tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72518188592177420322024-03-13T00:49:04.466-07:00Nonrandom ThoughtsSyd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-89396822387673618412016-04-28T14:37:00.000-07:002016-09-02T20:44:33.606-07:00The Year of the Bean<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }H2 { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }H2.cjk { font-family: "SimSun"; }H2.ctl { font-family: "Lucida Sans"; }A:link { }</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 32pt;">The
Year of the Bean</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;">Beans
are our legacy. They could also be our ticket to surviving the 21<sup>st</sup>
century.</span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">By
<b>SYD BAUMEL</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Reprinted from </i><a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/aq-spring-issue-2016/">The Aquarian</a><i><a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/aq-spring-issue-2016/">, Spring 2016</a>. </i></span><br />
<br /></div>
<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBWfy7TWhZgVSVm7jgBrOePMTguCjcRpaj7f1ldhuJMTaaAISva-nzKXe3a36ySpBsN6sqV9fOSJlu96T6LsYoLlL-aOiLIZPdqZdlPVzlTT5CPv8P8YXjsioO6J7VuaP62EqX0-8BAWtq/s1600/Screen+Shot+2016-08-27+at+9.45.40+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBWfy7TWhZgVSVm7jgBrOePMTguCjcRpaj7f1ldhuJMTaaAISva-nzKXe3a36ySpBsN6sqV9fOSJlu96T6LsYoLlL-aOiLIZPdqZdlPVzlTT5CPv8P8YXjsioO6J7VuaP62EqX0-8BAWtq/s400/Screen+Shot+2016-08-27+at+9.45.40+PM.png" width="285" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
UN has named 2016 the “International Year of Pulses.” No, they're
not talking about that throbbing v</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">ein
in our necks. Put mo</span></span><span style="font-size: small;">re simply, this is The
Year of the Bean. And it's about time. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Beans,
lentils, legumes, pulses – call these protein-rich, pod-enclosed
seeds whatever you like – are our legacy. Most of us come from
cultures where cheap beans, not costly meats, were – and in some
cases still are – a staple protein. But most of us have strayed
from that traditional cuisine. We have abandoned the rich variety of
leguminous flavours,</span> <span style="font-size: small;">shapes and colours for the
flashy cheap date of factory-farmed meat, milk, cheese and eggs.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
need to do a one-eighty. Why? Because it's 2016.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Beans
and other pulses, together with their partner in cheap, plant-based
protein, cereal grains, are the greenest, most sustainable way to
feed the world.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet">report</a>
several years ago, the United Nations Environmental Programme
cautioned that as we hurtle toward a collision between mounting
overpopulation, diminishing agricultural capacity and accelerating
climate change, “a substantial reduction of impacts [will] only be
possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal
products.” </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Last
year, the </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">nutritional
scientists tasked with</span></span></span><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">advising
the U.S. government on its </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Dietary
Guidelines for Americans </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">(commonly
known as the Food Pyramid or MyPlate)</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
<a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-BINDER/meeting7/docs/DGAC-Meeting-7-SC-5.pdf">wrote</a>
to the decisionmakers in Washington:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables,
fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in
animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with
lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.
The U.S. population should be encouraged to move towards the dietary
pattern noted above while decreasing overall total calories.”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
when the UN dedicates a year to the bean, it's not just pumping a
commodity.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mind
you, it is classifying it that way, and we need to correct that
before we go any further. In keeping with the practice of its Food
and Agriculture Organization, the UN classifies legumes that are sold
fresh, not dried (think green beans, frozen peas, edamame) as
vegetable crops, not pulses. Nor do peanuts and soybeans, which are
traded and classified as oilseeds, get to wear a party hat for the
official International Year of Pulses. But they do for the unofficial
Year of the Bean, because they're all part of the same botanical
family which so admirably helps fill the gap in protein, iron and
zinc that can arise when we eat less animal food.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
true that, ounce for ounce, fresh, frozen or cooked dried beans don't
pack the same punch as meat, fish, milk and eggs when it comes to
those nutrients. But that needn't be an issue. Even vegans, who eat
no animal food whatsoever, can more than meet their protein and trace
mineral needs with help from beans, as nutritional authorities like
the American Dietetic Association <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864">attest</a>.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
fact is North American adults typically eat much more protein (around
80 grams per day) than nutritionists say we need (around 50 to 60
grams, depending on gender or weight). Overdo it, and our kidneys
feel the strain.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So
swap out three ounces of chicken (25.7 grams of protein) from your
curry with three ounces of chick peas (7.4 grams) and you'll probably
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">still</span></span><span style="font-size: small;">
be eating too much protein. If not – if, say, you're a senior
losing bone mass, which requires calcium </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>and
</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">protein – it's not exactly a hardship to
enjoy a cup of nicely seasoned chick peas (14.5 grams of protein) or
a smaller serving of protein-rich soy. Three ounces of calcium-set
firm tofu will give you 14.5 grams of protein </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>and</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">
nearly 700 milligrams of calcium. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Less
is more” may also apply to the type of iron that abounds in red
meat. By eating <a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/when-iron-strikes/">less
of it and more of the nonheme iron found in beans and other plant
foods</a>, men and postmenopausal women may actually lower their risk
for heart disease, diabetes and perhaps even cancer and dementia. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">All
things considered, with beans the bottom line is not what you lose
when you eat them instead of meat. It's what you gain. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
example, you won't find any fibre in food that comes from an animal.
But beans are brimming with it, especially the soluble kind that
reduces cardiovascular risk factors, like LDL cholesterol, and
discourages blood sugar from rising into diabetic territory.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
much the same for magnesium, an essential mineral commonly in short
supply among omnivores (there's barely any in animal flesh). It
abounds in beans.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When
it comes to fat, beans, with the exception of peanuts and soybeans,</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">have very
little of it – and zero cholesterol. Although authorities have
grown increasingly skeptical that dietary cholesterol is a risk
factor for cardiovascular disease, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539">a
recent meta-analysis</a> suggests it may indeed clog the arteries of
people with diabetes.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What
little fat beans typically have is good fat: mostly essential
polyunsaturated fatty acids (we need these, like vitamins) and
heart-friendly monounsaturated fatty acids. In contrast, while animal
fats have some good fatty acids too, they abound in potentially
artery-clogging saturated fatty acids. Beans have little.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">With
nutritional differences like these, it's not surprising that diets
with less meat and more beans – including vegetarian and vegan
diets – <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/437S.full">appear
to be conducive to better health</a>, including less cardiovascular
disease (hypertension, clogged arteries, heart attacks, strokes),
type 2 diabetes and even <a href="http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/soy_wth">prostate
and breast cancer, in the case of soybeans</a>. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So,
eat more Lentil Pilaf and less Beef Stroganoff, and you're probably
doing your body good. But what about the planet? Yes. That, too.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">From
Planet Beef to Planet Bean</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
key to understanding why plant-based protein staples like beans are
inherently much better for the planet – by conserving natural
resources, limiting pollution and preventing disruptive climate
change – than animal-based protein is <i>efficiency</i>. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">With
the rare exception of animals fed entirely on unirrigated pasture or
food waste, for every pound of corn, soy or other cultivated crops
that farmers feed to animals, at best only a few ounces end up as
meat, eggs or cheese (milk is an exception because it's mostly
water). Most of what they feed to livestock is burned off by the
animals' muscles and metabolism or becomes bones and other animal
parts of little or no value to humans. Beef cattle, for example, even
though they typically spend their first 12 to 18 months eating grass,
almost always spend their last few months packed into feedlots.
There, they are “finished” (fattened) so intensively with pulse-
and grain-based feed that by the time their existence has been
reduced to chuck steak and Papa Burgers, the equivalent of over 30
pounds of cooked grains and beans has been squandered to produce one
pound of boneless beef. (This is based on industry statistics of <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/background.aspx">6
dry-weight pounds of feed needed to produce one pound of live weight
steer</a>, yielding <a href="http://igrow.org/livestock/beef/how-much-meat-can-you-expect-from-a-fed-steer/">40
percent meat</a>. As a rule, feed conversion ratios are based on dry
weight in, live weight out.)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Even
the most Machiavellian industrial techniques to turn feed into food
can't compete with beans. Today's “broiler” (meat) chickens have
been genetically selected for their ability to grow very fat, very
fast. With the help of antibiotic-laced feed (which also stimulates
weight gain), they plump up so rapidly that some die on the job.
Broilers are normally sent to slaughter at the tender age of six
weeks, but these workplace casualties, with their unnaturally
top-heavy bodies barely supported on their naturally spindly legs,
drop dead (usually of </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>heart failure</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">)
even before their premature date with destiny. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Despite
growing up in a densely crowded barn with little room for wasting
“inputs” (feed) on exercise, it still takes the equivalent of
four or five pounds of cooked grains and beans to produce one pound
of whole chicken. Throw away the feathers, bones and other inedible
parts, and the efficiency is even less.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Chicken
meat may be high in protein, but considerably more plant protein goes
in than comes out. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Layer
hens” are cut from a different genetic cloth. Their purpose is to
convert feed into eggs, not meat. Crammed together in wire cages so
confining they can barely stretch a wing, let alone peck around a
barnyard, they have even less opportunity to waste precious feed on
selfish exercise. About every 30 hours they lay a new egg – <a href="http://www.aeb.org/farmers-and-marketers/history-of-egg-production">almost
twice</a> as many as Old MacDonald's hens. Still, they convert plant
protein to animal protein about as inefficiently as broiler chickens
do. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Modern
dairy cows have been bred to lactate so profusely that they are
“spent” as milk producers and sent to slaughter by the age of
four or five. Typically </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">confined
most of the time to </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">narrow
stalls, they give their all to make milk for people they will never
know, not their own calves. Even so, dairy cows <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272170433_Efficiency_cheese_yield_and_carbon_emissions_of_Holstein-Friesian_Jersey_and_crossbred_cows_an_overview">only
convert about 10 percent</a> of the dry weight of their feed (which
includes hay) into the dry weight of their milk.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And
so it goes for all species of livestock. The upshot? Every time we
eat a serving of meat, milk or eggs, we're consuming all the
resources and pollution that went into producing many more servings
of <span style="color: black;">legumes</span> and grains. Our environmental
footprint is that much bigger – even before we start measuring the
cow farts.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">It's Not a Gas </span></span></span>
</h2>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
fitting that The Year of the Bean follows the year when the world's
leaders finally got serious about keeping global warming since
preindustrial times under 2 degrees Celsius and preferably under 1.5.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We're
already nudging up against 1 degree, and most of that has happened in
just the past 40 years. From here on in, we're playing chicken with
catastrophic climate change.</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Pressure
to feed a hungry world <i>inefficiently</i> and unsustainably with
meat instead of wheat is driving the conversion of rainforests into
soybean plantations – not for hippies, but for livestock. A slashed
and burned forest is a carbon sink reduced to a chimney. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Far
worse for the climate is all the flatulence and excrement produced by
over 50 billion cows, chickens, pigs and other animals raised and
killed for meat, milk and eggs every year. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
ruminants (cows, goats, sheep), this flatulence is rife with methane
(CH</span><sub><span style="font-size: small;">4</span></sub><span style="font-size: small;">), a potent
greenhouse gas that heats our climate about 100 times more strongly
than carbon dioxide (CO</span><sub><span style="font-size: small;">2</span></sub><span style="font-size: small;">)
over the 12 and-a-half years it takes for most of it to break down
into CO</span><sub><span style="font-size: small;">2</span></sub><span style="font-size: small;"> and
water.</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Methane
also outgasses from the poop of all farmed animals, as does an even
more potent greenhouse gas: nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O).</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps
you're wondering, “</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>but
what about all the methane </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">we</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>
‘emit’ when we eat beans instead of beef?</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">”</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
It turns out it's <a href="https://www.quora.com/Do-human-farts-contribute-to-global-warming">a
fart in the bucket. Research suggests</a> our meagre, bean-induced
methane emissions increase the carbon footprint of producing,
transporting and cooking those beans by less than one percent.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">That's
a tiny fraction of an already very slight footprint that</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
varies from about 1 kilogram of CO</span></span><sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">2</span></span></sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e
per kilogram of lentils to 2 kg CO</span></span><sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">2</span></span></sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e
per kg of dried beans, according to <a href="http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/">a
review of the literature by the Environmental Working Group</a>. (The
“e” in CO</span></span><sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">2</span></span></sub><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">e
stands for “equivalent,” because it includes the footprint of
methane and all the other associated greenhouse gas emissions,
standardized by convention to a 100-year timescale. </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's
worth mentioning that this long timescale underestimates the
immediate impact of livestock emissions </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>and</i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
the opportunity to rapidly mitigate global warming</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">by
moving back from meat to beans.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
you might expect, the carbon footprint of beef is <i>much</i> larger:
27 kg per kg. Lamb is a gargantuan 39. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
apparent contrast, at just</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">
1.9, milk's</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> carbon footprint looks like a
deal. But with 90 percent water, the protein yield of milk (33 grams
per kg) is a fraction of beans' (about 90 grams per kg; 180 g/kg for
soybeans). We get a clearer picture with the carbon footprint of
cheese: 13.5. Though cheese has slightly more protein than soy, its
carbon footprint is over</span> <span style="font-size: small;">six times bigger. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
carbon footprints of other animal products are smaller than ruminant
meat and cheese, from pork (12.1), farmed salmon (11.9) and turkey
(10.9) on down to chicken (6.9), canned tuna (6.1), eggs (4.8) and
yogurt (2.2).</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Things
only start to look better when we come to wild fish and seafood.
These obviously aren't weighed down by the carbon footprint of feed
crops. Nor do they belch methane. But fishers still use diesel to
chase them. <a href="http://russgeorge.net/2014/07/27/seafoods-carbon-footprint/">One
study</a> suggests fish easily caught in bulk, close to shore, might
have a carbon footprint that's either comparable to (skipjack tuna,
mackerel, scallops, North American salmon) or even better (sardines)
than beans. But other species, like sole, shrimp and lobster, have
already outweighed beans' carbon footprint by the time the boats
return to shore.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Carbon
footprints aside, wild fish and seafood are fraught with worries
about overfishing and even extinction. You can never overfarm beans. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">With
a little help from more beans and less beef,</span> <span style="font-size: small;">we
can save ourselves from catastrophic climate change. But we still
have to contend with another existential threat. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since
1950, humanity has tripled its population from 2.5 billion to 7.3. By
2050, the UN estimates we'll be pushing 10 billion and topping 11 by
2100.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We're
already having trouble keeping nearly one billion of ourselves fed,
and it doesn't help that we keep feeding so much of our limited
agricultural yield to livestock (or converting it to biofuels, which
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">is
controversial at best</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
as a would-be green energy </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">strategy</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">).
By cutting out the animals we have selfishly conscripted as
middlemen, we <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/news/non-food-crops-lock-up-enough-calories-to-feed-4-billion.html">could
feed </a></span></span><a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/news/non-food-crops-lock-up-enough-calories-to-feed-4-billion.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>four
billion</i></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/news/non-food-crops-lock-up-enough-calories-to-feed-4-billion.html">
more people</a>, according to the beef and bean counters at the
University of Minnesota. Just cutting down would accomplish wonders.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
need to start moving in that direction. After all, it's The Year of
the Bean. So let's get soaking.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i><b>Syd
Baumel </b></i><i>is an editor with </i><a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/">The Aquarian</a><i>. He blogs
about food politics and the environment at <a href="http://eatkind.blogspot.ca/">eatkind.blogspot.ca</a> and
<a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/">sydbaumel.blogspot.ca</a>. </i></span></span>
</div>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-13632327116080471252015-05-07T16:30:00.002-07:002016-09-02T20:46:41.917-07:00Global warming ‘pause’ — warmest 17 years on record, by far<span style="font-size: x-small;">Originally published in <i>The Aquarian</i>, Spring 2015</span>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Warmest Year(s) on Record</span><br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">2014
may not be the warmest year on record, statistically. But the past 17
years – the so-called pause in global warming – are without a
doubt the warmest period. And it's all down to the carbon. </span><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WtPkFBbJLMg" width="640"></iframe>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The colour of warming: NASA's video builds to a sunburst heat climax during the “pause years” of 1998–2014. </span></div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-size: small;"> It’s official. 2014 was the warmest year on record
for the surface of our great big, blue marble. Well, nominally it was
the warmest. <i><span style="font-style: normal;"><i>Statistically</i></span></i>,
not so much. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">That's the gist of a debate that has broken out –
mostly in the nerdy reaches of the blogosphere – about the latest
bellwether signal that global warming has no intention of taking a
hike – of stopping or “pausing” – unless we <span style="font-style: normal;">press
pause</span> ourselves.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Early this year, all five of the major climate
research groups and agencies that keep tabs on the planet's temps on
land and sea, as well as <a href="https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014">the
World Meteorological Organization</a>, concurred that the average
temperature <i>anomaly</i> (the deviation, up or down, from a
reference baseline period) for 2014 was higher than any they had ever
recorded. Only one, the UK's Met Office, declared 2014 a dead heat
with 2010.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">In contrast, both of the research groups that analyze
the satellite record reported that 2014 was warm, but not record
warm. For one group, the anomaly was third highest; for the other, a
tepid 6th.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;">What every report had in common was that the slight
difference between the top three warmest years – or the top six for
the outlier satellite group – was smaller than the margin of
error of roughly 5 to 10 hundredths of a degree.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;">In the United States, for example, the <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2014.csv">National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)</a> global
temperature anomaly for 2014 of +0.69 degrees C. (using the entire
20th century as their baseline) was just 4 hundredths of a degree
higher than their previous record: a tie between 2010 and 2005. And
those years had beaten the blowout record set in 1998 (thanks to the
hottest El Niño ever recorded) by just 2 hundredths of a degree.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;">When the margin of error for measuring things with
95% accuracy is larger than the difference between those things,
statistically they're considered to be no different – “tied.” So,
statistically, no climate scientist could or would declare any of
the last few warmest years to be <i>the</i> <span style="font-style: normal;">warmest</span>.
Still, 2014 was the best candidate. Such was the fine
print in most every report, and even in some of the news stories. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSsbYvQyQSqofqyJFww2P-_2_UpIOVQIoI4MSO_qhcyW2DAJMpoz2EwYjneQO9Qe8C4OqG5Z6lp4YI6kKskmSQVwIRKNDJicHnnHo212-afKBMtwk13or-roBHPFzPOLZbZyy6xjTmq2Kf/s1600/warmest+year+probability--NASA+NOAA.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSsbYvQyQSqofqyJFww2P-_2_UpIOVQIoI4MSO_qhcyW2DAJMpoz2EwYjneQO9Qe8C4OqG5Z6lp4YI6kKskmSQVwIRKNDJicHnnHo212-afKBMtwk13or-roBHPFzPOLZbZyy6xjTmq2Kf/s1600/warmest+year+probability--NASA+NOAA.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div class="western" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">At a press briefing this January, NASA and NOAA
spelled out the odds that each of the closest contenders might truly be the warmest
year on record. 2014 “won,” albeit with less than 50 percent confidence.
</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">With so many temperature records being set in recent
years, it should come as no shock that all but one of the 15 warmest
years on record (going back as far as 1850, but likely for thousands
of years) have occurred during our fledgling century (beginning with
2001), according to most, if not all, of the <a href="https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014">temperature-keepers</a>.
The only exception was 1998 – the year of that killer El Niño.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Warmest “Pause”</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">You may have noticed that politicians and pundits who
like to preface particularly perverse or head-in-the-sand
declarations about climate change with “Now I’m not a scientist,
but…” are very fond of the meme that there has been no
warming for <i>umpteen </i>years – typically since 1998 or late
1997. </span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Ironically, there is scientific method to their
cherry-picking cleverness.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">If you look at a graph depicting global
temperature – like the wavy red line in the one at the end of
this piece – you'll notice that while the trend is clearly up, the
path is a very erratic one. At times the underlying trend looks more
like a staircase – flat tread, vertical riser – than a smooth
slope. There's a reason for this: forces other than increasing
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (natural forces mostly,
like El Niño and his chilly sister La Niña, major volcanic
eruptions and continuous variations in solar intensity) are
constantly buffetting the planet's temperature up and down. Over the
medium term – since 1900, for example – they've done little more
than cancel each other out, leaving the long-term trend of
anthropogenic warming undisturbed. But while they're bashing it out
in the short term, there are inevitable periods when they distort the
warming trend so badly it looks like the planet is about to boil over
or, conversely, slide into the next Ice Age (see for example
1945–1978). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />A good example was the 1990s. When Mount Pinatubo
erupted in the summer of 1991, the sunlight-dimming ash it spewed
into the atmosphere took a whopping 0.5 degree bite out of the
planet's temperature over the next couple years. A waning solar cycle
added to the chill. Only a moderate EL Niño and the continuing rise
in greenhouse gas concentrations countered the cooling. But toward
the end of the 90s, nature did a flip-flop. That record El Niño of
1997 and 1998 transferred perhaps <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/">half
as much heat</a> from the Pacific to the atmosphere as Pinatubo had
shut out in 1992 and 1993. The result was a truly apocalyptic (<i>and
</i>statistically significant) warming trend from
early 1992 thru late 1998 of approximately <i>7.5
degrees</i> <i>per century</i>
(using the land and ocean-based temperature records) or <i>10
degrees</i> per century
(using the satellite-based records).</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF3i_L5gEtHelVzxrRni6ebXnwyMDqIToibakOt9OjnSUhLwM5VZSEgKPvF9NV-jo155mjta2QhLyTxMjBRDdVHYgdURoPamp3QQAE1jhYqM76yXaepxN1P1Vv8QQyBm2MqZtAHxGo2fY2/s1600/1992-1998_UAH.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF3i_L5gEtHelVzxrRni6ebXnwyMDqIToibakOt9OjnSUhLwM5VZSEgKPvF9NV-jo155mjta2QhLyTxMjBRDdVHYgdURoPamp3QQAE1jhYqM76yXaepxN1P1Vv8QQyBm2MqZtAHxGo2fY2/s1600/1992-1998_UAH.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Late in 1998, had you graphed the warming trend since mid-1992 you could have sounded the (false) alarm that the planet is warming at a rate of over 10 degrees C. per century, even using the satellite record (above) of outspoken anthropogenic climate change doubters John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7F1PLojqXVGhUZjbmneRq4Bt1MyYCwSZu50pyM87f3YEZC3TEgAtLPthGQC2lsY6dI6saaQymM4UOZI3cjPO8_oi0maPuZmcSFinrHMgi5LuvRN3RVBIdI1jDJI5gq6Dlux3344ToGx9J/s1600/1992-1998_UAH.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">A clever climate change “alarmist” could have waved
that cherry-picked factoid in the face of the doubting Thomases –
perhaps created a cool infographic, had that been an option – and
blinded them with pseudoscience. But it's the climate change deniers
and obfuscators who have been playing that card lately, based on the
same misleading effect. Their no-warming disinfographics typically
start with the peak El Niño year of 1998, which dwarfed all previous
heat records (no statistical uncertainty there). Their
disinfographics end at the present date, which has been opportune for
their purposes since the late 2000s when solar intensity and the <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml">El
Niño/La Niña cycle</a> began simultaneously trending cool. Their
final cherry-picking flourish is to seek out whichever temperature
record shows the least warming. Lately, <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months">the
RSS satellite record has delivered the goods</a>.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">But one thing even cherry-pickers can't find is
anything close to a statistically significant cooling trend – not
even with RSS. Statistically flat is as good as it gets. That's
because (according to all but RSS) the warming trend has continued at
a pace of about 0.6 to 1 degree per century since 1997/98. But
because the trend is still inching its way back to statistical
significance (95 percent or higher probability the trend is real, not random), it's scientifically
acceptable to say “there has been <i>no</i>
warming.” (You can verify these trends yourself at
<a href="http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php">skepticalscience.com/trend.php</a>.)</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">But there’s more than one scientific way to answer
the question “are we still warming?”</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuBc-j1lwriKBst_4Sgv1KJImyVSFwSex168JVC5-2xvUgtDLidbbJTLtc9sQiz58xiGzP6FuRpjl6iJMa2kI054PBxQkaL1-62tdYpCIu4ZbmI2RCcCIs_GvekrSWnfJUd6MFjEbYf0Og/s1600/Rick+Scott.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuBc-j1lwriKBst_4Sgv1KJImyVSFwSex168JVC5-2xvUgtDLidbbJTLtc9sQiz58xiGzP6FuRpjl6iJMa2kI054PBxQkaL1-62tdYpCIu4ZbmI2RCcCIs_GvekrSWnfJUd6MFjEbYf0Og/s1600/Rick+Scott.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">After taking office in 2011, Florida governor Rick “I'm not a scientist” Scott <a href="http://fcir.org/2015/03/08/in-florida-officials-ban-term-climate-change/">prohibited the state's actual scientists</a> and other civil servants from using the terms “global warming” and “climate change” in any of their communications. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: small;">A few issues back, I <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-still-and-heres-how.html">discussed</a>
how during the apparent “pause” or warming “hiatus” since
1998, heat has been accumulating, if anything, at an accelerating
pace in other parts of the climate system: the oceans, which soak up
over 90 percent of it, and the melting glaciers, ice sheets and sea
ice.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Still, if we insist on using the planet’s surface
temperature as our only gauge for global warming, another tack is to
do what the World Meteorological Organization does: compare the
average annual surface temperature of consecutive time periods. The
WMO does this every decade. Last time, it <a href="http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html">reported</a> “the decadal rate of [temperature] increase between 1991–2000 and
2001–2010 was unprecedented.” The WMO's average global
temperature figures popped from 14.26 degrees C. in the 1990s to
14.47 in the 2000s. If a seemingly pausey decade like the 2000s can
raise the planet's temperature one fifth of a degree, the world could
easily be on course (if we don't slow our emissions) for another
degree of warming by the time Justin Bieber cashes his first pension
cheque. We wouldn't want an enfeebled old Biebs to bear the brunt of
our reckless emissions. </span><br />
<br />
We can use the WMO's method to
compare the “pause period” to the identical-length period that
preceded it. <span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2014.csv"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Data
from NOAA</u></span></span></a> </span>gives us an average annual
temperature anomaly for 1998 thru 2014 (17 years) of +0.58 degrees C. It
comes with a margin of error of just 0.03 degrees, meaning there is a
95% probability the anomaly is somewhere between +0.55 degrees and +0.61
degrees. In contrast, for 1981–1997 (17 years) the average anomaly is
just +0.295 degrees, with a margin of error of 0.05 degrees. So the
plateaulike heat wave of the pause years has been over a quarter of a
degree warmer than the steep heat rise of the 17 years that preceded it.
Not only is this a nominally substantive temperature difference, it's an
extremely significant one. Even applying very conservative statistical
methods, the odds are in the <i>hundreds of millions to one</i> that the
17-year “pause” has been warmer than the 17-year period that preceded
it. And that makes it the warmest 17-year period since we began
measuring global temperature over 150 years ago – and probably the
warmest in thousands of years, based on proxy temperature records using
tree rings, ice cores and other clues.<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">(More precisely, with a mean temperature anomaly 0.285 degrees higher than the previous 17-year period</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> [0.58 minus 0.295]</span>, the implicit warming rate during “the pause” has been 0.168 degrees per decade, or nearly 2 degrees per century.) </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Not that evidence like this will deter the
no-warming-since-record-hot-year crowd. They have a fallback
position: it may still be warming, but it’s not us and never was.
CO<sub>2</sub> isn’t the enemy; it's a plant food, <i>don't ya
know</i>? ( CO<sub>2</sub> <i>is</i> a plant food, of course. It's also
an agent of ecocide. In the oceans, carbonic acid derived from our
excessive CO2 emissions is killing off coral reefs and shellfish,</span>
with
potentially disastrous consequences.) Some, like the Alberta oil
industry-based “Friends of Science,” insist the sun is doing most
of whatever warming they’re willing to acknowledge. Others, like U.S.
Senate Pseudoscience Czar James Inhofe, put it down to a natural cycle
or the planet's spontaneous emergence from the Little Ice Age.<br />
<br />
But
climate scientists have identified no such natural explanations. What
they have determined is that the only necessary and sufficient cause for
modern global warming is humanity's escalating greenhouse gas
emissions. This has been especially evident since those emissions began
breaking bad in the 1950s, only to have their heating potential
unleashed in the late 70s when cooling air pollutants, like soot and
sulphur dioxide, that spew, like CO2, from smokestacks and tailpipes
were capped by clean air laws. (Not that the sun has been an idle
bystander. Climate scientists reckon a small increase in solar intensity
did contribute slightly to the warming trend of the first half of the
last century.)<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">There’s a simple, infographic way to put this
question of causality to a gut-check, the kind that might sway even a
Bill O'Reilly or a Stephen Colbert (in character). The world’s
longest directly measured record of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The graph
below shows what it looks like (it's the squiggly green line
– squiggles are the seasons) plotted against NASA's surface
temperature record (the wavy red line – it would end at
a higher peak, but the data it's based on at <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/">WoodForTrees.org</a>
stops halfway through 2014), and the sunspot record which mirrors the
cyclic fluctuations and longer-term trends in solar energy that
floods our planet, albeit with less and less of it bouncing back into
outer space thanks to the growing blanket of greenhouse gases that
trap its heat down here (it's the wavy blue line).</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Take a look.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">You Belieber the judge.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgJPag8u3_va9Acn1FTDqGY68Ww87ljlLzKY2uHHxb479cJ4LkJf4K9AxFglwPpRNqWl5IFyjekPCTlkaMXGaDHmCPoRnsIGczxPo5l3Ml2W8a9VRGkZ05MnHAM7chvejAfrarsAizL-2/s1600/temp_CO2_sun_since1958.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgJPag8u3_va9Acn1FTDqGY68Ww87ljlLzKY2uHHxb479cJ4LkJf4K9AxFglwPpRNqWl5IFyjekPCTlkaMXGaDHmCPoRnsIGczxPo5l3Ml2W8a9VRGkZ05MnHAM7chvejAfrarsAizL-2/s1600/temp_CO2_sun_since1958.png" width="640" /></a></span></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i></i></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-2709581711629149502014-08-22T15:56:00.000-07:002014-08-22T15:56:02.785-07:00Waking the Frog Before We Boil<span style="color: #666666; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>BOOK REVIEW</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><b>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvurUD3ZOOV0sMWFqfxwKCjdGvy2xTmSW1LM_GTF9LA45xQAY8ilcASskQV4ScuMgV_T8nvWxTqOIuLxuQB7TrXIVVhfkRkjDi7iHJUihlvilPuoNeeRvkBAIUOVrVW3M-ORuwoMeCSjpD/s1600/waking+the+frog_cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvurUD3ZOOV0sMWFqfxwKCjdGvy2xTmSW1LM_GTF9LA45xQAY8ilcASskQV4ScuMgV_T8nvWxTqOIuLxuQB7TrXIVVhfkRkjDi7iHJUihlvilPuoNeeRvkBAIUOVrVW3M-ORuwoMeCSjpD/s1600/waking+the+frog_cover.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/177041181X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=177041181X&linkCode=as2&tag=sydbaumeshomepag&linkId=A2FZCE4RWITRQXS2">Amazon.com</a> – <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/177041181X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=15121&creative=390961&creativeASIN=177041181X&linkCode=as2&tag=sydbaumeshome-20">Amazon.ca</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Waking the Frog: Solutions for Our Climate Change Paralysis</b></span><br />
<b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">By Tom Rand</b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">ECW Press, 2014 </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">245 pages, $29.95<br />
<br />
You've probably heard the story before.<br />
<br />
A frog leaps into a pot of water that happens to be sitting </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">on a stove. Being coldblooded, he lazes away, oblivious as the temperature creeps up from cold, to warm, to hot. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Only as the water nears the boiling point does he register danger. But by then his muscles have been paralyzed by the heat.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
<br />
The water boils. The frog dies in agony. End of story.<br />
<br />
That's the gruesome metaphor that frames Canadian climate activist Tom Rand's analysis of the pot we're stewing in as a civilization thanks to climate disruption – the result of anthropogenic (<i>we did it</i>) global warming – and the froglike fallibilities of human psychology, our destructively “free” markets and our ineffectual political systems.<br />
<br />
Rand chooses the expression “climate disruption” in favour of the familiar “climate change” hoping it will bypass the frog's powerful denial mechanism. “The term,” he explains, “helps circumvent the nonsense that this warming is part of a natural cycle and emphasizes our contribution to the coming changes and the speed at which they are approaching.”<br />
<br />Rand brings a versatile skill-set to a subject usually tackled by more specialized writers (climate scientists, environmentalists, science writers).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">To begin with, he's smart (doctorate in philosophy from the University of Toronto). He's also a good writer, with a lively didactic style. And as a seasoned entrepreneur and cleantech venture capitalist, Rand has an insider's grasp of the world's dominant (if not only, for all intents and purposes) economic system: free market capitalism, with the emphasis on “free,” as in the world's dominant economy south of the border. As a result, Rand's critique of this runaway train – and of the ideologues who fetishize its “invisible hand” to the point of letting it reset the planet's climate – is insightful and, more importantly, constructive.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1PtMEpFz80qoTIRyeVQ3eAzGtq03dtx9d5BlO3VxeJUbK_RJcV6A7Qgi4okjiC-f9B20_1uZNNDFmpOAFVRTh-HNZQVR4pHDKBaXjPat_kFZ0SpgXRpk6mYpdH6KeZgl_tsZLacO_6uix/s1600/TomRand.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1PtMEpFz80qoTIRyeVQ3eAzGtq03dtx9d5BlO3VxeJUbK_RJcV6A7Qgi4okjiC-f9B20_1uZNNDFmpOAFVRTh-HNZQVR4pHDKBaXjPat_kFZ0SpgXRpk6mYpdH6KeZgl_tsZLacO_6uix/s1600/TomRand.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tom Rand</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Left to its own devices, the free market is happy to keep distracting us frogs with shiny, fossil fuel-powered objects, lulling us into complacency. But just as</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> the market needs limits when it comes to selling us </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">cigarettes, alcohol and other destructive products, same with our</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> dirty energy habit. Indeed, w</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">ith adult supervision (ethical, responsible regulations), the market could – no, <i>must</i> – be the engine that gets us out of this pot, argues Rand. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">But that's going to take a lot of horsepower, given the enormity of the energy transition the world must make, <i>and fast</i>. It's going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort, and that means including the Darth Vaders of the old energy order. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“Exxon is not going to be replaced; it must be forced to evolve,” says Rand. He means that literally. The titans of the fossil fuel economy, which carry the clout of trillions of dollars on their balance sheets, must be compelled, if necessary, to beat their oil rigs into wind turbines. Their deep capital reserves must be repurposed from profiting by disrupting the climate to </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">profiting</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> by protecting it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><big><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">To give an example of how cost-effective “de-carboning” (Rand's word) the economy can be, Rand describes one of his own
entrepreneurial achievements. Planet Traveler, a hostel in downtown
Toronto, is, to the best of his knowledge, “North America's
lowest-carbon hotel.” By retrofitting the popular, five-storey hostel with largely Canadian-made
geothermal heating and cooling, solar thermal water heating, PV solar electricity panels, super-efficient LED lighting and
other green technology, Rand and his partners leveraged an investment worth just 5
percent of the building's value to slash its energy use by 75
percent. They wound up saving money while taking on what is
probably the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions: the homes and buildings we live and work in. <br />
<br />
Planet Traveler is a case-in-point of what's right with smart
green investment and what's wrong with the backward-looking economics embraced by governments like our own (the
federal one). Writes Rand: <br />
<br />
“If every building did what we did – and most could – Canada
would zoom past our abandoned Kyoto promises! To hear Canada's
government talk about it, hitting those Kyoto targets would
render us uncompetitive, poorer. Absolute nonsense.”<br />
<br />
Rand is full of bright ideas like this, from the obvious ones
– like an all-important price on carbon to
“simultaneously harness and unleash the most powerful tool we
have at our disposal: the market” – to the more original, such as “green bonds” (national and municipal “war bonds for the
environment”) and other innovative financial instruments of
mass decarbonisation.</span></span></big><br />
<big><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br /></span></span></big>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">If you've ever tried to wake a sleeping frog, you'll know that the facts of climate change too often fall on aggressively unreceptive ears (Rand also discusses this vexatious psychology of climate change denial). But a shower of carrots and sticks that make climate-friendly choices profitable and rewarding – now that's a language few can resist. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">It's enough to make
a lazing frog perk up and smell the opportunities. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;" /><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Reviewed by Syd Baumel</i>Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-58866314865266055982014-08-20T19:16:00.000-07:002014-12-13T15:10:10.636-08:00The Heat is On (still) — and here's how scientists know it is<i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The following short essay was published this May in the Summer issue of </i><a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Aquarian</a><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><a href="http://./">.</a> I've revised and adapted it for this blog, with many more hyperlinks and graphics. </i><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">A Cold Winter in a (Still) Warming World</span></span></h2>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16pt; font-weight: normal;">When you look at the big picture, there's been no “pause” in global warming</span></span></h3>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">By </span><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Syd Baumel</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">It was Winnipeg's coldest winter since 1898. Throughout most of North America, the deep freeze broke records, made headlines and (inevitably) provided fodder for global warming doubters, deniers and disinformers.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">So where did the global warming go this winter? Answer: nowhere.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">While we were freezing like it's 1898, across the Atlantic Europe was enjoying one of its warmest winters on record. Witness those not-so-wintry Olympics in Sochi.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Even here in North America, it was an unusually warm winter out west – the warmest on record in California where the heat was so parching that by April the state was fully engulfed by drought. Up the road a piece, Alaska basked in its eighth warmest winter ever.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">But, as the proverb goes, when a whole bunch of blind men examine an elephant, a tusk, a trunk and a big floppy ear at a time, it can lead to a comically distorted picture of the whole.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Every month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States – a global authority on weather and climate – analyzes data from around the world and publishes a </span><a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“state of the climate” report</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. While we were freezing this winter, it turns out the planet as a whole never even shivered.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Remember November? With hindsight, it was a sign of things to come as a chilly autumn month segued abruptly into winter, with over a week left to go. Globally? <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11">According to NOAA</a>, it was pretty hot that month, record hot:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013,” NOAA reported in December, “was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).”</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Of course, it wasn't until December that the cold wave unmistakably swept across most of Canada and the U.S. (Ironically, some climate scientists hypothesize it was a quirky side effect of global warming, the result of a sagging polar vortex meeting a shuffling jet stream.) So what about them apples, NOAA?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12">NOAA</a>: “The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for December 2013 was the third highest for December since records began in 1880, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F).”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">And on it went.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1">January</a>: “... fourth warmest on record.”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/2">February</a>: “... the 21st highest for February on record.” (That's warmer than five out of six of those Februaries.)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">As for March, the month when winter threatened to take up permanent residence in these parts, <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/3">the big picture</a> was thoroughly unintimidating: “the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March rebounded and was the fourth highest on record.”</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As I write this early in May after a (still) unseasonably cold April, NOAA's monthly report isn't out yet, but don't expect any surprises. The last time the world experienced a month that was cooler than the 20th century average for that month, many of you weren't even born yet. The rest of us didn't know an MP3 from a B52, and the number one “record album” that month was by a saucy new sexpot named Madonna: <i>Like A Virgin</i>. It was February 1985. Statistically, that kind of warm streak is like flipping heads 350 times in a row. The odds against it happening by chance are so high they make a quadrillion look like small change. (<b>Update, August 18: </b>True to form, April continued the global warming streak. In fact, it <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/4">tied with 2010 for the warmest April on record</a>. May didn't tie; it <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5">set a new record</a>. So did <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6">June</a>. July took a breather. It was only <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7">“the </a></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7">fourth highest on record."</a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <b>Update, December 13:</b> The heat <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">continues. August, September<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> and October each set a new heat record for their respective months.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Indeed, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“</span>The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">,” <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/10">says NOAA</a>, and “The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record...”</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">)</span></span> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<h3>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Pausing to ponder “the pause”</span></span></h3>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Something similar has been happening with the recent so-called “pause” in global warming. Even though virtually every year since 1997 has been warmer than any year before 1997 (probably going back </span><a href="https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">thousands of years</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">), the slope of the warming trend has slowed down and pretty much plateaued since about 2002. Here's what it looks like: </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiEUwyfXC-PcNfq8qwXkCk-55bViLpZXMyclpgaxMkxTRKD2XIyr_exZDc91KbMyplkn-PP80juvJMS0AHbwdj1DpPway1lgs-3Ct8DItmOoOCmv2otN7By0IkQW5D5qtcdlzmJxdsKW53/s1600/HadCRUT4_1850-present.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiEUwyfXC-PcNfq8qwXkCk-55bViLpZXMyclpgaxMkxTRKD2XIyr_exZDc91KbMyplkn-PP80juvJMS0AHbwdj1DpPway1lgs-3Ct8DItmOoOCmv2otN7By0IkQW5D5qtcdlzmJxdsKW53/s1600/HadCRUT4_1850-present.png" height="457" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In the context of the longest instrumental (i.e., measured with thermometers) temperature record in the world (source: the Hadley Climate Research Unit of the UK's Met Office), the “pause” looks like a speed bump, at best. Other temperature records show the same pattern. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It should be noted, though, that recently, when researchers more accurately accounted for Arctic warming, the pause </span><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">more or less disappeared from the temperature record</a> (for a straightforward explanation of their research, watch this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo">this excellent video</a> by one of the two scientists)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDXobtJ088CrO6JDcjrR0twzcavZHzxiBho_ZTWtiFqIBfZfwCFX88JWvg2HXkn9-pGQ_CgHTPzCeEiZU0Rj_o6aJ8cqv4Cy7eYaJKwB7T2P50GfMs5SurkugYtCUi-iBsleEkOeABGpv_/s1600/HadCRUT4-hybrid-per_Cowtan&Way_SkS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDXobtJ088CrO6JDcjrR0twzcavZHzxiBho_ZTWtiFqIBfZfwCFX88JWvg2HXkn9-pGQ_CgHTPzCeEiZU0Rj_o6aJ8cqv4Cy7eYaJKwB7T2P50GfMs5SurkugYtCUi-iBsleEkOeABGpv_/s1600/HadCRUT4-hybrid-per_Cowtan&Way_SkS.png" height="458" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">When the Hadley surface temperature record (“HADCRUT4”) is <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/qj.2297">adjusted</a> to include missing polar and other geographic data by using the satellite temperature record, which began in 1979, the recent pause all but disappears. (Chart created with <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php">www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php</a>.) </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Still, if we stick to the half dozen or so land- and satellite-based datasets in their current configurations, there has been no <i>statistically</i> <i>significant</i> warming since the mid-1990s</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(in statistics, “significant” means the odds are at least 20 to 1 that the warming trend is real, not a random uptick)</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. Deniers and disinformers have glommed onto this as proof that we're no longer warming (<i>if we ever were</i>) despite the continuing proliferation of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions – the only credible cause for modern day warming. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>(And now, a very brief digression – feel free to skip ahead.)</i> Why are human </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">greenhouse gas emissions “the only credible cause for modern day warming”? The answer (which isn't brief) can be found in any authoritative source on climate change. Still, much as an infographic can be worth a thousand words, so can a </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">balance sheet of all the known human and </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">natural </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">warming <i>and </i></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>cooling</i></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> forces – “radiative forcings,” as climate scientists say – since before the industrial revolution. The one below is from the <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">latest report</a> by the supremely </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1zE2WmZnBiyAZ356Na8ttHBikOqx2aFHja2ZUDu0mCIyAKkmnJCOTCckLwgvHQBZowh0GiXVsJO5xhKaVR8hDvH9Z9kUsxqBgM57ELO_-nzvaAvdr5XWxgbzl2X658bxfYiJw2J9pDL4J/s1600/AR5_radiative+forcing+chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1zE2WmZnBiyAZ356Na8ttHBikOqx2aFHja2ZUDu0mCIyAKkmnJCOTCckLwgvHQBZowh0GiXVsJO5xhKaVR8hDvH9Z9kUsxqBgM57ELO_-nzvaAvdr5XWxgbzl2X658bxfYiJw2J9pDL4J/s1600/AR5_radiative+forcing+chart.png" height="392" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The IPCC's most recent balance sheet of natural and anthropogenic (human caused) cooling and warming influences (“forcings”) on the planet's climate leaves little room for doubt that anything other than anthropogenic forcings can account for the precipitous warming we've seen in modern times. Source and discussion <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">here</a>, starting on page 53. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>(End of digression.)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But just as a cold winter in North America can distract us from the big picture of a warm winter worldwide, a stalled warming trend in the air above us can distract us from the fact that the planet as a whole has kept on accumulating heat. It's just that the heat has found some more determined customers lately: the oceans, the snow and the ice.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">While air temperatures have temporarily peaked, the ocean waters that cover 70 percent of the planet, and the ice and snow in polar regions and mountain ranges, have been warming and melting with a ferocity the world has probably not seen since we emerged from the last ice age.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The oceans are the greatest heat sink on the planet. They absorb well over 90 percent of the infrared solar energy trapped near the Earth's surface by the greenhouse effect. But since 1990, these giant shock absorbers have been working overtime, soaking up atmospheric heat <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">about five times as greedily as they were between the 1950s and 1990</a>. If anything, that breakneck pace has increased since 2000, global warming pause be damned. Here's what that not-so-pause looks like: </span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkMMUkB-VttzD4fIjLNBSzi-orsQ6BaLPY9yySDykMFRBYKHMCulIak-DWQ8OUZqWB2XS6ialBhsz_jySwK0HI47vlRpHjIbwdODsKYUIMimp6uKXrGlPxEw5RrkDqVoa215I7qV9C7wZI/s1600/ocean+heat+content+0-2000+metres_NOAA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkMMUkB-VttzD4fIjLNBSzi-orsQ6BaLPY9yySDykMFRBYKHMCulIak-DWQ8OUZqWB2XS6ialBhsz_jySwK0HI47vlRpHjIbwdODsKYUIMimp6uKXrGlPxEw5RrkDqVoa215I7qV9C7wZI/s1600/ocean+heat+content+0-2000+metres_NOAA.png" height="428" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The startling rise in ocean heat content since the early 90s has yet to take a pause. SOURCE: <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/</a> (slide 2, as of August 2014). </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">And then there's </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">the cryosphere</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">, our planet's motherlode of snow and ice.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">We've all heard of the astonishing ice melt in the Arctic. Since the 1950s, the summer ice that covers that frozen sea has shrunk by nearly eight percent per decade</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. As momentous as that is (a 50 percent</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">decline in 60 years), the everything-must-go liquidation melt of Arctic sea ice has only accelerated since the late 1990s. Climate scientists are having to revise their estimates of when the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer from “mid-century or later” to “any decade now.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJhYEW8IpEg_NcoESEH-Lroc2ELglu3YogczUzWWP2AfWGbQzG8iWuf8_6yBv0ZfSxl96XExuRx1sCH5lHloF4IZdaKXTg8lo_slthdJv1TpbAV5W7azX4CsbUGeIVXiLhCisggbjSEf-q/s1600/Arctic+summer+sea+ice_AR5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJhYEW8IpEg_NcoESEH-Lroc2ELglu3YogczUzWWP2AfWGbQzG8iWuf8_6yBv0ZfSxl96XExuRx1sCH5lHloF4IZdaKXTg8lo_slthdJv1TpbAV5W7azX4CsbUGeIVXiLhCisggbjSEf-q/s1600/Arctic+summer+sea+ice_AR5.png" height="234" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This IPCC graph shows how multiple, independent measurements (“datasets”) are documenting a rapid and dramatic decline in the Arctic's summer sea ice (it's declining year-round, too). SOURCE: the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, 2013 (<a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">Figure TS.1, p. 38</a>). </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Climate change doubters like to point out that Antarctic sea ice has been growing, so it all balances out. But the two are not equal. The modest ice expansion over the Antarctic's frigid waters </span><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">has been dwarfed</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> by the massive recession over the Arctic's. Take a look: </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZuuu9alCyfXCB6xYyx03vujro_wxvqPn5SQtcUE1WCnET-9TLSSiEdFgNhYIzzSVuGxhfCSbSSmSHevpz9WJY9RzfHolbpT-3BgSkSLSFRTcxxfsjU97oi4YmGck5HQ8hQ_GjmT07jdFb/s1600/GlobalSeaIce.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZuuu9alCyfXCB6xYyx03vujro_wxvqPn5SQtcUE1WCnET-9TLSSiEdFgNhYIzzSVuGxhfCSbSSmSHevpz9WJY9RzfHolbpT-3BgSkSLSFRTcxxfsjU97oi4YmGck5HQ8hQ_GjmT07jdFb/s1600/GlobalSeaIce.gif" height="400" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The folks at SkepticalScience.com use their adroit GIF-making powers to illustrate the net global sea ice loss, as documented by satellites since 1979. Story <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm">here</a>. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">What it comes down do is whether we want to see the world as it is or pick and choose only those bits that confirm our biases. When it comes to the planet's massive cryosphere, the most important question we can ask is what's been happening to </span><span style="color: black;">all</span><span style="color: black;"><i> </i></span><span style="color: black;">of it, not just the parts that are growing here or disappearing there. The answer is it's been going fast.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It may not seem like it to us Canadians, but nearly all of the world's </span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>glacial ice</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i> </i></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">– the fresh-water glaciers and ice sheets (mega-glaciers greater than </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">50,000 square kilometres in area</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">) that cover land and mountains – is concentrated in Greenland and Antarctica, not Winnipeg. Late last year, the UN's Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) completed its </span><a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">review of the physical science</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> that has accumulated since its last report in 2007 and brought the world up to speed. The average rate of ice loss from Antarctica, the IPCC's cryosphere scientists estimated</span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">, was a formidable </span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">30 billion tonnes per year between 1992 and 2001. But from 2002 to 2011 – the decade when global warming appeared to take a holiday (judging by air temperatures) – Antarctica's ice loss “</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">likely</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">” (IPCC-speak for 66 to 100 percent probability) accelerated to </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>147 </i>billion </span><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">tonnes per year.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The acceleration was even more dramatic in Greenland. The IPCC's experts (leaders in their respective fields who volunteer their time to produce the IPCC reports) believe it's “<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">very likely</span>”<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> </span>(90 to 100 percent probability) that ice loss there has vaulted from 34 billion tonnes per year between 1992 and 2001 to 215 billion tonnes per year during the decade of “no global warming.” (You can read the IPCC's discussion <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">here</a>, on pages 40–46.)</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">But what about all of those photogenic glaciers outside of the remote, frozen poles – on mountain ranges like the Rockies, the Andes and the Himalayas and on icy lands like Alaska and the Canadian Arctic? It turns out they've been losing ice at an even greater clip – and again, without “pause.” </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Using data from 1971 to 2009, t</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">he IPCC <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">estimates</a> there has been a gradual acceleration in this erosion of glacial ice outside of Greenland and Antarctica. During the entire period, it estimates the melt “</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">very likely” averaged 226 billion tonnes per year</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> (give or take 135 </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">billion tonnes)</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. But from 1993 to 2009, it probably averaged 275</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">billion tonnes per year</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. A</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">nd by</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> 2005 to 2009, the rate peaked at </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">301</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">billion tonnes per year. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Here is what all that polar ice sheet and global glacier melt looks like, both before “the pause” (1991 to 1998) and “during” it:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6oyKkpsXKWabFSQf2Xl5caZjJSr44eMxlbKVKFsXPgA7bxQZLLe721UXuZhipa4jmDabpobeXDV5YyUO5oGcBbxbwo-bOIuMPE5Z16Fl7aqbho-tc8B2loF7Ww0t5ORzfsm-rdQf7o0lV/s1600/glacial+ice+loss+since+1991_AR5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6oyKkpsXKWabFSQf2Xl5caZjJSr44eMxlbKVKFsXPgA7bxQZLLe721UXuZhipa4jmDabpobeXDV5YyUO5oGcBbxbwo-bOIuMPE5Z16Fl7aqbho-tc8B2loF7Ww0t5ORzfsm-rdQf7o0lV/s1600/glacial+ice+loss+since+1991_AR5.png" height="320" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not a pause in sight: a planet losing ice. From Figure TS.3, page 41, <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf">Technical Summary, <i>Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis</i> (IPCC), 2013</a>. (On the right, “SLE” stands for sea level equivalent.) </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Add it all up, and in just one recent decade we've probably melted over six trillion tonnes of the ice cubes in Mother Earth's icebox. In a world that just keeps on warming, there is no Safeway or Price Choppers we can go to to put those ice cubes back. Quite the contrary. According to the IPCC's best guesstimate, a lot more melting is locked in, even if we turn off all the dirty power tomorrow: “</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">There is <i>high confidence</i> that current glacier extents are out of balance </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will continue to </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">shrink in the future even without further temperature increase.” </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">All of this ice melting and ocean warming has sent sea levels soaring. <a href="http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-global-sea-level">According to data from NOAA</a>, global mean sea level – which had its own little pause in the early 90s – has climbed nearly three inches just since 1997 (see their graph below). To put that into perspective, the IPCC estimates that the cumulative sea level rise since 1901 is 7.5 inches. Since most of the recent spike in sea levels has occurred since 2001, nearly 40 percent of the entire sea level rise since 1901 has occurred in little over a decade – while global warming has supposedly stopped.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDRS7lNNJ-T94-Pj2qm4APxI1bcnxF-zf1ds8wsTyyqLwYncEQQ-vLXG5aSDlaPkiAj_ado_vYzlidJ5pUSH53VFCpOIqK-qCHlNdyXyUYPp603kMaEMp7u6tOOQgOO38UVmoCWddRddnc/s1600/sea+level+rise+since+1993.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDRS7lNNJ-T94-Pj2qm4APxI1bcnxF-zf1ds8wsTyyqLwYncEQQ-vLXG5aSDlaPkiAj_ado_vYzlidJ5pUSH53VFCpOIqK-qCHlNdyXyUYPp603kMaEMp7u6tOOQgOO38UVmoCWddRddnc/s1600/sea+level+rise+since+1993.png" height="290" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There has been nothing “pausey” about the planet's sea level since the late 1990s, according to the satellite record which begins in 1993. SOURCE: <a href="http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-global-sea-level">NOAA</a>. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">-----------------</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Climate scientists, the IPCC and every major scientific body on the planet all seek out, see (however imperfectly) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change">agree on the big picture</a>. They seek clarity, not confusion. They can tell the elephant from the tusks. Whether the air is warming less for 15 years and the ice and oceans are melting or warming more, or vice versa, when skeptical, bean-counting climate scientists balance the books, the planet is still running a fever.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The only way to prevent the climate disruption we're already seeing (for maximum climate volatility, add heat rapidly and stir) from becoming a climate disaster a generation or two from now is to stop adding coal, oil and gas to the fire – and fast.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikwyHcjnKpQaqyi2-c6y3Yl9HkBfjLijUXhqHr6OstpJZNVj_thVsSKd4eygTRdq_IU0gvEIweHmUDouLWxTXHPI4HzBbsg8aLsG2GHkEItV3QJBncU0LDiapfS4p4KG4dqb6ee5ZLAGwb/s1600/All+source+warming+since+1971_AR5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikwyHcjnKpQaqyi2-c6y3Yl9HkBfjLijUXhqHr6OstpJZNVj_thVsSKd4eygTRdq_IU0gvEIweHmUDouLWxTXHPI4HzBbsg8aLsG2GHkEItV3QJBncU0LDiapfS4p4KG4dqb6ee5ZLAGwb/s1600/All+source+warming+since+1971_AR5.png" height="640" width="350" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is what climate science's “balance sheet” of global warming since 1971 looks like, as tabulated for the IPCC's most <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf">recent report (page 264)</a>. It is truly startling to realize that warming of the lower atmosphere – of the thin layer of air above us – is represented by that wee purple curve at the bottom. Even the melting cryosphere (grey) can't hold a candle to the oceans’ capacity to absorb roughly 93% of the heat we keep adding to the climate system – and clearly to do so without any recent “pause.” </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-36042942671192138702014-06-04T16:50:00.001-07:002014-06-04T16:50:39.071-07:00Obama's War on Coal = War on America<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQ9tXC3f4xEuU3aOlPtD9X-Mhyphenhyphen8MEvRn8FDR5QjLu9klokZxRoIHrepVbe3sZr1-ZICTjaJsvqHjBPh3dYbTnQ3PCGMwxtAPka_mdEo3xK1CRnRccBj8MmzyAQwiUxK5nLTTdLpJY3rlT/s1600/CFCPACC_Obama+war+on+coal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQ9tXC3f4xEuU3aOlPtD9X-Mhyphenhyphen8MEvRn8FDR5QjLu9klokZxRoIHrepVbe3sZr1-ZICTjaJsvqHjBPh3dYbTnQ3PCGMwxtAPka_mdEo3xK1CRnRccBj8MmzyAQwiUxK5nLTTdLpJY3rlT/s1600/CFCPACC_Obama+war+on+coal.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-14261681711565709042014-05-24T19:15:00.000-07:002014-05-24T19:15:09.906-07:00Introducing CFCPACC.org -- Committee for Confusing People About Climate Change<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9358rITFmTRca2QB2qj8Dun0KcWo0MgZVgnL8jGvYEiKKbpeWzmnGzdDdqseliBBgtKlAFUjxJeW2GuUD1LWZ8F6BTrdS3pucwBbDEAMl01fiSO0H-z2u9QKGMlgxtVixv9YosgZ27fod/s1600/Gore_EPIC_FAIL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9358rITFmTRca2QB2qj8Dun0KcWo0MgZVgnL8jGvYEiKKbpeWzmnGzdDdqseliBBgtKlAFUjxJeW2GuUD1LWZ8F6BTrdS3pucwBbDEAMl01fiSO0H-z2u9QKGMlgxtVixv9YosgZ27fod/s1600/Gore_EPIC_FAIL.jpg" height="474" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-30599476784808153432014-04-10T17:58:00.000-07:002014-05-14T13:42:41.941-07:00CFACT + Lovelock = Climate ConfusionThe Denialsphere has <a href="https://www.facebook.com/cfact/photos/a.10150141139700281.328977.140379955280/10152350278130281/?type=1">a new meme</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhefpaCUU4TEpF6lX9aIGB2b1SQ4OZxSuhP9Us7aJir8pYtB3UOzld42J0VB6eC9g9ebz-RHDT8k6W0YtatkRGgWLy6gAvBuw9kRg5zDjG6CaQEKCSz4NdxjIoXBYsg7F2dH92NlQdbebi8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-04-07+at+5.51.06+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhefpaCUU4TEpF6lX9aIGB2b1SQ4OZxSuhP9Us7aJir8pYtB3UOzld42J0VB6eC9g9ebz-RHDT8k6W0YtatkRGgWLy6gAvBuw9kRg5zDjG6CaQEKCSz4NdxjIoXBYsg7F2dH92NlQdbebi8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-04-07+at+5.51.06+PM.png" height="369" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
And as usual, it would be charitable to call it a half-truth.<br />
<br />
It took me less than five minutes to find that out.<br />
<br />
Yes, the irrepressibly outspoken originator of the Gaia theory of our planet, James Lovelock, did say what <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow">CFACT</a> (the “Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,” as Stephen Colbert might have named it) triumphantly says he did. Without even fact-checking, I'm willing to believe another climate change obfuscation outfit on that one, because at least <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation">the Global Warming Policy Foundation</a> is responsible enough to <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/james-lovelock-nobody-really-knows-whats-happening-with-climate-change-theyre-just-guessing/">publish</a> the 94-year-old scientist <i>cum</i> natural philosopher's words in partial context – a context that includes other tidbits you won't see in any disinfographic from CFACT.<br />
<br />
Lovelock's quote is loosely taken from a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0400593/hd/Newsnight_02_04_2014/"><i>BBC Newsnight</i> interview</a> broadcast on April 2, just a few days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its massive <a href="http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/">Working Group II report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.</a><br />
<br />
Early in the interview, Lovelock opted to illustrate his point that we're not as smart as we think we are, and that we're cruising for a bruising with extinction, by opining:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think any of them really know what’s happening. They're just guessing it. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses. </blockquote>
(I'm using my own transcript now that I've watched the interview myself. It corrects some errors in the transcript by the GWPF and adds a few more lines of context.)<br />
<br />
So there it is. The get, the ripe cherry to be picked, the quote to be mined, tweaked and decontextualized by CFACT, Friends of Science, Watts Up With That? and all the other climate confusionists dedicated to pulling the wool over the people's eyes in the guise of enlightening them, ensuring the fossil fuel companies will live to profit another day and keeping the bogeymen of “Big Government” and global governance away.<br />
<br />
And here's the context.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<i>Newsnight</i> presenter Jeremy Paxman immediately picked up on Lovelock's not-so-thinly veiled swipe at the IPCC:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Paxman: That latest report from the International [sic] Panel on Climate Change <i>did</i> suggest that there was something inevitable ...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lovelock (quietly, while nodding): Yes.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Paxman: ... about climate change, that it had already begun and that we had to adjust to it. All of those things are true, are they not, as far as we know? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lovelock: <i>Absolutely.</i> That <i>is</i> true. That report, the last one, is very similar to the statements that I made in a book about eight years ago called <i>The Revenge of Gaia</i>. It’s almost as if they’d copied it, but not quite. </blockquote>
So Lovelock professes that climate scientists are fumbling in the dark, but in the next breath he agrees with the main thrust of the IPCC's latest report – “absolutely.”<br />
<br />
But then in the very next breath Lovelock seems to do another flip-flop.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Paxman: Sure. But you then, after publishing these apocalyptic predictions, you then retracted them. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lovelock: Well, that’s my privilege, you see. I’m an independent scientist. I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public on it – and you have to, because it's only by making mistakes that you can move ahead. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Paxman: It follows from that, does it not, that this panel on climate change which has, as you point out, vested interests involved, may be <i>just</i> as likely or even <i>more likely</i> to make a mistake? [NOTE: Any previous reference by Lovelock to “vested interests” didn't make the cut of the broadcast interview.]</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lovelock (grinning): Well, that would be a lot of hubris on my part to say that, but it's possible.</blockquote>
So which is it, Dr. Lovelock? Do you think the IPCC is fundamentally right (despite your disparagement of them) or, as CFACT <i>et al</i>. would have it, have you renounced the consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Well, here's more context in Paxman's very next comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Paxman: Now you are evidently very concerned about the effect of carbon upon the world, and yet you part company with many environmentalists on the question of nuclear power ... </blockquote>
There's no need for me to transcribe any further. The conversation continues with Lovelock doubling down on his controversial enthusiasm for nuclear power (“It's safer even than windmills. You can be killed when the blade of a windmill spins off and hits your house or chops your head off.”) and his qualified support for fracking. Then it ends. It's clear the only reason Lovelock is keen on these relatively low carbon energy sources is because – as Paxman has just stated (with no objection from Lovelock) – he's still “very concerned about the effect of carbon upon the world.” (For example, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-robots-taking-over-world">in a profile</a> published just a few days earlier, Lovelock says “we can't go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2.”)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWyncPLJhnnWhFB7BQouysq-9hmZv6AaR_DnePepu08W0Zc4700ZdH3oXzAgjLiG4KDRjD6ems7Ky76G8-iR4aU8k5g6DsEoqadoJEOoyh3pysJ8wlcdxZctbQ-Xlm1_XOjZpr_blEf5vb/s1600/James+Lovelock_coal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWyncPLJhnnWhFB7BQouysq-9hmZv6AaR_DnePepu08W0Zc4700ZdH3oXzAgjLiG4KDRjD6ems7Ky76G8-iR4aU8k5g6DsEoqadoJEOoyh3pysJ8wlcdxZctbQ-Xlm1_XOjZpr_blEf5vb/s1600/James+Lovelock_coal.png" height="369" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Put your logo on <i>this</i> infographic and spread it, CFACT. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
CFACT wants people who see its disinfographic to believe that Lovelock's uncertainty means we shouldn't worry about – as they frame the subject – “global warming?” To quote from their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/cfact/photos/a.10150141139700281.328977.140379955280/10152350278130281/?type=1&theater">blurb about it on Facebook</a>: “The scientist behind the Gaia theory doesn't think the debate over global warming is settled. Do you?” And sure enough, the top reader comment – with 53 likes, as I write this – is: “Ha! It wasn't that long ago they were predicting another ice age.”<br />
<br />
But that's not the kind of uncertainty Lovelock is revelling in. Here he is, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-robots-taking-over-world">quoted</a> in a profile just days before the BBC interview:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I was a little too certain in that book [<i>The Revenge of Gaia</i>]. You just can't tell what's going to happen....It could be terrible within a few years, though that's very unlikely, or it could be hundreds of years before the climate becomes unbearable.”</blockquote>
The truth is less flattering to Lovelock than the IPCC. In <i>The Revenge of Gaia</i> (the 2006 book he refers to in the BBC interview), Lovelock projected a future climate that was even hotter than the IPCC's <i>worst case scenario</i>. In the parlance of CFACT and its ilk, Lovelock was being an “alarmist.” Summarizing the gist of his book in an <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html">op-ed on the eve of its publication</a>, Lovelock promised that “as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.” He painted a post-apocalyptic vision: “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”<br />
<br />
That same year, the mainstream climate scientists whom Lovelock loves to mock for their supposed ignorance and hubris were completing the IPCC report that preceded the current one. When that report came out in 2007, the IPCC's worst-case scenario temperature estimate (offered with modest scientific confidence of better than 3 to 1 odds of accuracy) for the last decade of this century compared to the last 20 years of the twentieth was a global rise of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html">2.4 to 6.4 degrees centigrade</a>, with a best estimate of 4 degrees. The most optimistic of their scenarios (based mostly on different assumptions about how we will behave as a species) projected an increase of just 1.1 to 2.9 degrees; best estimate: 1.8 degrees.<br />
<br />
The IPCC's global warming estimates have dropped slightly in <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf">their new report</a>. Comparing the longer end-of century period 2081–2100 to a wider 1986–2005 baseline, the worst case scenario – which is more or less a “business as usual” peak into the future – is an increase of 2.6°C to 4.8°C. The most optimistic: 0.3°C to 1.7°C. The latter's optimism is predicated on humanity heeding the IPCC's warnings and cracking down aggressively on greenhouse gas emissions so that we have a 50:50 chance of limiting the temperature increase since pre-industrial times to less than 2°C (we're nearly halfway there already).<br />
<br />
So when Lovelock made headlines a few years after the <i>The Revenge of Gaia</i> by pronouncing that he'd been mistakenly overconfident in his extreme predictions, he was moving <i>closer</i> to the IPCC consensus, not farther away.<br />
<br />
Easily lost in the drama was Lovelock's abiding belief that radical climate change due to our relentless emissions is not only real, it's a juggernaut probably not even worth trying to stop. Instead, going with the flow – <i>adapting</i> – is the solution he advocates in his latest book, <i>A Rough Ride to the Future</i>. (The rough ride, it should be obvious, is courtesy of anthropogenic global warming.)<br />
<br />
It's not surprising that mainstream climate scientists are less than appreciative of Lovelock's intellectual mood swings. A couple years ago, in a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17988492">BBC piece</a> reacting to yet another post-alarmism-period interview with Lovelock, columnist Roger Harrabin quoted an IPCC scientist who commented about his colleague anonymously:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Jim [Lovelock] exaggerated the certainties of climate change before, which wasn't helpful then. His recent comments aren't helpful now. They will be seized on by people who argue that science is too uncertain to inform policy – and that's absolutely not the case. He's blown too hot, now he's blowing too cold.”</blockquote>
It's ironic, but psychologically not unusual, that a man accuses others of the very faults he demonstrates in his own behaviour. Hubris, overconfidence – in his own judgment, Lovelock was guilty of these in his earlier views on anthropogenic climate change. I find his subsequent rhetoric, in which ostentatious protestations of scientific uncertainty are served up like a garnish to his main course of (still) overconfident declarations about everything from the absolute safety of nuclear power to the pointlessness of fighting climate change, as replete with intellectual hubris as ever.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, those scientists who “[don't] really know what’s happening,” who “meet together and encourage each other’s guesses” are rigorously transparent (qualifying every conclusion in their reports with quantified measures of scientific uncertainty) about the fuzziness of the details in the emerging portrait of dangerous human-caused climate change, as painted by science with increasing clarity from one IPCC report to the next.<br />
<br />
And while Lovelock may have his own take on what we can or should do about it – “if [the planet's] going to be saved,” he suggested in that 2012 interview, “it will save itself....The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life while you can” – he agrees “absolutely” with those IPCC scientists that it <i>is</i> happening.<br />
<br />
Even if nobody knows exactly how it will unfold.Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-78261081213436500512014-01-17T14:03:00.003-08:002014-06-27T21:33:37.383-07:00Tiger not-so-direct: Adventures in comical customer service<div>
It began with a message from me to tigerdirect.ca, submitted via their website. I had been checking out the Lenovo Yoga 10.1 tablet – including on tigerdirect.ca. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For days afterward, ads from tigerdirect.ca for the Lenovo tablet (among others) followed me around the web. These two-frame GIFs flickered between the implied regular price with a slash through it and the implied sale price. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the regular price the ads gave for the tablet was inflated by 20% above Lenovo's list price. And the implied sale price was ... the list price<i>.</i> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even Lenovo was discounting it below list at the time (the 2013 Christmas holiday season). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wanted Tiger Direct to know. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Instead I would become an unwitting straight man in a comedy routine that would involve some 11 emails. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(NOTE: I've removed redundant text from the email transcript below in order to minimize discomfort and maximize amusement.)</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> (</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sent: Dec 28, 2013 12:40:37 AM</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Comments and Suggestions</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">**</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">** Message Sent from: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> website</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Name : Syd Baumel</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">E-Mail : </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Phone : ()-</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject : Comments and Suggestions</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Message :</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Your offsite display ad (on IMDB, in this case) misleadingly gives a list price for the Lenovo Yoga 10.1 tablet of "$383.99." The actual list price of $319.99 is depicted as the sale price.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">##sequenceid=27886132013121805061714216163200##</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: RE: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:52:00 GMT</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Dear Valued Customer,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for contacting us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Please accept our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience that may have caused you. We value your comments and rest assured that they will be forwarded to the proper department.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">We constantly strive for customer satisfaction and hope this incident will not change your opinion of our company.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Should you have further concerns, please feel free to contact us at 1.800.800.8300 for assistance. Thank you for your time and patience.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for visiting our website. We appreciate your business. If you have further inquiries and reply to this email, please make sure to include your entire message, so we can address it appropriately. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number below should you require any further assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Felben</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1-800-955-1888 ext 492056</span><br />
<span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Customer Advocate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How are we doing? We would like to hear from you. Please give us your feedback at <a href="</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=347357755</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"> </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=347357755</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></a>.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><i>19 days later ...</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:29:37 -0600</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Hi,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The misleading ad (see my original email below) continues to follow me around the Web. Here's a screen shot taken moments ago:</span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEtCjCqHVYeHuHBg1slGQLgiglSOoT6I3HrR6vSbl42sYAMj3qtbzARcx75DXFXV2PKNUAwZ7NHa0NzMSouJ7Q-sX02gStUR55ElrXwk5ls0jlN6Nqk-xB9wRhViu_zOKXgY6p_CoJ4Ac2/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-16+at+7.15.06+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEtCjCqHVYeHuHBg1slGQLgiglSOoT6I3HrR6vSbl42sYAMj3qtbzARcx75DXFXV2PKNUAwZ7NHa0NzMSouJ7Q-sX02gStUR55ElrXwk5ls0jlN6Nqk-xB9wRhViu_zOKXgY6p_CoJ4Ac2/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-16+at+7.15.06+PM.png" height="193" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">As before, the list price of the Lenovo tablet is falsely depicted as $383.99. As you can see, it's really much less: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://shop.lenovo.com/ca/en/tablets/ideatab/yoga/yoga-10/</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Now that I look further, I see you've also exaggerated the list price of the Excite Write. Your ad says $719.99. Toshiba says $599.99 (</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.toshiba.com/us/tablets/excite/Write/32gb</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">), which is your supposed "discount" price.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">My "opinion of [y]our company" is in serious jeopardy - and I've been a customer in the past. You need to correct these errors, because they're false advertising. My next email may be to the Competition Bureau.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Syd Baumel</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: start;">_____________________________</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:36:45 -0600</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>sydbaumel@eatkind.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I see your ad also exaggerates the list price of the Samsung Tab, but not by much. Still, that's 3 for 3.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: RE: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:37:46 GMT</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mymts.net</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Dear Valued Customer,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your email.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Your email did not contain the details necessary to complete a proper response and to assist you in this matter. Please provide more information, including the order number, so that we may better assist you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How can we assist you?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for visiting our website. We appreciate your business. If you have further inquiries and reply to this email, please make sure to include your entire message, so we can address it appropriately. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number below should you require any further assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Edessa</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Customer Advocate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How are we doing? We would like to hear from you. Please give us your feedback at <a href="</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350218938</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"> </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350218938</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:11:35 -0600</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">There is no order. If you don't understand the nature of the complaint,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I suggest you pass it up to a supervisor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: RE: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:58:26 GMT</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mymts.net</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Dear Valued Customer,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your correspondence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Please accept our sincerest apologies regarding this issue. We understand your concern.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Please be advised that the original email sent may contain characters that can not be viewed on our systems. Please advise on how you would like to be assisted. We greatly appreciate your understanding on this matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your time and patience.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for visiting our website. We appreciate your business. If you have further inquiries and reply to this email, please make sure to include your entire message, so we can address it appropriately. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number below should you require any further assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">May</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1-800-955-1888 ext 492011</span><br />
<span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Customer Advocate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How are we doing? We would like to hear from you. Please give us your feedback at <a href="</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350222060</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"> </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350222060</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:01:31 -0600</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I'm not asking for assistance. I'm documenting - for your information -</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">persistently misleading online advertising by </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. You are</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">the ones who need assistance. I suggest you refer my emails to your</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">online advertising department and possibly your legal department.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: RE: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:05:10 GMT</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mymts.net</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Dear Valued Customer,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your email.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">We understand your concern. It is with great concern that we address an incident you experienced with our customer service department. After hearing of this issue, we would like to make an apology on behalf of TigerDirect. We are taking all the necessary steps to make sure that this type of incident does not happen again.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">If you want to speak with a super visor, please call us at 1-800-800-8300 for assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Please reply to this e-mail should you have further inquiries.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your time and patience.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for visiting our website. We appreciate your business. If you have further inquiries and reply to this email, please make sure to include your entire message, so we can address it appropriately. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number below should you require any further assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Ericquel</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1-800-955-1888 ext 492030</span><br />
<span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Customer Advocate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How are we doing? We would like to hear from you. Please give us your feedback at <a href="</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350234566</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"> </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350234566</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_____________________________</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:41:35 -0600</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Syd Baumel <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mts.net</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I have an uneasy feeling that you still don't understand what the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"incident" is. Do you? Please spell it out (it's in my previous emails,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">and I'm not going to waste time repeating it on the phone). Because if</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">you don't, the "incident" will continue to occur as I surf the Web and</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">misleading ads from Tigerdirect are served to me (and others). That is</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">the "incident" - not your customer service department.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: start;">_____________________________</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Subject: RE: Re: Comments and Suggestions (#8796-399606888-9848)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:20:39 GMT</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">From: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Reply-To: Tiger Canada <</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>help@help.tigerdirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">To: </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>baumel@mymts.net</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Dear Valued Customer,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for your e-mail.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Our sincerest apologies for the inconvenience this may have caused you. We understand your frustration. Item is currently out of stock. You have an option to place a new order and we are willing to provide you a free shipping.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thank you for visiting our website. We appreciate your business. If you have further inquiries and reply to this email, please make sure to include your entire message, so we can address it appropriately. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number below should you require any further assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Cecilia</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1-800-955-1888 ext 5136</span><br />
<span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>TigerDirect.ca</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> Customer Advocate</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">How are we doing? We would like to hear from you. Please give us your feedback at <a href="</span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350238608</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"> </span><span style="color: #1f38ee; font-family: Helvetica;"><u>http://www.tigerdirect.ca/sectors/custsurvey/service.asp?ID=350238608</u></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"></a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px;"></span><br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-68805789617363942562013-09-04T23:33:00.000-07:002013-09-04T23:52:01.693-07:00Punishing Syria – and the Responsibility to Protect<span style="font-family: inherit;">Much of the determination by the Obama administration and other Western leaders to punish the Assad regime for gassing its own people is probably informed by a controversial doctrine that evolved in the aftermath of the international community's collective shame following its failure to intervene in Rwanda. A</span>s the world stood by, a<span style="font-family: inherit;">s many as a million civilians were brutally slain during the three-month bloodbath in 1994. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Eight years ago, when this doctrine – known as The Responsibility to Protect, or “R2P” – was on the brink of gaining international acceptance, I wrote the following column in <i><a href="http://www.aquarianonline.com/">The Aquarian</a></i> explaining what it is and why I believe it's an important step forward for global justice and security. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But while R2P might be a motivating factor for those who would intervene militarily in Syria, it's very unclear if America's non UN-sanctioned action would meet the cautious R2P criteria. More to the point, of course, will it help or will it hurt? </span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">from The Aquarian, Fall 2005</span></i></div>
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Making Atrocities History</span><span style="color: #b7717e; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: medium;">‘Responsibility to Protect’ </span><span style="font-size: medium;">doctrine </span><span style="font-size: medium;">seeks to globalize good Samaritanism</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">By Syd Baumel</span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>“Never again” we said after the Holocaust. And after the Cambodian genocide in the 1970s. And then again after the Rwanda genocide in 1994. And then, just a year later, after the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia. And now we’re asking ourselves, in the face of more mass killing and dying in Darfur, whether we really are capable, as an international community, of stopping nation-states murdering their own people.</i></span><br />
<div align="RIGHT">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Gareth Evans<br />Co-author, <i>The Responsibility to Protect</i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>We need clear principles that will allow the international community to intervene much faster in situations like Darfur. . . .The “Responsibility to Protect” is intended to fill this gap.</i></span><br />
<div align="RIGHT">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Prime Minister Paul Martin<br />Address to the UN, September 2004</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This September, the United Nations will mark its 60<sup>th</sup>anniversary with what promises to be the most significant stocktaking and potential turning point in its history. Leaders of the UN’s 191 member states will gather in New York from September 14 to 16 for a high level meeting of the General Assembly dubbed the Millennium + 5 Summit. There, the leaders will confront their lagging progress in meeting the make-poverty-history Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) they declared at the Millennium Summit in 2000 – goals such as halving extreme poverty and hunger, and reducing early childhood mortality by two thirds, by 2015. And they will face a formidable back-to-school assignment to begin reforming an institution that struggles to confront the problems of the 21<sup>st</sup> century with a toolbox created midway through the last.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But if Canada and a growing number of likeminded nations prevail, the summit could also see the first official endorsement by the community of nations of a new doctrine for making the world a radically safer place – one where </span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">never again</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> really means never again.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The simply named doctrine of “The Responsibility to Protect” is a cautious, detailed prescription for extending the age-old virtue of good Samaritanism from the village roadside to the global village. It’s a how-to manual for </span>“w<span style="font-family: inherit;">e, the peoples of the world</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> (as the UN Charter calls us) to, once and for all, take up the challenge of becoming our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">R2P,</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> as it is abbreviated, is the answer to a challenge put forward by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to the General Assembly at the end of a decade of Rwandas and Bosnias and the beginning of a new millennium: Find a way to reconcile the cloak of state sovereignty with the moral imperative to militarilly breach that cloak in order to stop wayward states from committing atrocities against their own people.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Canada was listening. At the instigation of then Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy, the Chrétien government created the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), a task force of a dozen distinguished experts on international law and conflict. After a year of global consultation, research and deliberation, in December of 2001 the commission published a 91-page report entitled <i>The Responsibility to Protect</i>. Logical, moral and realistic, it more than fulfilled its mission of </span>“r<span style="font-family: inherit;">econciling the seemingly irreconcilable notions of intervention and state sovereignty.</span>”<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Instead of challenging the legitimacy of state sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect challenges sovereign states to embrace a deeper, socially responsible concept of sovereignty. It calls upon them to accept their responsibility to protect the ultimate sovereigns – <i>the people</i> – as the prime obligation of state sovereignty. If a nation fails to fulfill this responsibility so horribly as to </span>“s<span style="font-family: inherit;">hock the conscience of humanity,</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> other sovereign states must assume that responsibility in its place. It takes a global village to protect all the villagers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">R2P does set off alarm bells in some minds. How to prevent nations from using it as a pretext to occupy, colonize or annex? How to minimize the risk of a well-meaning intervention doing more harm than good? How to prevent one or two self-serving vetoes from blocking a universally approved intervention?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To begin with, R2P attempts to head off such challenges by squarely laying the emphasis on </span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">the responsibility to </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">prevent</i>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> when trouble is merely brewing. Here the tools of intervention are nonviolent means, such as smart sanctions, conflict mediation, referral of human rights violators to the International Criminal Court and helping nations build the kind of civil and economic infrastructure conducive to social justice, peace and prosperity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When extreme circumstances do provoke “the responsibility to <i>react</i>” militarilly, The Responsibility to Protect seeks to prevent abuses by defining six “threshold criteria</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> to justify intervention:</span><br />
<ul><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Just cause</b>. Military R2P interventions must be in response to massive, “conscience-shocking” crimes against humanity, such as genocide or violent “ethnic cleansing” or persuasive evidence that such crimes are imminent.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Right intention</b>. The primary purpose of the intervention must be to protect innocent life, not to pursue the selfish interests of the interveners.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Last resort</b>. All reasonable, nonviolent means of intervention must have been exhausted or not be up to the task of ending the violence.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Proportional means</b>. The intervention must apply the least necessary force and the least encroachment upon national sovereignty to achieve its humanitarian goal <i>and</i> prevent a recurrence of atrocities. This last goal is served by the third component of the responsibility to protect: the responsibility to <i>rebuild</i>.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Reasonable prospects</b>. The intervention must be reasonably likely to work and unlikely to do more harm than good.</span></li>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b></b>
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Right authority</b>. This is the most challenging hurdle. Ideally, nations seeking authorization for a military R2P intervention should obtain it from the Security Council, with the five permanent members agreeing to waive their vetoes. But if a majority Security Council resolution <i>is</i> vetoed, authority can be sought from the General Assembly under its “Uniting for Peace” provision. Failing that, a “coalition of the willing” can intervene on its own authority, but only if – as in every case – the other threshold criteria are met.</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">R2P was slow to catch on in the tense, unreasoning climate following 9/11. And after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and later sought to justify it as a humanitarian intervention, R2P suffered guilt by association in the minds of some national leaders. Ironically, the Iraq invasion would have failed R2P’s threshold criteria with flying colours, according to ICISS co-chair and R2P co-author, Gareth Evans. Not so the genocidal ethnic cleansing that began that same winter in the Darfur province of Sudan and continues till this day, a Rwanda in slow motion. R2P would have given the international community an efficient, lawful process to rapidly discharge its responsibility to protect the victims of this state-abetted persecution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With Darfur weighing heavy on the international conscience, support for R2P has grown over the past year among governments, high level task forces and human rights organizations. Secretary General Kofi Annan has fought from the start to push it to the forefront of the international agenda.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the build-up to the Millennium + 5 Summit this September, the section of the summit’s evolving outcome document that affirms the basic principles of R2P has also grown stronger with each revision. By August it was even sailing into wish-list territory, </span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">invit[ing] the permanent members of the Security Council to refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.</span>”<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><b></b><span style="background-color: white;"></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i></i></span><i></i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i></i></span><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Whether or not The Responsibility to Protect gets a clear thumbs-up at the Summit, confirming it as a contender in the evolving canon of international norms and laws, it's an idea that is here to stay. As public awareness of R2P grows, people who dream of a world where “never again” truly means never again will rally behind this ambitious project to make atrocities history.</span>Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-62579419455532374872013-08-31T12:58:00.001-07:002014-06-27T21:35:34.423-07:00Child abusers, carbon polluters and the Conservative Party of Canada<div class="tr_bq">
Over the years I've dropped hint after unsubtle hint to the Conservative Party of Canada – which during its seven-year (and counting) reign in Parliament has gutted my country's record of political progressivism – that I don't like them. </div>
<br />
— that their candidates <i>cannot</i> “count on my support”;<br />
<br />
— that they are practically the polar opposite of all my political values.<br />
<br />
Yet, somehow I've wound up on the email list for their core supporters – the one where they propagandize their base and show the side of their face they usually try to cover with heavy makeup when communicating to the general Canadian public.<br />
<br />
It's kind of breathtaking to be candidly chatted up by the party in power like you're a flag-waving supporter of Stephen Harper (the party's leader and Canada's Prime Minister), a hater both of liberals and the Liberal Party – <i>and</i> the kind of person who would cheer the Conservative government's latest initiative to crack down harder than ever on child abusers while it continues to indirectly cheer on the massive child abuse perpetrated by carbon polluters.<br />
<br />
So here is the latest of these emails which – this time – has prompted me to blow my cover with a most unsubtly derisive reply:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote>
Sydney, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Our government is <a href="http://conservative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5e9ee09d91aa4d38e08f9a7c3&id=789c53af77&e=cc32688e23" moz-do-not-send="true" target="_self">cracking down with tougher penalties on
predators who sexually abuse and exploit children</a> –
but Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are threatening to stand in
our way.<br />
<br />
These are heinous crimes and they must be dealt with. We
must deal with them to protect our children.<br />
<br />
That’s why we’ll be increasing penalties for criminals who
commit sexual acts against children.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, Justin Trudeau and his Liberals have
already said they oppose tougher mandatory prison
sentences for child predators.<br />
<br />
Trudeau’s lead soft-on-crime spokesman MP Sean Casey says
the Liberals oppose tougher mandatory prison sentences for
sexual predators who prey on children because he’s worried
about overcrowding in our jails.<br />
<br />
We have a very different view – criminals who prey on our
children should be locked up in prison, not free to roam
around our communities.<br />
<br />
That’s why we’re going to pass the most comprehensive
legislation to fight child sexual predators that Canada
has ever seen – with or without Justin Trudeau.<br />
<br />
Learn more about how we’re cracking down on child
predators – and let us know if you’re on our side:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://conservative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5e9ee09d91aa4d38e08f9a7c3&id=c21c37219b&e=cc32688e23" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.conservative.ca/?page_id=3447</a>
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Fred DeLorey<br />
Director, Political Operations<br />
Conservative Party of Canada</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
______________________________________</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
Hi Fred, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
It's nice to know you plan to crack down on predators who sexually
abuse and exploit children. I bet Justin Trudeau and the other
bleeding heart Liberals <i>like</i> child predators. The NDP, the
PQ and the Greens probably sleep with them, if they aren't child
predators themselves.<br />
<br />
But there's another kind of child predator your government seems
intent on <i>protecting</i> - yes, Fred, <i><b>protecting</b></i>:
<b>greenhouse gas emissions</b>, the cause of global warming in our
overpopulated, highly industrialized world and of the deadly and
damaging effects this unprecedentedly sudden warming is having on
our climate and weather.<br />
<br />
Over the years, the Harper Government has led the world in
obstructing progress at home and internationally in <b>cracking
down hard</b> on these chemicals and those who spew them
irresponsibly into the atmosphere. Already this is causing death,
disease, injury and damage to the homes and communities of millions
of children around the world devastated by extreme weather events
linked to climate change. According to the world's scientific
community, the children of today will be victimized even more - <i>much
more</i> - if they grow up in a world where governments like yours
continue to coddle carbon polluters.<br />
<br />
So, all things considered, I regard your government as a much
greater threat to the welfare of children than all the pedophiles in
Canada. It's time you also started cracking down on the most
dangerous child abusers.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Syd Baumel </blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7O9O4gau63V1eMCrupeyIBk55o_CkCGkF-vMVijpAIt5P-wpgA3kJScsGGEKyi-0JcGogSHqg4Rumd0ZO_Az-qLvNpwOwgQpa8DTrwTXBsq26lzxXr1LTpkfEVcty2X2d_vtLXBq20vyK/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-08-31+at+1.22.07+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7O9O4gau63V1eMCrupeyIBk55o_CkCGkF-vMVijpAIt5P-wpgA3kJScsGGEKyi-0JcGogSHqg4Rumd0ZO_Az-qLvNpwOwgQpa8DTrwTXBsq26lzxXr1LTpkfEVcty2X2d_vtLXBq20vyK/s640/Screen+Shot+2013-08-31+at+1.22.07+PM.png" height="584" width="640" /></a></div>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-37667752054799445062013-08-01T21:20:00.001-07:002013-08-05T22:06:33.122-07:00CFACT's new meme: "UN bureaucrat admits global warming is really about wealth redistribution"CFACT – the right-wing libertarian disinformation tank – has a new meme, <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/07/global-warming-stopped-15-or-16-or.html">another</a> billboard and Internet graphic calculated to pull the wool over people's eyes while claiming to enlighten them. <br />
<br />
Here's how it looks:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhetsKC8bWfmeI7dC01YpAba3kNHQmZrLJqMjaAyIxwFcTXJy9-TI85e9TI0ZZYfKBchY_l36TVC-iyDnVKAKAHTnlAo4BrfMXorYW_4cd-nzCIC7Jk50Mfi0y2K0e0_vs33uUIGDvzQptG/s1600/CFACT_redistribute+wealth.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhetsKC8bWfmeI7dC01YpAba3kNHQmZrLJqMjaAyIxwFcTXJy9-TI85e9TI0ZZYfKBchY_l36TVC-iyDnVKAKAHTnlAo4BrfMXorYW_4cd-nzCIC7Jk50Mfi0y2K0e0_vs33uUIGDvzQptG/s640/CFACT_redistribute+wealth.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
It's having the desired effect. Just look at the “I told you so” vitriol it's unleashed on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151796974165281&set=a.10150141139700281.328977.140379955280&type=1&theater">CFACT's Facebook page</a> where the oil-funded outfit describes it like this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a moment of unusual candor, a UN bureaucrat admitted that global warming is really about wealth redistribution.<br />
CFACT shared his statement on our new billboard, right outside the Rockies' 50,000+ seat ball park in Denver, Colorado.<br />
Share this post and expose the co-chair of UN IPCC working group III's true thoughts about global warming.</blockquote>
So what's the real story?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Ottmar Edenhofer isn't a UN bureaucrat. He's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer">a German economist</a> who was one of hundreds of experts who volunteered to be a lead author of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), which was established by the UN in the 1990s. Today he's the equally voluntary co-chair of a major section of the IPCC's soon-to-be-published fifth report.<br />
<br />
But even if Edenhofer was Ban Ki-moon's personal food-taster, it wouldn't make what he actually said about wealth redistribution the same as what CFACT says he did.<br />
<br />
It's a good bet that most people who are devouring this red meat tossed at them by CFACT haven't tried to verify Edenhofer's “candid admission” or examine its original context.<br />
<br />
A visit to Google confirms that Edenhofer really did say that (or something very close to it) – not during a drunken rant captured on cell phone but in a <a href="http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227">German-language interview</a> three years ago in a Swiss newspaper called <i>Neue Zürcher Zeitung</i>. <br />
<br />
I don't speak German, and neither really does Google Translate, which thinks Edenhofer said: “We distribute by climate policy de facto the world's wealth around.” But it's close.<br />
<br />
I also don't normally trust The Global Warming Policy Foundation – a climate science-denying outfit like CFACT – but back when the interview was published, the GWPF quickly translated it over <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/">here</a>. Its translation of the sentence quoted by CFACT was slightly more nuanced:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.</blockquote>
So it's a <i>de facto</i> redistribution, in Edenhofer's view. Even without reading anything else he says, one can infer he means wealth redistribution is a consequence or byproduct of climate policy. But is it the “real” purpose, as CFACT would have people believe?<br />
<br />
To answer that question, it helps to read the interview (original <a href="http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227">here</a>; translation <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/">here</a>).<br />
<br />
Although Edenhofer often speaks in bold rhetorical flourishes to make his point – thus setting himself up for quote-mining by the likes of CFACT – it's obvious he's talking about the need to negotiate a global climate policy in which the poorest, least developed countries (as well as emerging economies like India that may also require financial carrots) are <i>de facto</i> compensated by the richest countries in return for developing their economies without burning fossil fuels as wantonly as the rich countries have.<br />
<br />
This is the very same theme we've been hearing since Kyoto of reconciling climate protection with sustainable development. Wealth redistribution in the service of fighting climate change (not that a smidge of wealth redistribution for its own sake is a crime against humanity – just ask Robin Hood) will serve the purpose of combatting a crisis that affects us all – rich and poor, developed and developing, emerging and emerged.<br />
<br />
Just putting Edenhofer's misquoted comment in its immediate context should be enough to put the lie to CFACT's deception:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target [i.e., limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees C. above the preindustrial average because, as every country in the world agreed in 2009, the science says this will at least give us a 50:50 chance of avoiding the most catastrophic climate change]. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.<br />
<br />
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south. </blockquote>
This is not how a socialist pulling a climate change hoax to steal from the rich and give to the poor talks.<br />
<br />
It's how a sensible realist describes tackling climate change in a fair and effective way.<br />
<br />
But don't bother telling CFACT that. They surely knew it all along. <br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-70795751011083865662013-07-12T14:29:00.001-07:002014-10-17T20:56:04.455-07:00"Global warming stopped 15 (or 16 or whatever) years ago. Take that, Al Gore!" - Part 2Cherry-picking is like the professional magician's stock-in-trade, sleight of hand: <i>focus people's attention on those details of the picture that make them believe what you want them to believe and distract their attention from the rest</i>.<br />
<br />
Early in 2010, deniers were focused on cherry-picking out-of-context quotes from the thousands of emails between climate scientists they cleverly dubbed “Climategate.” Today they cherry-pick graphs showing little or no surface warming. But early in 2010, they wouldn't have dared to show the following graph of the UAH dataset:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSSIyA6x9f35LMfwh4JKw2ZCMgOfB6ahdDWX5kR0l_iTpsDdwStKzi31f3z5ZPvykmBv9pX69JrN7biA9lS4OrWnrFnb-ORfqE6MbGi7TO5kAc04gNrcXiPYQa2pEJkQY3O9YbzUBYY0yV/s1600/UAH_1984-2010.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSSIyA6x9f35LMfwh4JKw2ZCMgOfB6ahdDWX5kR0l_iTpsDdwStKzi31f3z5ZPvykmBv9pX69JrN7biA9lS4OrWnrFnb-ORfqE6MbGi7TO5kAc04gNrcXiPYQa2pEJkQY3O9YbzUBYY0yV/s640/UAH_1984-2010.png" height="456" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
The graph shows that over the past (at the time) 26 years (1984–2010), not only had there been statistically very significant global warming of the lower troposphere (about 3.5 km above ground level), it was at an alarming pace of nearly 2 degrees C. per century, with a greater than 95% probability that the true warming trend was somewhere between 0.77 and <i>2.93 degrees</i> per century. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Nor would they have dared to publicize the even more alarming warming trend since 1992:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBhbcf0ioLpfgDVaaAn_1K_u7-FDMs6WFmndP1B2ZZ32MS086FnVt4zj6uA7DfdbjaiOSkpfahE566nK9RrIKBhwjS_cN1vpHgo27RIY5EEAut0qU3JCygqhCXkQ4KpuXaddqGSesH9-Nb/s1600/UAH_1992-2010.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBhbcf0ioLpfgDVaaAn_1K_u7-FDMs6WFmndP1B2ZZ32MS086FnVt4zj6uA7DfdbjaiOSkpfahE566nK9RrIKBhwjS_cN1vpHgo27RIY5EEAut0qU3JCygqhCXkQ4KpuXaddqGSesH9-Nb/s640/UAH_1992-2010.png" height="456" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
“The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) global temperature record, which is satellite-based and therefore uncontaminated by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming">urban heat island effect</a> and maintained by our trusted colleagues in climate consensus rejection John Christy and Roy Spencer, clearly shows that the planet is warming at a rate of some 2.3 degrees Celsius per century.” </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
That is <i>not</i> something you would have read on “Watts up with That” or any other climate consensus denial blog, website or media outlet. While Watts and Fox and CFACT et al. were crowing that year about “hide the decline,” the internal memo would have been “hide the climb: do not put up highway billboard memos to Al Gore. This information must be contained!” </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
That was just two years ago. Evidently something has happened since then to obliterate that formidable warming trend. Let's update that graph using UAH's most recent published data as of June, 2013:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUZgnGkZ97SkISYqzLHUfPgPeYwE2uIjsNMVV11UKJX3JijgJV-D8yOP5AHQuSV2w3FhnAycmL7tXkTGdtlTBIaS2RRKNJy0lMT9VUDH_sv8N1k21QoCtkLOcccwVtcMRpwg0hS-UyqAuL/s1600/UAH_1992-early2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUZgnGkZ97SkISYqzLHUfPgPeYwE2uIjsNMVV11UKJX3JijgJV-D8yOP5AHQuSV2w3FhnAycmL7tXkTGdtlTBIaS2RRKNJy0lMT9VUDH_sv8N1k21QoCtkLOcccwVtcMRpwg0hS-UyqAuL/s640/UAH_1992-early2013.png" height="456" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Hmmm.... </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
“It has just come to our attention that, as of today, the lower troposphere – according to the totally reliable UAH temperature record – has been warming since 1992 at a truly alarming pace. If this statistically significant trend continues, by mid-century we can expect to see another 0.75 degrees of global warming – an amount nearly equal to the global warming since the beginning of the 20th century. <i>Al Gore, please disregard our previous memo about a recent stoppage in global warming.</i> <i>We sincerely apologize for any ‘inconvenience.’</i>”</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
That's another memo you won't see on CFACT billboards. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
But you won't hear it from credible climate science sources either, because it would be cherry-picking. I should know because I cherry-picked it myself. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
If you use a trend calculator like the one at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php">Skeptical Science</a> or <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/">Wood for Trees</a>, you'll quickly discover that very short-term trends (less than 5 or 10 years) are so badly distorted by the ups and downs of the short-term variations in natural climate influences (natural “forcings,” in climatology jargon) such as the sunspot cycle, the El Nino/La Nina heating/cooling cycle and volcanic eruptions, they can give you a warming trend of 10 degrees per century as easily as they can give you a 5-degree cooling trend if you pick the right start and stop years. Just look at the possibilities for picking cherries in this graph of the HadCRUT4 temperature record, which goes all the way back to 1850:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2NDEUAqm4domSVpITySMZf-nQXPGEEkwWNGhbiz-4ut3SbUY60qNwoToBPYf-h4XrtYCSnMamCSArNpfMkhTF9iuKm7-madvIq-3XtxmJ3IA7YTqIsMUG-z38toPwFuodHFjUr8G9PeUl/s1600/HadCRUT4_1950-early2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2NDEUAqm4domSVpITySMZf-nQXPGEEkwWNGhbiz-4ut3SbUY60qNwoToBPYf-h4XrtYCSnMamCSArNpfMkhTF9iuKm7-madvIq-3XtxmJ3IA7YTqIsMUG-z38toPwFuodHFjUr8G9PeUl/s640/HadCRUT4_1950-early2013.png" height="460" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
And speaking of cherry-picking, if instead of measuring global warming with what statisticians call linear regression trends (as we've done throughout this post), you compare the average global temperature from one decade to the next, you come up with jaw-dropping evidence that the first decade of this century, far from being a bust as far as global warming was concerned, was the warmest decade in the temperature record, warmer than the torrid 1990s by the biggest decade-to-decade margin ever. That assessment – coming from the World Meteorological Organization, no less – is detailed in a <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/07/no-more-global-warming-not-so-fast-says.html">previous post</a>. </div>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-72474284267417434962013-07-12T14:29:00.000-07:002014-10-17T20:49:11.011-07:00"Global warming stopped 15 (or 16 or whatever) years ago. Take that, Al Gore!" - Part 1<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">
Some people are anxious to deliver an inconvenient truth to Al Gore.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS3d9I22iXQ_d0XyV0IgOokYf1l-l3Oava17iiK3PHnxaAFrKYW7Fmkmfuiel_X62fanA2zLNi_vDH6sD5doJ6-NH3BBmJuO3ztVO5FJC8fUcWae_beYXRcBu6DXnl1mxDNBRpNYgylx3B/s1600/CFACT-graph-billboard-4-close.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS3d9I22iXQ_d0XyV0IgOokYf1l-l3Oava17iiK3PHnxaAFrKYW7Fmkmfuiel_X62fanA2zLNi_vDH6sD5doJ6-NH3BBmJuO3ztVO5FJC8fUcWae_beYXRcBu6DXnl1mxDNBRpNYgylx3B/s640/CFACT-graph-billboard-4-close.jpg" height="320" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">“The end is ... not near.” (Or is it?)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzr593yl7XOCOkenjIfJvcrcRxPZdnKqAwdD_vtVCKNdI9qT8i6JG-Wc2BF_oPBOKYFuKTgrRKnuYnMi0MTzlrechUCKDSyYy65MgInDBLn8APA0NlJvxM3t-nxJnfZKtByPwLsgLsfpio/s1600/cfact-header-final.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzr593yl7XOCOkenjIfJvcrcRxPZdnKqAwdD_vtVCKNdI9qT8i6JG-Wc2BF_oPBOKYFuKTgrRKnuYnMi0MTzlrechUCKDSyYy65MgInDBLn8APA0NlJvxM3t-nxJnfZKtByPwLsgLsfpio/s640/cfact-header-final.gif" height="116" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This banner ad frequently pops up on climate science denial websites and blogs.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But the first inconvenient truth in this graphical anti-climate science meme is that August 1997 to August 2012 (see the legend on the bottom right of the declarations above) equals 15 years, not 16. Evidently, CFACT (“Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow”) – an aggressive climate science obfuscation machine, among other libertarian priorities – didn't read the fine print when it cribbed the chart from David Rose, the London <i>Daily Mail</i> columnist who <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html">unleashed it upon the world last October</a>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe5yOhwwh9c1CAVPXYQoHid_lek-23vuBEsgtuBCUN4k1OPKf0Q1RcAMbKArIADhpAUzaTgEi-A31NkqcasFaXU9eEcQk8UiPauVk2vEvXYq-f59LuAL9b84cMNyJ_4YxwCaV0ohv_zOz2/s1600/Rose_DailyMail_16_years_no_warmingjpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe5yOhwwh9c1CAVPXYQoHid_lek-23vuBEsgtuBCUN4k1OPKf0Q1RcAMbKArIADhpAUzaTgEi-A31NkqcasFaXU9eEcQk8UiPauVk2vEvXYq-f59LuAL9b84cMNyJ_4YxwCaV0ohv_zOz2/s400/Rose_DailyMail_16_years_no_warmingjpg.jpg" height="220" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The birth of a meme: the <i>Daily Mail</i>'s “no warming” graphic, October 2012. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The story and the graph were prompted by the release of the latest global temperature data for August, 2012 by the UK's Met (meteorological) Office. The Met Office's Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, or CRU, had recently updated its 152-year global temperature data set from version 3 to version 4. The new numbers seized upon by Rose came from the latter – <i>aka</i> “HadCRUT4.”<br />
<br />
“The figures,” Rose wrote in the <i>Daily Mail</i>, “... reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.”<br />
<br />
The story went on to emphasize that this apparent hiatus in global warming indicates climate scientists may need to throw out the models that have led them to predict steady and heady warming, full steam ahead.<br />
<br />
But are Rose, CFACT (heavily funded by pro-fossil fuel foundations and at least one disclosed corporate donor: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25">ExxonMobil</a>) and all the other climate change consensus deniers who have seized upon this graphic like a religious icon (a denier's flattened <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy">“hockey stick”</a>) right?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Did global warming really stop 15 or 16 or 17 or whatever number of years ago (the chronology varies with the times, depending on when the best cherries are to be picked)?<br />
<br />
One thing is for sure: the warming <i>trend</i>, at least as measured in the air at the surface of the earth or very near it (by satellites very low in the atmosphere), has taken a leave of absence since about 2002. But then it regularly does. Check out <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47">this GIF from skepticalscience.org</a> which graphically shows the pattern:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_sX9Lhk2gVAMOZZAvXEVrJ05SLfTum0vQm-DClyXnjPSs90SRiSLT1DMBhZP7yQKl5I1L0T51bL5yJDoA1YWlETQnJW667w6frZeKL5XJp1NYeHNSzZZCu-KEHRtic8BH-1NRJ9hM49p/s1600/Escalator_2012_500.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_sX9Lhk2gVAMOZZAvXEVrJ05SLfTum0vQm-DClyXnjPSs90SRiSLT1DMBhZP7yQKl5I1L0T51bL5yJDoA1YWlETQnJW667w6frZeKL5XJp1NYeHNSzZZCu-KEHRtic8BH-1NRJ9hM49p/s640/Escalator_2012_500.gif" height="434" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As the climate scientists and climate buffs at Skeptical Science <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47">explain</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn't it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don't have long-term effects on the Earth's temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.</blockquote>
To be sure, this appears to be the longest surface temperature warming plateau we've had since about 1980. But there was another pause almost as scary for Al Gore (if he was as naive as the people preyed upon by the activist deniers) as recently as 1997:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkvZ9tVbqLmex4SOGNEWYZlmpeI58WTH2yPVpyL1epcaQX16AVpqjifZLcfiKjXilksZvFtNeDNq8V13PFPYnNFIw4wkXLw-mvRVaGYqEBtDMuoixhMcSLGo9nMRcjQs8Fzh_qI9q7kzn5/s1600/1981-1997_HadCRU4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkvZ9tVbqLmex4SOGNEWYZlmpeI58WTH2yPVpyL1epcaQX16AVpqjifZLcfiKjXilksZvFtNeDNq8V13PFPYnNFIw4wkXLw-mvRVaGYqEBtDMuoixhMcSLGo9nMRcjQs8Fzh_qI9q7kzn5/s640/1981-1997_HadCRU4.png" height="465" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sixteen years ago, the 16-year temperature trend was nothing to write home about either. Because it wasn't statistically significant, deniers could triumphantly have told Gore then, as now, that there's “no global warming.”</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Ironically, although David Rose had written last October that “the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996,” if you move the goal posts by just one year to 1981–1997, the temperature rise you get using the very same HadCRUT4 dataset Rose used gives you what you see above – substantial, but as Rose would put it, “no discernible rise” (i.e., statistically, it's not significant at the conventional 95% probability level; i.e., the ± margin of error is larger than the trend itself).<br />
<br />
And if you cherry-pick the dataset most loved by the deniers – the UAH (University of Alabama in Hadley) dataset, maintained by two climate scientists (John Christy and Roy Spencer) who themselves outspokenly reject (Spencer) or minimize (Christy) the consensus on climate change – you'll see that the first 16+ years of their analysis of the satellite record – which begins late in 1978 – should have been enough to cause Al Gore to retreat into seclusion and perhaps slit his throat:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcqCAxPktQaJoZ9I4m1pE8cdjGpsQ0FL3OPx2vuQ1xhN1w7vffnouaT42OoWs9oCvJQjhJ82SnsFbbKKCgubL4Lq5w7Ydqny34J4v9OP_1bb1DQ7GiUJGQHFGe_ZzdWQHStXNAGd3F8Uqk/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-10-17+at+7.28.23+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcqCAxPktQaJoZ9I4m1pE8cdjGpsQ0FL3OPx2vuQ1xhN1w7vffnouaT42OoWs9oCvJQjhJ82SnsFbbKKCgubL4Lq5w7Ydqny34J4v9OP_1bb1DQ7GiUJGQHFGe_ZzdWQHStXNAGd3F8Uqk/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-10-17+at+7.28.23+PM.png" height="458" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
So if there was flat or flattish warming from 1981 to 1997 according to HadCRUT4 and no warming since then according to the <i>Daily Mail</i> and company, then there must be no warming from 1981 thru today. Right? And Al Gore's expectations for the pancake-flat UAH temperature trend prior to 1996 should be similarly dismal (but it's a good thing he didn't slit his throat). Yet here's what the record actually shows in each case:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfNTyk30tRmxNvPtsUFw1m81_1f53WXS303cBdZ4MlvWigaggmUf74dDbUJf3zBqxtI_HlEB6iKRR1xOYzGvjRuvoDG2hRGWiSorNmjW4hDxkgrk5B8OJCQJPhU5yfcK-xpMQ_Xts7-XK5/s1600/HadCRUT4_1981-early+2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfNTyk30tRmxNvPtsUFw1m81_1f53WXS303cBdZ4MlvWigaggmUf74dDbUJf3zBqxtI_HlEB6iKRR1xOYzGvjRuvoDG2hRGWiSorNmjW4hDxkgrk5B8OJCQJPhU5yfcK-xpMQ_Xts7-XK5/s640/HadCRUT4_1981-early+2013.png" height="464" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HadCRUT4, 1981–present</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2w9RioNylwDdrQlE4DxSGvxVJvwMGUwAf8fBCDkSBpOOALVSd9Ftr52L9KfsTcrVm0ujYE3DaNFDbdmEQQjVGEyQzr8ZrIhgLsIfxla78nTWwNpwZ-_YjTqQFcFhDtqOzax338YUl15UP/s1600/UAH_1979+to+~June+2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2w9RioNylwDdrQlE4DxSGvxVJvwMGUwAf8fBCDkSBpOOALVSd9Ftr52L9KfsTcrVm0ujYE3DaNFDbdmEQQjVGEyQzr8ZrIhgLsIfxla78nTWwNpwZ-_YjTqQFcFhDtqOzax338YUl15UP/s640/UAH_1979+to+~June+2013.png" height="464" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">UAH, 1979–present</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
These graphs are perfect illustrations of how a trend that may be modest or even apparently absent over relatively short periods of time can be formidable over the medium haul of 30-plus years (it's worth noting that climatologists hesitate to take any trends less than 30 years long as hard evidence of climate change <i>or</i> its absence). Specifically, here's what they tell us:<br />
<ul>
<li>Between 1981 and early 2013, according to HadCRUT4, the planet's surface temperature over land and sea grew at an average rate of about 0.16 degrees C. per decade, give or take 0.047 degrees. Statistical analysis says the odds are better than 95 percent the warming trend was between <i>1.14 and 2.08 degrees per century</i>.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Between 1979 and early 2013, according to UAH, the planet's near-surface temperature over land and sea (measured by satellites a few kilometres up) grew at an average rate of about 0.14 degrees C. per decade, give or take 0.072 degrees. Statistical analysis says the odds are better than 95 percent the warming trend was between <i>0.65 and 2.09 degrees per century</i>.</li>
</ul>
For further embarrassments to the “global warming has stopped” meme, please see Part 2, <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/07/global-warming-stopped-15-or-16-or_12.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-64325416453132628232013-07-10T14:27:00.000-07:002013-07-10T15:24:45.719-07:00No more global warming? Not so fast, says the WMOIt's true that the pace of global warming – as reflected by air temperature (a good long-term indicator but often misleading over periods less than 15 or even 20 years) – has slowed, even by some measures stopped, since the late 1990s.<br />
<br />
A good example of how the impression of no warming has been hyped throughout the denialsphere is this graph produced last year by the conservative British tabloid, <i>The Daily Mail</i>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtPBVetPSoEEqFoeu07h1Rj2xYb4iBvQPyyS8MDpjl8fb_aoUmhqmGqvLqeiXyTaPSAngSVeIhKd75fsWRPskOCNyI5U4fno-EXokeCk1CObfDpk8_iKB2ldH1sNTR-effnrJ2G7FdPoX/s1600/Rose_DailyMail_16_years_no_warmingjpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtPBVetPSoEEqFoeu07h1Rj2xYb4iBvQPyyS8MDpjl8fb_aoUmhqmGqvLqeiXyTaPSAngSVeIhKd75fsWRPskOCNyI5U4fno-EXokeCk1CObfDpk8_iKB2ldH1sNTR-effnrJ2G7FdPoX/s640/Rose_DailyMail_16_years_no_warmingjpg.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It's this very graph that kept rearing its not-quite-sincere head in the B-roll “The Source” added to its interview with climate scientist Hans von Storch, which I described in a previous <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/07/oops-sun-news-interviews-wrong-climate.html">post</a>.<br />
<br />
People who seek out the big picture see something not quite so dramatic. Here is the full temperature record from the same source, the British Met Office's HadCRUT4 dataset:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyBB1a_JqngUQjvICYqaDlb0ax6zIun7DbbPJegK3qFQnEpmvo6-oHGjK5uxopgrr3cO-tVHfidvz1Y3ZJGitwfxrNBofBoMhX_KcT4DMMi2wHpcnYdN7IyykjBc1_wqAjGZaaYk8pa1jB/s1600/HadCRUT4_1850-early2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="465" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyBB1a_JqngUQjvICYqaDlb0ax6zIun7DbbPJegK3qFQnEpmvo6-oHGjK5uxopgrr3cO-tVHfidvz1Y3ZJGitwfxrNBofBoMhX_KcT4DMMi2wHpcnYdN7IyykjBc1_wqAjGZaaYk8pa1jB/s640/HadCRUT4_1850-early2013.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
You can see at a glance that temperature has been on a tear since about 1980. You can also see that periods of no warming – even cooling – are common since 1850 (when the record begins) and that even during the recent warming spurt, there are one or two short periods that you could “cherry pick” and isolate from the long-term trend if you wanted to make it look like warming had stopped.<br />
<br />
Into this ambiguous picture comes the World Meteorological Organization. It's just released a <a href="http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html">report titled <i>The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes</i></a>. And that report also contains a graph or two – like this one:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij9rMDpBbIvsM_6eRtueyKdWC5cH00lnA1HALRaXSnkbOi5exsgxY3imL5jft3ndUJr2ccePX8XqSIxFJf6JZJ0kfkW7TzeGfyNhcYZmJn3iw2u9y5gynq3xhanUmg7CN3LDhF2CZSujfo/s1600/WMO_decadal+temp+trends.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij9rMDpBbIvsM_6eRtueyKdWC5cH00lnA1HALRaXSnkbOi5exsgxY3imL5jft3ndUJr2ccePX8XqSIxFJf6JZJ0kfkW7TzeGfyNhcYZmJn3iw2u9y5gynq3xhanUmg7CN3LDhF2CZSujfo/s640/WMO_decadal+temp+trends.png" width="640" /></a></div>
What WMO's graph shows is that when you average the global air temperatures for each decade, you find that the most recent decade – 2001–2010, the decade when global warming “stopped,” by some accounts – actually warmed by a greater amount than any decade before it since 1881. Or as the WMO puts it: “... the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented.”<br />
<br />
In a way, what the WMO's graph makes clear is what experts have been pointing out for years: lately, almost every year is among the hottest in the recorded history of our planet's temperature. To be exact, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years">the ten warmest years</a> have all occurred since 1998.<br />
<br />
You can, if you like, look at the <i>Daily Mail</i> graph and say “global warming stopped in 1997.” Or you can look at the bigger picture and say “Since 1998, the planet has been experiencing its biggest heat wave in recorded temperature history. On the plus side, the temperatures have been pretty steady.”<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
__________________________</div>
<br />
<i>So why do we even have these warming plateaus in the first place? It's no surprise to climate scientists given – for example – that over 90% of the planet's hot air is sucked up by the oceans, but with a highly irregular appetite. For a detailed discussion of what's likely driving the current plateau, check out <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm">“What has global warming done since 1998?”</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-42753568341435835622013-07-08T16:27:00.001-07:002013-07-09T14:09:01.253-07:00Oops. Sun News interviews the "wrong" climate scientistIn <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/06/cherry-picking-ipcc-climate-scientists.html">an earlier post</a>, I described how an interview with climate scientist Hans von Storch had been cherry-picked – quote-mined, to be precise – by the denialsphere to make it seem like a well-credentialled believer in the climate change consensus has lost his religion.<br />
<br />
Well it seems that “ethical oil” promoter and leading Sun News Network (Canada's answer to Fox News) pundit Ezra Levant read the interview or, more likely, one of the quote-mined versions, because soon later – as von Storch, whom I had contacted with some questions, himself told me – Levant's show “The Source” asked the forthright scientist for an interview. <br />
<br />
Now <a href="http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/hans-von-storch/2527211480001/page/2">the interview is online</a> and it is, in its own way, a howler. But not because of anything von Storch said.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZZftfHI9kGDE9XxsQ_h7gar8xSHyZPbLS_3R-_IL9wC906GBScyLaTMs6O9r9a_MSlNayZD7IYJD6mpSQNZC4dA98UW4t9THpFZiHETe21B1Q7W8gBYezkjoiUVkD7MB6mQAyIYIJpyzw/s1600/von+Storch_Sun+News.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZZftfHI9kGDE9XxsQ_h7gar8xSHyZPbLS_3R-_IL9wC906GBScyLaTMs6O9r9a_MSlNayZD7IYJD6mpSQNZC4dA98UW4t9THpFZiHETe21B1Q7W8gBYezkjoiUVkD7MB6mQAyIYIJpyzw/s640/von+Storch_Sun+News.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Still from Sun News Network's not-quite-according-to-plan interview with climate scientist Hans von Storch. <br />
Watch the whole thing <a href="http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/hans-von-storch/2527211480001/page/2">here</a>. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a name='more'></a>Levant's leading questions clearly were prepared for the quote-mined von Storch – a presumptive new ally in the war on mainstream climate science. As a result, von Storch – a German national unfamiliar with Sun News, tipped off by me on what to expect – spent most of his time correcting Levant and the standard misconceptions that viewers of Sun News are chronically spoon-fed.<br />
<br />
The result was all the more incongruous given the B-roll graphics and teasers (as in “ENVIRON"MENTAL"” in the still above) that accompanied the interview. As these served up a steady stream of climate science denial, von Storch just kept correcting Levant and affirming the key findings of climate science, only giving Levant a crumb of validation on the mostly contrived claim that there has been “no warming” for the past 16-odd years, <i>but</i> that this doesn't mean (in von Storch's view) that anthropogenic global warming has “stopped.” Rather, he elaborated, climate models need improvement to better anticipate and explain plateaus like this one.<br />
<br />
I believe the models already have this phenomenon well covered, as do most climate scientists, it seems (for example, see <a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/confusion-and-distortion-has-global-warming-stopped/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm">here</a>; I'm working on a post about this myself). So on this point I find myself respectfully disagreeing with von Storch's statements.* But for once I'm grateful for cherry-picking. Without it, viewers of Sun News might never have been exposed to such a stiff dose of uninterrupted authoritative affirmation of the reality of anthropogenic climate change.<br />
<br />
*At least with some of his rhetoric about the recent plateau in surface temperature warming. To quote <a href="http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/06/cherry-picking-ipcc-climate-scientists.html">once more</a> from his <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html"><i>Der Spiegel</i> interview</a>, where he drills deeper into the explanation:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?<br />
Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.</blockquote>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-52938560780805082752013-06-27T15:48:00.001-07:002013-06-27T15:51:42.120-07:00DO YOU #schadenfreuden?I hope this disgraceful campaign blows up in Visa's face. My heart shall be filled with glee if the backlash sends those humourless asses into bankruptcy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdu1hGDY_CuBChMlaO4eoAuJa7lSOXIk16pO_j4Q2iT0R9EjhGeYjtmGeMBqjMGQzQo1f8DNSXCwh1S5JYN2y0n7v2fQQdc5M2GoWUjdcyAeCDlxb6mCy3oN4oK6Vdrixh04rQt_TEvgQJ/s1600/VISA_schadenfreuden.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdu1hGDY_CuBChMlaO4eoAuJa7lSOXIk16pO_j4Q2iT0R9EjhGeYjtmGeMBqjMGQzQo1f8DNSXCwh1S5JYN2y0n7v2fQQdc5M2GoWUjdcyAeCDlxb6mCy3oN4oK6Vdrixh04rQt_TEvgQJ/s640/VISA_schadenfreuden.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-81904054526690579532013-06-25T17:07:00.000-07:002013-06-25T17:08:41.078-07:00The Denier's Pledge<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">
The Denier's Pledge</span></h2>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Global warming and climate change are <i>not</i> happening. But even if they were, it would not, <i>could not</i>, be because of anything we humans are doing – with the possible exception of all that hot air coming from Al Gore, the IPCC and Big Government.</span></blockquote>
Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-66689328500309824782013-06-22T22:48:00.000-07:002013-06-22T23:05:00.882-07:00Denial Never Sleeps<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivK2HAeATow_FgoXOek3xMVsM6p29-y29Gt4QZkOOJg7kt1EYojucdvvPFd-Xc0yV3w71HhOa_jArA2euVwGQ4OAuG99LOX9f5ZSbT9GM2eTwzX5G_z_-MQaZI5tWFSpzU48SIFQUbP-Eq/s400/Obama+video+still.png" title="" width="400" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Still from Obama's climate change video</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In a White House video released on Saturday, President Obama announced he will unveil his second-term vision for fighting climate change in a major speech this Tuesday. More like a short and sappy infomercial, its content echoing the broad strokes released by his administration a week ago, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gcL3_zzgWeU">the video</a> has left me with that sinking feeling of too little, too late. Take these peculiarly out-of-touch lines (please):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We'll need scientists to design new fuels and farmers to grow them. We'll need engineers to devise new sources of energy and businesses to make and sell them. We'll need workers to build the foundation for a clean-energy economy, and we'll need all of our citizens to do our part to preserve God's creation for future generations.”</blockquote>
When I first read them in <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57590593/obama-promises-renewed-effort-to-combat-climate-change/">CBS's story</a> on the video, I was tempted to post them on Facebook, mock-attributing them to George Bush circa 2007. Hardly anyone is bullish on biofuels any more except the relevant agriculture lobbies, and we already have an abundance of increasingly affordable renewable energy sources. Obama himself has done plenty to scale up their utilization, considering.<br />
<br />
So if I'm bracing myself for a letdown come Tuesday, surely the ubiquitous Greek chorus of denial – which, by subverting America's capacity for reality-testing and political problem-solving has long since turned climate hawk candidate Obama into climate chicken president – will sit this one out.<br />
<br />
Not on your life. Not even on “liberal” <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57590593/obama-promises-renewed-effort-to-combat-climate-change/">cbsnews.com</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUqli4tkHpObIUaW2aSKBjfMF9CC9tzxFScw1qw8kMnb0cnLtAxsXIy3A1EbRXcoxPGwYe34_K0I_MklbgjvuQ_bp8-EWzqb7OyYcNfnNUTm2USX2Pnw8Y9C4I4RWkEvGikffzI54oqkvS/s1600/Obama+speech_comments.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="614" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUqli4tkHpObIUaW2aSKBjfMF9CC9tzxFScw1qw8kMnb0cnLtAxsXIy3A1EbRXcoxPGwYe34_K0I_MklbgjvuQ_bp8-EWzqb7OyYcNfnNUTm2USX2Pnw8Y9C4I4RWkEvGikffzI54oqkvS/s640/Obama+speech_comments.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-40711195205046752252013-06-21T15:56:00.000-07:002013-06-23T15:12:33.504-07:00Cherry-picking an IPCC climate scientist's interview<div class="tr_bq">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqnQEU-aKsEKrsHkb3ZIKvZ3F-PtHstrM4zL64PQG-ZtqQAAM9bXuJZk9tEOmtq2JyGyytL13Y5A7nzcirBN5Q0_qvKM0JJ1CiLnnNMi9oK7LnHv-QU9kk3RXIyxMuyWtfFRSrVyNmvjbj/s1600/cherry-picking.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqnQEU-aKsEKrsHkb3ZIKvZ3F-PtHstrM4zL64PQG-ZtqQAAM9bXuJZk9tEOmtq2JyGyytL13Y5A7nzcirBN5Q0_qvKM0JJ1CiLnnNMi9oK7LnHv-QU9kk3RXIyxMuyWtfFRSrVyNmvjbj/s320/cherry-picking.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image cherry-picked from <a href="http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/no-cause-for-alarm-if-you-cherry-pick/">Open Parachute: <br />"No cause for alarm if you cherry-pick."</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Recently <i>Der Spiegel</i> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html">interviewed</a> climate scientist Hans von Storch about the question du jour: “Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?” – as the German newspaper headlined it.<br />
<br />
I happen to know this because a climate change denial Facebook page I “like” was eager to trumpet it – well, to trumpet select tidbits, as we'll see:<br />
<br />
<div class="clearfix fbStreamPermalinkHeader" style="background-color: white; border-bottom-color: rgb(233, 233, 233); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; margin: 15px; padding-bottom: 10px; zoom: 1;">
<a aria-haspopup="true" aria-hidden="true" aria-owns="js_8" class="lfloat" data-ft="{"type":60,"tn":"\u003C"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=244675788944611&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22stream%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Science/244675788944611?ref=stream" id="js_9" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; float: left; text-decoration: none;" tabindex="0"><img alt="" class="_s0 profilePic _rw img" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/157939_244675788944611_1711522540_q.jpg" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 50px; width: 50px;" /></a><br />
<div class="clearfix permalinkHeaderContent" style="margin-left: 60px; zoom: 1;">
<a ajaxify="/ajax/spam_action.php?objectID=476269279118593&objectType=125&paramString&action=mark_spam&report_link=%2Fajax%2Freport.php%3Fcontent_type%3D125%26cid%3D476269279118593%26rid%3D244675788944611%26profile%3D244675788944611%26is_permalink%3D1%26stream_id%3D244675788944611%26story_div_id%3Dstream_story_51c37c99dbacb1466014774%26story_fbid%3D476269279118593&is_permalink=1" aria-label="Report/Mark as Spam" class="rfloat uiCloseButton" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-alignh="right" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269279118593&id=244675788944611#" rel="async-post" role="button" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yA/r/4WSewcWboV8.png); background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; float: right; height: 15px; left: auto; margin: 0px 0px 5px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 15px; zoom: 1;"></a><br />
<div class="_6a permalinkHeaderContentText" style="display: inline-block; max-width: 500px;">
<div class="_6a _6b" style="display: inline-block; height: 50px; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
<div class="_6a _6b" style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;">
<div class="permalinkHeaderInfo fsl fwb fcb" style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; max-width: 370px;">
<a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=244675788944611" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Science/244675788944611?ref=stream" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Friends of Science</a><span class="subscribeOrLikeSentence" style="color: #999999; font-weight: normal;"> · 2,078 like this</span></div>
<span class="fwn fcg" style="color: grey;"><span class="uiStreamSource" data-ft="{"type":26,"tn":"N"}" style="color: #999999; font-size: 11px;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269279118593&id=244675788944611" style="color: #999999; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"><abbr class="timestamp livetimestamp" data-utime="1371759552" style="border-bottom-style: none;" title="Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 3:19pm">about an hour ago</abbr></a></span> · <a aria-label="Public" class="uiStreamPrivacy inlineBlock fbStreamPrivacy fbPrivacyAudienceIndicator" data-hover="tooltip" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269279118593&id=244675788944611#" role="button" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none; zoom: 1;"><i class="lock img sp_eal3fm sx_9c8055" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yn/r/lry5TqIDGPZ.png); background-position: -131px -449px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; background-size: auto; bottom: -1px; display: inline-block; height: 12px; margin-bottom: -5px; margin-top: 2px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; width: 12px;"></i></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<ul class="uiList uiStream uiStreamHomepage translateParent uiStreamRedesign uiStreamLargeHeadline _4kg _4ks" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="uiUnifiedStory uiStreamStory genericStreamStory aid_244675788944611" id="stream_story_51c37c99dbacb1466014774" style="border: 0px solid rgb(233, 233, 233); margin-top: -6px; padding: 0px; position: static;"><div class="storyInnerContent storyContent" style="padding-bottom: 2px; position: relative;">
<div class="mainWrapper" style="margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div role="article">
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="color: black; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 20px 0px 15px; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38;">UN IPCC Lead author, Hans von Storch: "Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth" The short article is refreshing in that there are some prominent IPCC participants who value science over ideology.</span></h5>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
To which I quipped:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Added Storch (who is one of many dozens, if not hundreds, of IPCC lead authors): "Similarly, space scientists should chill, cop a smoke, check their Facebook page, when an asteroid as big as the one that killed off the dinosaurs is hurtling toward our planet and assure people it's not definitively as bad as it sounds - there's up to a 5% chance the asteroid will miss."</blockquote>
<a name='more'></a>Moments later the cheekily named Friends of Science (an <a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/">Alberta-based group</a> teeming with oil-patch scientists and, at least in the past, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science">oil-patch money</a>) added an update:<br />
<br />
<div class="clearfix fbStreamPermalinkHeader" style="background-color: white; border-bottom-color: rgb(233, 233, 233); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; margin: 15px; padding-bottom: 10px; zoom: 1;">
<a aria-haspopup="true" aria-hidden="true" aria-owns="js_11" class="lfloat" data-ft="{"type":60,"tn":"\u003C"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=244675788944611&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22stream%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Science/244675788944611?ref=stream" id="js_12" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; float: left;" tabindex="0"><img alt="" class="_s0 profilePic _rw img" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/157939_244675788944611_1711522540_q.jpg" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 50px; width: 50px;" /></a><br />
<div class="clearfix permalinkHeaderContent" style="margin-left: 60px; zoom: 1;">
<a ajaxify="/ajax/spam_action.php?objectID=476269549118566&objectType=5&paramString&action=mark_spam&report_link=%2Fajax%2Freport.php%3Fcontent_type%3D5%26cid%3D476269549118566%26rid%3D244675788944611%26profile%3D244675788944611%26is_permalink%3D1%26stream_id%3D244675788944611%26story_div_id%3Dstream_story_51c37d4d4b09c8236327656%26story_fbid%3D476269549118566&is_permalink=1" aria-label="Report/Mark as Spam" class="rfloat uiCloseButton" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-alignh="right" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" rel="async-post" role="button" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yA/r/4WSewcWboV8.png); background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; float: right; height: 15px; left: auto; margin: 0px 0px 5px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 15px; zoom: 1;"></a><br />
<div class="_6a permalinkHeaderContentText" style="display: inline-block; max-width: 500px;">
<div class="_6a _6b" style="display: inline-block; height: 50px; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
<div class="_6a _6b" style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;">
<div class="permalinkHeaderInfo fsl fwb fcb" style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; max-width: 370px;">
<a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=244675788944611" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Science/244675788944611?ref=stream" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Friends of Science</a><span class="subscribeOrLikeSentence" style="color: #999999; font-weight: normal;"> · 2,078 like this</span></div>
<span class="fwn fcg" style="color: grey;"><span class="uiStreamSource" data-ft="{"type":26,"tn":"N"}" style="color: #999999; font-size: 11px;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611" style="color: #999999; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;"><abbr class="timestamp livetimestamp" data-utime="1371759636" style="border-bottom-style: none;" title="Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 3:20pm">about an hour ago</abbr></a></span> · <a aria-label="Public" class="uiStreamPrivacy inlineBlock fbStreamPrivacy fbPrivacyAudienceIndicator" data-hover="tooltip" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" role="button" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none; zoom: 1;"><i class="lock img sp_eal3fm sx_9c8055" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yn/r/lry5TqIDGPZ.png); background-position: -131px -449px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; background-size: auto; bottom: -1px; display: inline-block; height: 12px; margin-bottom: -5px; margin-top: 2px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; width: 12px;"></i></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<ul class="uiList uiStream uiStreamHomepage translateParent uiStreamRedesign uiStreamLargeHeadline _4kg _4ks" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="uiUnifiedStory uiStreamStory genericStreamStory aid_244675788944611" id="stream_story_51c37d4d4b09c8236327656" style="border: 0px solid rgb(233, 233, 233); margin-top: -6px; padding: 0px; position: static;"><div class="storyInnerContent storyContent" style="padding-bottom: 2px; position: relative;">
<div class="mainWrapper" style="margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div role="article">
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="color: black; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 20px 0px 15px; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}" style="color: #333333; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38;"><div>
<span class="userContent">Sorry, here is the von Storch article;<a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html</a></span></div>
</span></h5>
<div class="mvm uiStreamAttachments fbMainStreamAttachment" data-ft="{"type":10,"tn":"H"}" style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 20px;">
<div class="shareRedesign" style="position: relative; width: 398px;">
<div class="shareRedesignText" style="background-color: #f7f7f7;">
<a class="pam shareText" href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 8px 10px 10px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"></a><br />
<div class="attachmentText fsm fwn fcg" style="color: grey; font-size: 11px; max-height: 72px; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="uiAttachmentTitle" data-ft="{"type":11,"tn":"C"}" style="color: #3b5998; padding-right: 16px; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">
<a class="pam shareText" href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 8px 10px 10px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><strong>Tom Nelson: Climate scientist Hans von Storch: "Certainly the greatest mistake of climate...</strong></a></div>
<a class="pam shareText" href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 8px 10px 10px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span class="caption" data-ft="{"tn":"L"}">tomnelson.blogspot.com</span></a><br />
<div class="mts uiAttachmentDesc translationEligibleUserAttachmentMessage" data-ft="{"tn":"M"}" style="margin-top: 3px; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">
<a class="pam shareText" href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 8px 10px 10px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Instapundit on warmists: "I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis."</a></div>
</div>
<a class="pam shareText" href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 8px 10px 10px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
I followed <a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html">the link</a>. It led to a blog with this tagline: “INSTAPUNDIT ON WARMISTS: "I’LL BELIEVE IT’S A CRISIS WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT’S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT’S A CRISIS.”<br />
<br />
(It seems to me most ‘warmists’ <i>are</i> acting like it's a crisis, but on with the story...)<br />
<br />
As you can see if you read <a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/06/climate-scientist-hans-von-storch.html">the post</a> yourself, it's a series of short excerpts from the <i>Der Spiegel</i> interview. They all cast von Storch in the inspirational light of an expert who's losing his climate change consensus religion. And not just any expert: the IPCC's “lead author,” as Friends of Science’s sloppilly- or deliberately-worded description would lead its less sophisticated readers to believe.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Hans von Storch, as cherry-picked by Tom Nelson – a couple of examples:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.<br />
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.</blockquote>
The excerpts made me very curious to read von Storch's comments in context. As anyone who has spent much time fact-checking deniers of anthropogenic climate change will know, their soundbites and talking points almost always depend on the reality distortion field produced by cherry-picking data. To blogger Tom Nelson's credit, he made it easy to click right through to <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html">the full interview</a> – no need for Google.<br />
<br />
As I read the interview, even I was surprised by the degree to which the German climate scientist's take on the question <i>du jour</i> had been misrepresented by Nelson's excerpts, by “Friends of Science” and, I'm sure, by dozens more likeminded blogs and Facebook pages.<br />
<br />
To make my point, I cherry-picked a very different series of excerpts and posted them as a comment under the Friends of Science update:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Syd Baumel</b> And now for some key excerpts from the interview that didn't make it into Tom Nelson's blog: </blockquote>
<blockquote>
SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.<br />
Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.<br />
SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?<br />
Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.<br />
SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.<br />
Storch: ....It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them....<br />
SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?<br />
Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.<br />
SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?<br />
Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct....<br />
SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?<br />
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.<br />
SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?<br />
Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves....<br />
SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?<br />
Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.</blockquote>
Twenty-four hours later, Friends of Science was mute on my cherry-picking challenge. But one of the page's regulars had upped the ante by cherry-picking from <i>my</i> bunch of cherries.<br />
<br />
<ul class="UFIList" data-ft="{"tn":"]"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146]" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="UFIRow UFIComment" data-ft="{"tn":"R0"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}" style="background-color: #edeff4; border: 0px; margin-top: 1px; padding: 4px 12px;"><div class="clearfix" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0]" style="zoom: 1;">
<div class="lfloat" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:0]" style="float: left;">
<a aria-hidden="true" class="img _8o _8s UFIImageBlockImage" data-ft="{"tn":"T"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1196943739&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/gregory.mee" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:0].[1:0]" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;" tabindex="-1"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><img alt="" class="img UFIActorImage _54ru" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:0].[1:0].[1:0]" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/s32x32/186407_1196943739_1766000036_q.jpg" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 32px; width: 32px;" /></a></div>
<div class="" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1]">
<div class="clearfix UFIImageBlockContent _42ef" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1]" style="margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="rfloat" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:0]" style="float: right;">
<a aria-label="Hide" class="uiCloseButton UFICommentCloseButton" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-alignh="center" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:0].[1:2]" role="button" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yA/r/4WSewcWboV8.png); background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 15px; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 15px; z-index: 1; zoom: 1;"></a></div>
<div class="" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1]">
<div id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1]">
<div class="UFICommentContent" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0]">
<a class="UFICommentActorName" data-ft="{"tn":";"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1196943739&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/gregory.mee" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:0]" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Greg Mee</a><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1]"> </span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:0]">"By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust." Yep, and they worked very hard to lose that trust. </span><br id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:1]" /><br id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:2]" /><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:0:3]">It's nice to see that Storch isn't in the hysteric crowd.</span></span><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:3]"></span></div>
<div class="fsm fwn fcg UFICommentActions" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1]" style="clear: both; color: grey; font-size: 11px; padding-top: 2px;">
<span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:0]"><a class="uiLinkSubtle" data-ft="{"tn":"N"}" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611&comment_id=3277306&offset=0&total_comments=4" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:0].[3:0]" style="color: grey; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">20 hours ago</a></span><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[1]"> · </span><a class="UFILikeLink" data-ft="{"tn":">"}" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3277306}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:2]" role="button" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" title="Like this comment">Like</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Greg Mee</b> “By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust.” Yep, and they worked very hard to lose that trust.<br />
It's nice to see that Storch isn't in the hysteric crowd.</blockquote>
To which I could only reply with another bunch of cherries:<br />
<br />
<ul class="UFIList" data-ft="{"tn":"]"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146]" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.333333015441895px; line-height: 9.333333015441895px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="UFIRow UFIComment UFILastComment UFILastCommentComponent" data-ft="{"tn":"R"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}" style="background-color: #edeff4; border: 0px; margin-top: 1px; padding: 4px 12px;"><div class="clearfix" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0]" style="zoom: 1;">
<div class="lfloat" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:0]" style="float: left;">
<a aria-hidden="true" class="img _8o _8s UFIImageBlockImage" data-ft="{"tn":"T"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=671308624&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/syd.baumel" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:0].[1:0]" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px; text-decoration: none;" tabindex="-1"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><img alt="" class="img UFIActorImage _54ru" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:0].[1:0].[1:0]" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/s32x32/623966_671308624_2029657992_q.jpg" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: 32px; width: 32px;" /></a></div>
<div class="" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1]">
<div class="clearfix UFIImageBlockContent _42ef" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1]" style="margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="rfloat" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:0]" style="float: right;">
<a aria-label="Edit or Delete" class="uiCloseButton UFICommentCloseButton UFIEditButton" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-alignh="center" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:0].[1:2]" role="button" style="background-image: url(https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/yh/r/rkQF27utoCR.png); background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 15px; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 15px; z-index: 1; zoom: 1;"></a></div>
<div class="" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1]">
<div id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1]">
<div class="UFICommentContent" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0]">
<a class="UFICommentActorName" data-ft="{"tn":";"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=671308624&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" href="https://www.facebook.com/syd.baumel" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:0]" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Syd Baumel</a><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1]"> </span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[2:0]"><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[2:0].[3:0:0]">von Storch: "We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it....Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this centur</span></span><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3]"><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3].[2:1]"><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3].[2:1].[3:0:0]">y, mind you....[I]f marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous." </span><br id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3].[2:1].[3:0:1]" /><br id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3].[2:1].[3:0:2]" /><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:0:2].[2:0].[3:3].[2:1].[3:0:3]">Doesn't that also make von Storch a "hysteric" in your book, Greg?</span></span></span></span></span><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:0].[1:3]"></span></div>
<div class="fsm fwn fcg UFICommentActions" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1]" style="clear: both; color: grey; font-size: 11px; padding-top: 2px;">
<span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:0]"><a class="uiLinkSubtle" data-ft="{"tn":"N"}" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611&comment_id=3279792&offset=0&total_comments=4" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:0].[3:0]" style="color: grey; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">about an hour ago</a></span><span id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[1]"> · </span><a class="UFILikeLink" data-ft="{"tn":">"}" href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611#" id=".reactRoot[7533146].[1]{comment476269549118566_3279792}.[1:0].[4:0:1].[3:1].[4:0:1].[1:1].[1:1].[2:0:2]" role="button" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" title="Like this comment">Like</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Syd Baumel</b> von Storch: "We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it....Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you....[I]f marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous."<br />
Doesn't that also make von Storch a “hysteric” in your book, Greg?</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476269549118566&id=244675788944611">Here's where to go</a> if you'd like to stay tuned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7251818859217742032.post-77796959544628464082013-06-09T13:30:00.000-07:002013-06-09T13:31:44.666-07:00My God<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i>I believe in God, but not in some “white-haired old man” with a “long robe” and “flowing white beard” kind of way ... </i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiljPcOls5b9NmJeTPoUktV4lCEbX6eHmXReSlPlPPiOzXlGaLCCR_jABQ_B-MaV_G-vPYXn_z9JjNxuL7lpeD1IBgXg6U0SjQIoFIXCoID0RvUf4FnB1YiTBbF5-lb3NRkxQlO9XrNz28d/s1600/Cima_da_Conegliano_God_the_Father.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="497" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiljPcOls5b9NmJeTPoUktV4lCEbX6eHmXReSlPlPPiOzXlGaLCCR_jABQ_B-MaV_G-vPYXn_z9JjNxuL7lpeD1IBgXg6U0SjQIoFIXCoID0RvUf4FnB1YiTBbF5-lb3NRkxQlO9XrNz28d/s640/Cima_da_Conegliano_God_the_Father.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The God I believe in looks more like </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Brad Pitt ... </span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo46j7-peFBBTKYFsYFvV1bDqeov0k48SI008mNPCW8ScHXZxqgfBamRZEwtEftSTogacnqk4sRdv106-8fuVrLL-8oWyA4Om77_EBLZRh_uYS99ZlqSKBOkORESmlSysEKGGQqDARGTdo/s1600/bradpitt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo46j7-peFBBTKYFsYFvV1bDqeov0k48SI008mNPCW8ScHXZxqgfBamRZEwtEftSTogacnqk4sRdv106-8fuVrLL-8oWyA4Om77_EBLZRh_uYS99ZlqSKBOkORESmlSysEKGGQqDARGTdo/s640/bradpitt.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">or </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Angelina Jolie.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtr-FLnhhCpQQHPHdvhyphenhypheng2rekh5nAP-qZqFtB7b7bgKjbraLqXPUji9uPCCCMDzp5Pes0zW1gCjSyXBe8o8Vwzq7SjglhJIP0pkr8TpgeUmnzLCezdbrMK-hBCfjJOxC7hGf3VKasPiy_f/s1600/angelina-jolie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtr-FLnhhCpQQHPHdvhyphenhypheng2rekh5nAP-qZqFtB7b7bgKjbraLqXPUji9uPCCCMDzp5Pes0zW1gCjSyXBe8o8Vwzq7SjglhJIP0pkr8TpgeUmnzLCezdbrMK-hBCfjJOxC7hGf3VKasPiy_f/s640/angelina-jolie.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Syd Baumelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13591137559434848207noreply@blogger.com0