being killed in Oakland than serving in the military in the MidEast. Or is it there just are not any military in the all volunteer Army from Oakland? Now I have to wonder how many amputations and cases of paralysis have come from living in Oakland, CA., due to violence each year?
Or is this a deal where rural, often very poor, people are in the National Guard for the extra income and a pension, or the kids are in the military to earn a scholarship to college because the economic opportunity at home is limited? Are the non-serving peaceniks and bedfellows in the environmental movement limiting jobs to the point kids join the military out of need, thus being statistically more likely to die young than their demographic and geography should lead to? Lots of questions, and lots of answers, and many more questions to be asked.
So now I have to wonder who the voters are who think the war effort is the problem number one? I would think that 16,000 or more murders every year in the USA would be an eye opener, especially those of drug and gangsta origin. At the rate our military is dying in those wars, there will be more than 100,000 murders in the USA while the war has been fought before we ever see another 1000 soldiers or sailors lost.
So I did see the numbers of fatality free cities in USA Today. But I did not see it in any other papers, or on the internet. Not a big deal to those who want to smash Bush, Republicans, and War. But the war here is very real. Many, many Americans are being murdered every day. Here. And I suspect some of them will not be missed, but that should not be for the media to say or even not report.
I just think the Soros kind of money, the tilt of the press to the left, way too much political correctness, all are not serving the country as well as it could be served.
I fought global climate change today. Filled my tank with E10. Checked my mileage. Still hovering at 12mpg, down from 15. Now I am burning more fuel to go the same distance, and nobody is telling me if my extra fuel use, although 10% ethanol, is having a net cooling effect.
;?)
I have commented in other places, but the obsession with carbon is rediculous given so many other factors. IF it were only that simple to reach a predetermined point of climate stasis by regulating carbon. NOW, we are learning we can't even do that. China is way over the top. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310155857.htm
>>>>>>>>>
Alarming Growth In Expected Carbon Dioxide Emissions In China, Analysis Finds
ScienceDaily (Mar. 10, 2008) — The growth in China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is far outpacing previous estimates, making the goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases even more difficult, according to a new analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and UC San Diego.
Previous estimates, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions, the largest contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases, between 2004 and 2010. The new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11 percent for the same time period.
The researchers' most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would dramatically overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol. (The protocol was never ratified in the United States, which was the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide until 2006, when China took over that distinction, according to numerous reports.)
Put another way, the projected annual increase in China alone over the next several years is greater than the current emissions produced by either Great Britain or Germany.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
When is the media going to get over its carbon obsession and look at real climate drives? Last night the History Channel had an interesting program. The Younger Dryas was some serious climate change. See: http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti
I would be interested in understanding how "feasible" a carbon free society is -- when human beings produce carbon dioxide as part of their metabolism and all current sources of so called "carbon free" energy produce carbon dioxide during their manufacturing. Maybe he meant a "carbon life-form free" world. That would work. THAT is a "value judgment". The other portion of Mr. O'Neill's consideration IS A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Stop all carbon dioxide production? That is simply not going to happen as long as we live and breath and multiply. 6 Billon people on Earth in 2008, over 9 billon in 2050. Where is all that energy going to come from to FEED, clothe, and house these people?
Move off the coast line.....
.........
"When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."
Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 10, 2008; A01
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising.
For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."
James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).
But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."
While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt.
Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent.
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said.
The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years.
But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales.
"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."
Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said.
Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time.
Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all."
Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales."
Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations."
When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."
I think your article raises an interesting point, however. Steve Gardiner says it's a "classic inter-generational debate".
My question to all of you is this: what if we were to allow the generation (say, anyone from 0-30 y/o) who is going to face the consequences of climate change to make the decisions on what we should do to solve the problem?
If they choose to do nothing, as most of you are proposing, then we could just let things lie. But if they choose to solve the problem of global warming, would you be willing to make the necessary changes?
I think it's important to recognize who carries the burden of the mistake. In this case, since climate disruption is such a slow, incremental process, it seems only fair that we ask the future generation what to do instead of leaving it up to folks who will be dead before they have to face the consequences.
Instead of offering more thoughts on your views on the over-arching debate of whether or not global warming is real, let's try to stick to the points at hand. By discussing the individual aspects of climate disruption, I think we can come to a greater understanding. Thanks.
I think there are three scenarios in this situation, and all benefit the "we need to do something now" environmentalists:
1. We do nothing. Global warming continues and the computer models correctly predict the effects. The environmentalists say it is our fault for not acting when we should have.
2. We "do something". Global warming trends continue. The crowd says we did not do enough soon enough.
3. We do something and the warming trend stabilizes or reverses (even if in the side scenario, carbon dioxide output and concentration continues to rise). The environmentalists declare victory and say they were right all along. Really?
In none of these scenarios are we allowed doubt that a multi-variable system is being correctly modeled. In none of these scenarios are we allowed to say, "there is nothing we can do--population increase, in itself, is enough to indicate that CO2 concentration and output will continue to rise over the next century. In none of these scenarios are we allowed to question the "next green solution" that is a knee jerk reaction to a real or perceived threat. (ethanol, hydrogen, and electric vehicles immediately come to mind for various reasons).
"Human-kind" is at fault in all of these scenarios. And, maybe we are. But that is not going to change the reality that we are in a warming trend that, based on current evidence requires: no more population increase, zero output of carbon dioxide right now, more than significant restraint of developed and developing countries (that includes all first world countries and China and India), and no other distractions like energy/resource depleting wars, famine, disease, etc. The above factors seem like the normal curve to me--but, that is just me.
If I was to rely on the MTV generation, environmental studies crowd, journalists with no science training, the ratings oriented polarized media (see prior entry!), or even the "I hate all evil corporations, especially the oil refiners" crowd, then we are not going to move in any direction that will be beneficial. (apologies in advance...but you need some chemistry and/or physics, and/or math, and/or engineering--which includes all as a matter of coursework.... to understand multi-variable systems--not just high school classes or a review course in college).
This also includes those that want to make money on the green train without regards for the fact that most of the proposed solutions presented so far do NOT provide the proper energy in-->energy out life cycle analysis that would indicate more favorable balances in regards to overall pollution, energy used, how much energy is produced during a solution lifetime, and what happens when that solution no longer can provide energy (recycled?). This solution generation is also a multi-variable system, and based on free market, it is not necessarily or always "for the children", "for the environment" or even for "solving a problem"--it is for making a profit, boosting lobbies, jobs, power, ratings.
Now, don't get me wrong, as a scientist myself, I am open to any solution, but don't feed me the next green solution without me questioning it and looking at the whole picture.
Now with that, if regional solutions were presented in a strengths-weaknesses analysis (eg, solar in the SW, wind in WY, hydro in the NW, "wave energy" along the coast, even ethanol in "sugar rich" areas, etc) and those solutions presented a coordinated effort to reduce dependence on the energy grid, reduced dependence on foreign volatility, and ESPECIALLY lower overall energy usage "birth to death", then I would be more accepting of this diverse approach to becoming more energy efficient.
Does anyone think that the US government has ever produced a "strategic comprehensive energy plan"?
The following New York Times article this morning mentions toxic discharges and spills from bio-fuel plants - not oil, but organic discharges that reduce or eliminate oxygen from streams, killing fish, leaving slime, etc. How about addressing the issues that cause negative implications for that industry and how to mitigate it before it becomes worse than oil spills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/us/11biofuel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1205251655-S4xRpKmOnYbBmvQLXT6lGg
The Society of Professional Journalists and other similar groups have specific ethics for journalists - but don't specifically address science, environment and not belittling skeptics that the press has not well informed. Perhaps a ramp-up there would be helpful to give guidance to a new generation of journalists, too.
Finally, in response to the number of articles in the Media addressing climate change or global warming, based upon Google News, this morning for example, Google News results:
Climate Change: 39,802
Global Warming: 25,447
NY Yankees: 17,546
Ron Paul: 12,645
BEER: 30,887
etc.
Perhaps 39,802 (or 25,447) for the issue we're told is the end of life as we know it isn't really excellent coverage. Could it be because much of the coverage reiterates simple "trust us we're from the UN, or government, or scientists, or we wrote it - it must be true". Quality and content of coverage is far more critical than number, or perhaps beer is so high up because the masses have read the climate change press? Talk about carbon non-offset!
Let's dig beyond the hype and get to reporting the issues fairly and with verifiable references, new investigation and input, and a little skepticism both ways!
Your suggestion to tackle global warming on a regional scale, with solutions unique to different geographic and climatic regions, makes a whole lot of sense, and I hope you pursue it.
What is the consensus in the scientific community on what percentage of that warming is caused by man? Is it 100 percent? 80 percent? 60 percent? 40 percent? 20 percent? Or some other number?
It seems to me that it would be important to answer that question before solutions can be devised. For example, as a hypothetical, maybe a third is caused by sunspot activity, a third by pollution from wildfires, and a third by man. If so, we might want an aggressive effort to reduce wildfires as well as efforts to cut back on use of fossil fuels.
The lack of discussions of this sort, I think, makes many folks suspicious that there are motives here besides reducing global warming. And that lack of trust is hampering the efforts of those say they want to get climate change under control. That's why they hurt their cause when they insist that there's only one side to the story--their side.
Climate Change Negotiations: On the Need of Nations to Follow what Justice Requires.
Donald Brown, Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics and Program Director, Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Penn State University
I think this lecture might offer an interesting philosophical perspective which is bound to stir things up. There's an interesting disparity between this online conversation and the one that's happening at the lecture: Most of the folks here don't believe in climate change, while most of the folks at the lecture do.... It'd be interesting to get a more "balanced" audience in both areas.
Hope to see you there!
I'd love to be at the lecture except for a two-hop air trip: Are the sponsors offering carbon offsets? What is the cost of getting the speaker from Pennsylvania and are verifiable carbon offsets being secured to handle that problem? Wouldn't a teleconference be more environmentally friendly?
Enjoy the lecture and please report back!
*On the ongoing Google updates: my earlier point was that this raw number is not especially meaningful. We need to know a lot more to make it so. But more broadly, it misses the clear theme of the panel and Peter’s article. The focus was the quality, not quantity, of reporting. I suppose we could criticize the ambiguity of the headline, but even a cursory reading of the article makes its meaning crystal clear.
*On funding: An underlying assumption in many comments is that funding corrupts researchers by encouraging them to tilt their findings. That may be the case in some instances, but it’s not what the panelists were arguing and, in my view, it’s not the central communication issue.
We need to distinguish between funding scientists to do research, and paying scientists to be spokespersons in a public communication campaign that relies heavily on discredited and non-peer-reviewed science to advance a private interest’s agenda. Let me be clear: we should not object to Exxon or any other organization engaging in public discourse to advance their interests. But we should also be willing to inspect how organizations are doing that—not so that we can say, “Aha! Money is involved” or “Oh my, they are trying to achieve a goal,” but to better evaluate which public discourses are legitimate, which ones are flim-flam, and which ones may serve to undermine important public interests.
*Several of Dan Leithauser’s comments are consistent with Peter’s lede about the panel: “the news media needs to do a better job of clarifying the science and shifting the conversation toward solutions.” Regardless of what one thinks about the science of climate change, the emerging technologies, their feasibility, and their economic and social implications certainly are newsworthy.
~Steve
Second, lets have some specific goals of what temps we want, I keep hearing temperature has nothing to do with climate, if not then what exactly are we measuring? The growing glaciers in the arctic do not seem to be of any significance to the Believers, and neither do the lack of hurricanes.
About the only definite thing is "give us your money for carbon offsets".
If funding sources are a concern, all participants could reveal their sources and amounts. If it comes from a non profit, then the grants and funding of that non profit.
But stop with the meetings, use the internet! I know they'd like to go to tropical areas in the winter for their meetings, but it does look a little funny.
Good point with the carbon emissions of getting a speaker to a Climate Change Lecture...
You'll be happy to know that there are a variety of steps which have been implemented to mitigate the carbon contribution.
First, all of the emissions are offset with the purchase of Green Tags, funded by the ASUM. I'm not quite sure on the numbers, but I know we used a reputable organization specializing in offsets and, while it wasn't the cheapest of the offsets available, it didn't cost very much at all.
Secondly, one of our lectures was electronic and it was awesome! A student at the U wrote a letter to President Dennison asking for at least one lecture hall to be permanently outfitted with teleconferencing technology so we can make it easier to do in the future. Until recently, this interactive technology wasn't readily available and it was quite cost-prohibitive.
And I'm glad you disagree with me. It's uplifting to know at least a few people on this site think the case is closed.
Steve: right on. I think transparency is the best thing we could work towards.
Hope to see at least a few of you at the lecture this evening~
-brett.
The case is not "closed".
That is a long stretch from acknowledgment that climate change has been is and will be real, an ongoing phenomenom since creation and until earth is a cinder (see new scientific study that sun-going-red-giant will render earth a cinder in 1billion years unless we create the means to harness asteroids to bombard the sun and push us further away - another great idea!).
The case presented by "An Inconvenient Truth", the UN sub-panel does not present a "closed" argument, but rather one without transparency and with awefully religeous and totalitarian sounding slams at anyone daring to raise a question, or has it all be just incomplete reporting?
You cite purchase of "Green Tags" without providing verifiable references as to their validity - a necessary part of transparency.
I'm very glad so many of those who have no questions about degree, timing, scientific accuracy, reporting accuracy, answers, etc., are willing to engage in continued discussion to openly address concerns in a civil manner, to build true consensus and soundly-grounded data.
If you're interested in exact references, please call the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana. I'm sure they can provide you with the facts you require. Tell them Brett sent you.
There's no need to be disrespectful. I'm just a student at the University and I'm just trying to be helpful. Give me a break.
What's your name anyway?
As, the Google references include literally thousands of repeated, referenced and quoted links, it would be interesting to identify how many original stories and updates are in the mass - I don't have the key to that "dig down" search on Google, perhaps someone else does. Associated Press stories, for example, are purchased and used without analysis by an incredible number of news organizations, generating a hit or more for every time a story of theirs is used - a further "heads up" for helping assure accuracy and quality in reporting.
Helping mitigate the negative human impacts on climate change, even though as yet not verifiably defined, "Green Tags" reference buying an allotment of some sort (usually undefined) of biota somewhere - often already existing or supplanting natural flora, often without a method of verifying them. Electric utilities can sell "Green Blocks" that must be verifiable "electrons in the pipe" with audits and guidelines in place generated meeting green standards - which even exclude hydropower where the environmental effect of the dam and reservoir on fish or downstream ecology is above a minimum threshold of impact. Wind power must be met by utilities with "firming up" power - when the wind doesn't blow they must have "hard" generation capacity in place to keep the customers supplied. No system is a panacea. We must (finally) start being good stewards of the resources with which we have been entrusted. As the earth struggles to understand, apply creative ideas, and try to mitigate, many well-intended mis-steps will occur. That's where reporting can help - not to slam, but to encourage application of critical thought, scientific reasoning and process. Few experiments and inventions fulfill their goals at the first test.
As far as I know there is now no known "solutions," as this column suggests as believed by the panel, to interdict climate change that has repeated itself since animals roamed this earth. Therefore, I don't see how the media can report on non-existent solutions. The earth will never reach a point of controllable climate stasis.
What we can solve on a regional basis is to address clean water, clean air, energy, and land use.
Is there any evidence of this? Who are the "flim-flam" scientists, and how has it been proven that their science is wrong and it is not a simple matter of a difference of opinion over the matter being discussed?
The only ones that really come to mind for me are the Joel Berger situation, where he has acknowledged that his study, funded by the Wilderness Conservation Society, on the white-tailed rabbits disappearing from Yellowstone Park was basically bogus.
Then there was the Lancet study that vastly overstated the number of deaths in Iraq, according to the National Journal magazine investigation cited earlier, and it appeared to do so in an effort to influence the 2006 elections. There were physicians involved in that study, but it might be considered more of a social science effort.
I imagine there are other cases, but I can't think of any.
One Cooler Head
Until his Damascus moment, Miklos Zagoni, a physicist and environmental researcher, had been touted as his nation's "most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol." But then this activist saw the work of a fellow Hungarian scientist. His world was rocked. "I fell in love" with the theory, he told DailyTech.com.
Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Langley Research Center with three decades of experience, had found that researchers have been repeating a mistake when calculating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on temperatures. We're not scientists, but it looks to us like Miskolczi found that the Earth does a good job of adapting and self-regulating.
As has been noted elsewhere, Miskolczi's theory could explain why the warming that models have been predicting for decades has never materialized.
NASA's response to the new results? It refused to publish them, reports DailyTech.com. Miskolczi quit, citing in his resignation letter a clash between his "idea of the freedom of science" and NASA's "practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
The space agency isn't inclined to fund research that refutes the Al Gore view that has eaten away reasoned thinking and been adopted uncritically by much of the public.
While cooler heads stand athwart the runaway train of climate-change hysteria and yell stop, other elements continue their tireless efforts to take the world backward.
Just last week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development apocalyptically warned the world that it must immediately begin to deal with global warming.
Naturally, the only solution is green taxes and other measures that would choke commerce in developed nations. All that would do is slow the mighty U.S. economy and provide an opportunity for those who believe themselves to have a higher social conscience.
The unfortunate truth is that to many activists, those things are more important than science.