I think that there is a certain amount of hubris I deciding that there is limited amount of resources that we can use very year. We are yet again approaching “overshoot day.” Last year was August 13th. Since I guess we used too many this year it is apparently August 8 or next Monday.
When Sarah Hoyt talked about the new normal she didn’t discuss just what that means. Well, while it’s not a conspiracy, in order to keep the price point in inflation, many of the things that we buy for consumption have been shrinking for some time. Like ice cream containers. Or package sizes in frozen foods. And one thing that most people haven’t noticed, but probably should have, toilet paper.
The Nation has yet another attack on Exxon for “environmental crimes” due to the appearance of that fifty odd year old Humble Oil report. I’ve posted about this before. Here’s the Nation’s post.
On April 13, ExxonMobil filed suit to block a subpoena issued by the attorney general of the US Virgin Islands. Following revelations from the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News, the subpoena charged that the company may have violated the territory’s anti-racketeering law. It questioned whether Exxon told investors, including the territory’s pension fund, one thing about climate change (that it wasn’t a danger) while its own scientists were privately telling its management the opposite….
What’s more, by enabling increased global warming, Exxon’s alleged lying has damaged many people around the world. Crucially, the victims include investors and business owners. The poor suffer first and worst from climate change, but they rarely file—much less win—lawsuits against polluters. But when people of means are damaged, they don’t hesitate to sue for compensation…
Exxon’s exposure on this front is immense. If the allegations are true, the oil giant has in effect transferred massive amounts of risk and loss onto the rest of the market and virtually every business enterprise in it. By confusing the debate, Exxon helped delay government action against climate change. The company made buckets of money, but the resulting higher temperatures and extreme weather events have cost investors, governments, businesses, and ordinary people many billions, with much larger costs ahead. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned that as climate change intensifies, “parties who have suffered loss or damage [may] seek compensation from those they hold responsible….”
Nor is the right’s cheerleading without its complications for Exxon. The right conflates the First Amendment argument with its cuckoo belief that climate change is a hoax, but Exxon has a different goal: to protect its public image. Exxon needs to be perceived as a good corporate citizen, and in 2016 a good corporate citizen doesn’t deny climate change.
Note that last sentence. “in 2016 a good corporate citizen doesn’t deny climate change. As an engineer who’s worked on scientific instruments and somebody who’s been around science at all sort of level for a long time this is appalling on a bunch of levels. First, who are the Nation to decide what a good citizen is, corporate or otherwise. Second, in a free society, it isn’t the citizen’s role to affirm or deny anything. It’s the government that’s required to make it’s case. Which you don’t do with nuisance lawsuits and legal extortion threats. Third, when presenting science you need to base what you say based on what you know, not what you believe.
Ran into this:
Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a “5-star” rating so readers can quickly judge stories’ scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.
To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.
The site is already active with some feedbacks already
Here’s the way that they are going.
The pro AGW articles get good scores and skeptical articles get downchecked.
If nothing else it shows how politicized other sciences other than climatology are. Considering that these people are scientists, or at least sitting scientist positions, one would think that data would override opinion. But looking at the comments, I see more personal attacks and unsupported opinions than I see any real data.
This is not atypical from the climate crowd. Rather than present scientific arguments the climate crowd insists on attacking strawmen, smearing the other side and changing the subject when pressed. What noticeably absent is references to real science that has data and experiments to back up their hypotheses. You can predict all you want, but, in the end, for you to be actually doing science and not acting like a cult, the predictions must fit the data collected.
It’s pretty obvious that, when it comes to climate, the data hasn’t gone the same way as the predictions made by the computer models. In real science the knowledge that a model doesn’t fit the data means that you need new models. In climate science it means that you persecute the people pointing out that the models aren’t working.
That’s because like all romantics the climate crowd wants reality to be what they say it is, not what it really is. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are more polar bears than ever, the ice hasn’t gone away in the arctic and it’s cold today in early May. None of which has any relevance to climate, but that never stops the climate cultists. but their climate cargo cult only continues to exist because it’s useful to those who want still more power over everybody’s life.
From the beginning the environmental movement has been a mishmash of cargo cult science sounding stuff, romantic idealism and an attempt to revive dead ideologies with a new focus. The cultish aspect of CAGW can be seen by the desperate need to suppress any opposing viewpoints. Add to that the desire of many to use climate science as an excuse to obtain vast powers and wealth from the rest of us through rent seeking on a truly massive scale and this isn’t science, it’s tyranny.
Real science doesn’t need webpages like climate feedback. Real science can stand on it’s own and indeed invites dissension and healthy skepticism. That’s because real science isn’t an end it’s a journey and no matter how well thought a theory is it can still be found wrong by new data.
Here’s Richard Feynman about how science works.
If the guess, no matter how beautiful it seems, doesn’t match observed data it’s wrong. Well the climate models do not fir the known data. Sanity and science would say that that means that they are wrong, end of story. As far as the climate feedback types are concerned that means that the data is wrong simply because you are attacking the cult’s precepts. The consequences of their behavior are devastating for science, policy and millions of individuals who are the victims of the policies enacted as result of the climate cult’s actions and the rent seeking control freaks who use them. I stand with science, not the actions of a greedy misguided cult.
What do you do when a large number of the officials in charge of enforcing the law conspire to break the laws they are sworn to uphold.
Now I’m not an attorney, but Glenn Reynolds is and he’s completely clear that what the Attorney’s Generals, including my state’s Attorney General are doing is, in fact a crime.
With the oncoming onset of the annual Spring rituals for the Gaia faith it’s important to remember where all that came from. While we listen to the sermons of the high priests and the cadences among the ruins of our once great civilization, it’s important to remember how this all started and why we are here.
I suppose it’s more than a little symbolic that the Earth Day founder composted his girl friend. I suppose he considered her “excess population” If so, that wasn’t the first body created in the cause of excess population and wouldn’t be the last.
Never heard of Maurice Strong? Well that’s no surprise, very few people have. But they’ve felt his influence across the globe for the last forty years or so. He’s been the power behind the throne for most of the green agenda, topping off with the UN’s Agenda 21. Now that he is gone perhaps we start to see sanity return. Or not.