Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I almost never comment on this topic (because it bores me).

Here I break with convention for a few brief moments.

I see three camps, two of them vocal and nearly insane, one of them quiet and focused.

One camp is, for lack of a better term, rabid Gaia worshippers (like I used to be) who were indoctrinated into a particular view of ecological / environmental issues during the 70s and 80s. This camp subscribes to writings of people like Abbey, Brower, Callenbach, etc, etc. A few of the threads of this line of thought get into things like "Deep Ecology" and at a more radical branch, "Earth First!."

You rang?

I know much about the above, because, as noted, I used to be one of that camp. It is totally a 2T quasi-religious belief system with a healthy component of Druid/Wicca mentality plus a number of other aspects. To be fair, I still pull the odd item from this particular tool box, however, maturation and long years of careful observation convinced me that there is a massive amount of anti-scientific thinking and irrationality included in this framework.

I respectfully disagree. It's all still true! (for the most part, I guess)

What I notice is there's a camp bordering the Gaia/deep-ecology one, which I run into more and more these days, which is often irrational indeed, and that's the conspiracy theorists. They unhesitatingly accept things like chemtrails, vaccines cause autism, one world secret governments, 9-11 was an inside job; maybe there's grains of truth here and there, but they believe all these theories without question. They may go to extremes with global warming, following McPherson, or they may attribute it mostly to geo-engineering, or say that Fukushima is going to kill us soon; clear thinking is not always present, to say the least.

The other obnoxious camp are what I term skeptics for the sake of being skeptics. These are the types who simply like to argue and, when also of an extreme Libertarian bent, would view any and all environmental and ecological concerns as Communist plots to undo the Free Market and liberty. This second camp is actually surprisingly varied. Some in it even go so far as to question the radiative properties of gases and other basic science. They give true skepticism a bad name, and are just as irrational and anti-scientific as the first camp I mentioned. Interestingly, in spite of claims to the contrary by the first camp, this second camp is not actually taking money from big oil or part of any sort of big oil conspiracy. Most members of this second camp are far too looney to work at or be trusted by the energy conglomerate monopolists (who actually make tons of money even from green energy!).

Actually, some of them are paid-for agents. Most of the others are attached to the free-market ideology. Most energy companies are not making money from green energy yet; those tend to be start-ups now. The dirty energy companies are stubbornly refusing to budge, and financing denial "science" and reactionary anti-environment politics (Exxon and Koch are the prime examples).

Which brings me to the third camp of true scientists. True scientists may or may not be skeptical of some of the more hysterical and apocalyptic claims made by the first camp. This third camp is a diverse group but has one thing in common, head over heart. We have a goal of understanding and ongoing appropriate, scientifically justified environmental regulations. We are realists about the big picture. For example, the interglacial will end. It is possible that human induced climate change may slightly mitigate (or God forbid, the bad alternative, expedite) its end, but it will end. Between now and when it ends, we can do many appropriate things as part of our ongoing quest to balance human needs (and even some human wants) against human environmental impact.

Thanks for listening.

You're welcome.

Actually, you can't have head without heart. Concern and care is natural and necessary if one is to be curious about what's going on, because of what it might mean to us, and to be willing to take action to deal with it. There is no great gap between what environmentalists say and what climate scientists say now, except perhaps for a few like Mr. McPherson (and I hope he's not right).

But you raise a good point that I have mentioned too; it is actually very necessary to save fossil fuels and not use them all up now; perhaps, if we can do it safely, it may actually be appropriate to use them if it staves off global cooling some day. That may be a crazy idea, as geo-engineering seems to be; but I would not put it past humans to be able someday to engineer our climate and our geology in the future so that catastrophe does not wipe us out. I mentioned that before in regard to the Yellowstone caldera blowing up sometime relatively soon. I don't see what choice we have but to protect ourselves from climate disaster; whether its limiting our activities now or increasing them later (unless we really start focusing on spiritual ascension).

The truth is more likely to lie on the liberal side; it's not in between just because moderate lies in the middle of current opinion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You rang?



I respectfully disagree. It's all still true! (for the most part, I guess)

What I notice is there's a camp bordering the Gaia/deep-ecology one, which I run into more and more these days, which is often irrational indeed, and that's the conspiracy theorists. They unhesitatingly accept things like chemtrails, vaccines cause autism, one world secret governments, 9-11 was an inside job; maybe there's grains of truth here and there, but they believe all these theories without question. They may go to extremes with global warming, following McPherson, or they may attribute it mostly to geo-engineering, or say that Fukushima is going to kill us soon; clear thinking is not always present, to say the least.


Actually, some of them are paid-for agents. Most of the others are attached to the free-market ideology. Most energy companies are not making money from green energy yet; those tend to be start-ups now. The dirty energy companies are stubbornly refusing to budge, and financing denial "science" and reactionary anti-environment politics (Exxon and Koch are the prime examples).



You're welcome.

Actually, you can't have head without heart. Concern and care is natural and necessary if one is to be curious about what's going on, because of what it might mean to us, and to be willing to take action to deal with it. There is no great gap between what environmentalists say and what climate scientists say now, except perhaps for a few like Mr. McPherson (and I hope he's not right).

But you raise a good point that I have mentioned too; it is actually very necessary to save fossil fuels and not use them all up now; perhaps, if we can do it safely, it may actually be appropriate to use them if it staves off global cooling some day. That may be a crazy idea, as geo-engineering seems to be; but I would not put it past humans to be able someday to engineer our climate and our geology in the future so that catastrophe does not wipe us out. I mentioned that before in regard to the Yellowstone caldera blowing up sometime relatively soon. I don't see what choice we have but to protect ourselves from climate disaster; whether its limiting our activities now or increasing them later (unless we really start focusing on spiritual ascension).

The truth is more likely to lie on the liberal side; it's not in between just because moderate lies in the middle of current opinion.

Wanna know something you may find shocking? Exxon payroll helped fund my college education. Exxon - doing silicon wafers - for solar panels - and this was back in the 80s. Typical energy conglomerate, ready to profit whether we are talking oil or solar. Here's another one. T. Boone Pickens. Need I say more?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Wanna know something you may find shocking? Exxon payroll helped fund my college education. Exxon - doing silicon wafers - for solar panels - and this was back in the 80s. Typical energy conglomerate, ready to profit whether we are talking oil or solar. Here's another one. T. Boone Pickens. Need I say more?

Yes. Exxon and companies like that devote something like 1% to alternative energy. They spend lots more trying to kill it.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I almost never comment on this topic (because it bores me).

Here I break with convention for a few brief moments.

I see three camps, two of them vocal and nearly insane, one of them quiet and focused.

One camp is, for lack of a better term, rabid Gaia worshippers (like I used to be) who were indoctrinated into a particular view of ecological / environmental issues during the 70s and 80s. This camp subscribes to writings of people like Abbey, Brower, Callenbach, etc, etc. A few of the threads of this line of thought get into things like "Deep Ecology" and at a more radical branch, "Earth First!."

I know much about the above, because, as noted, I used to be one of that camp. It is totally a 2T quasi-religious belief system with a healthy component of Druid/Wicca mentality plus a number of other aspects. To be fair, I still pull the odd item from this particular tool box, however, maturation and long years of careful observation convinced me that there is a massive amount of anti-scientific thinking and irrationality included in this framework.

The other obnoxious camp are what I term skeptics for the sake of being skeptics. These are the types who simply like to argue and, when also of an extreme Libertarian bent, would view any and all environmental and ecological concerns as Communist plots to undo the Free Market and liberty. This second camp is actually surprisingly varied. Some in it even go so far as to question the radiative properties of gases and other basic science. They give true skepticism a bad name, and are just as irrational and anti-scientific as the first camp I mentioned. Interestingly, in spite of claims to the contrary by the first camp, this second camp is not actually taking money from big oil or part of any sort of big oil conspiracy. Most members of this second camp are far too looney to work at or be trusted by the energy conglomerate monopolists (who actually make tons of money even from green energy!).

Which brings me to the third camp of true scientists. True scientists may or many not be skeptical of some of the more hysterical and apocalyptic claims made by the first camp. This third camp is a diverse group but has one thing in common, head over heart. We have a goal of understanding and ongoing appropriate, scientifically justified environmental regulations. We are realists about the big picture. For example, the interglacial will end. It is possible that human induced climate change may slightly mitigate (or God forbid, the bad alternative, expedite) its end, but it will end. Between now and when it ends, we can do many appropriate things as part of our ongoing quest to balance human needs (and even some human wants) against human environmental impact.

Thanks for listening.

Actually, we should excise from this third group a fourth that includes those with just enough brain power to grasp natural long glacial cycles but are either too stupid or too sleazy to grasp that it is rapid climate change, associated with rapid carbon emissions, as we have today, that have been most destructive to life on earth. This additional fourth group, of course, would include those that tell us it will all be okay because if the dinosaurs could move their coastal mega-cities so can we.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Actually, we should excise from this third group a fourth that includes those with just enough brain power to grasp natural long glacial cycles but are either too stupid or too sleazy to grasp that it is rapid climate change, associated with rapid carbon emissions, as we have today, that have been most destructive to life on earth. This additional fourth group, of course, would include those that tell us it will all be okay because if the dinosaurs could move their coastal mega-cities so can we.

One might also divide between those who have done their homework and those who haven't. Both CO₂ increase and the Milankovitch cycles (the orbital shifts that cause ice ages to come and go when the continents are aligned such that both poles can freeze) are known as forcing factors. The question is which forcing factor is contributing more and faster to climate change. That's a very answerable question. CO₂ is the larger forcing factor, and the Milankovitch cycles are a very slow (glacially slow) forcing factor. At the current rate of burning fossil fuels, the Milankovitch cooling factor is being submarined. As glaciers and ice caps melt, as methane thaws, as CO₂ continues to be burned, the Milankovitch cycles will become a very minor factor.

Yes, there is a slow steady long term cooling trend observable in the temperature record that is attributed to Milankovitch. This trend ended in the mid 1800s, when humans started seriously burning fossil fuels. The pre Civil War cooling trend produced a much slower cooling trend than the warming trend we've seen since. Fossil Fuel forcing is thus observably significantly greater than Milankovitch forcing.

There are a large number of forcing factors, most of which contribute very visible and readable signatures in the temperature records. A big volcanic eruptions cause several cool years. The solar cycle causes a very reliable 11 year warming and cooling trend. EL Nino / La Nina is less predictable, causing warm or cool bumps that generally last less than a year. Continents move, blocking or enabling warming currents that can prevent polar ice from forming. Plants suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere, converting the carbon into coal, gas or peat, generating a very long slow steady cooling trend. With all of these effects happening at once, the temperature curve is very messy indeed, but it is still possible to get a pretty good grip on how strong and how fast any given factor works.

That is, if one not politically motivated to avoid learning climate science. Republicans and Libertarians recently convinced themselves that the solar cycles were about to stop based on a very thin conjecture. They didn't. 1998 was a record setting warm year, with a solar cycle peak stacked on top of a big El Nino. When both those factors went away for a time, we set no more global heat records for several years. They declared global warming to be over. It isn't. This year we have another big El Nino stacked on another solar peak and an extra decade's worth of CO₂ in the air. We will be setting more records.

Mother nature just isn't influenced by political theories, but this won't prevent those with political interests from coming up with a new reason to disregard the science. Time proves them wrong, but doesn't prevent them from coming up with a new pseudo-science conjecture.

Ah, well.

Originally Posted by B Butler

One might also divide between those who have done their homework and those who haven't. Both CO₂ increase and the Milankovitch cycles (the orbital shifts that cause ice ages to come and go when the continents are aligned such that both poles can freeze) are known as forcing factors. The question is which forcing factor is contributing more and faster to climate change. That's a very answerable question. CO₂ is the larger forcing factor, and the Milankovitch cycles are a very slow (glacially slow) forcing factor. At the current rate of burning fossil fuels, the Milankovitch cooling factor is being submarined. As glaciers and ice caps melt, as methane thaws, as CO₂ continues to be burned, the Milankovitch cycles will become a very minor factor.

Yes, there is a slow steady long term cooling trend observable in the temperature record that is attributed to Milankovitch. This trend ended in the mid 1800s, when humans started seriously burning fossil fuels. The pre Civil War cooling trend produced a much slower cooling trend than the warming trend we've seen since. Fossil Fuel forcing is thus observably significantly greater than Milankovitch forcing.

There are a large number of forcing factors, most of which contribute very visible and readable signatures in the temperature records. A big volcanic eruptions cause several cool years. The solar cycle causes a very reliable 11 year warming and cooling trend. EL Nino / La Nina is less predictable, causing warm or cool bumps that generally last less than a year. Continents move, blocking or enabling warming currents that can prevent polar ice from forming. Plants suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere, converting the carbon into coal, gas or peat, generating a very long slow steady cooling trend. With all of these effects happening at once, the temperature curve is very messy indeed, but it is still possible to get a pretty good grip on how strong and how fast any given factor works.

That is, if one not politically motivated to avoid learning climate science. Republicans and Libertarians recently convinced themselves that the solar cycles were about to stop based on a very thin conjecture. They didn't. 1998 was a record setting warm year, with a solar cycle peak stacked on top of a big El Nino. When both those factors went away for a time, we set no more global heat records for several years. They declared global warming to be over. It isn't. This year we have another big El Nino stacked on another solar peak and an extra decade's worth of CO₂ in the air. We will be setting more records.

Mother nature just isn't influenced by political theories, but this won't prevent those with political interests from coming up with a new reason to disregard the science. Time proves them wrong, but doesn't prevent them from coming up with a new pseudo-science conjecture.

Ah, well.

Awesome detail, thanks!

Back in the day, when I was in graduate school in Chemistry, I took a course called "Statistical Thermodynamics." The content impressed upon me the value of actually estimating the amount of several different kinds of energy present in a system. In our case we were operating at the atomic and molecular level, but it applies just as well in macro systems.

Hence, when chatting about global warming and what might be causing it, one really needs to look at the relative fractions of cooling and/or heating that comes from different variables.

You have sunspot cycles, earth's axis tipping cycles, heat absorbed by asphalt and concrete structures, and a thousand others, to say nothing of greenhouse gases. The denialists often totally disregard any and all of these relative differences. And yet, most variables have been examined and estimated. And published.

Despite all this, willful ignorance abounds.

Originally Posted by TnT

Back in the day, when I was in graduate school in Chemistry, I took a course called "Statistical Thermodynamics." The content impressed upon me the value of actually estimating the amount of several different kinds of energy present in a system. In our case we were operating at the atomic and molecular level, but it applies just as well in macro systems.

Hence, when chatting about global warming and what might be causing it, one really needs to look at the relative fractions of cooling and/or heating that comes from different variables.

You have sunspot cycles, earth's axis tipping cycles, heat absorbed by asphalt and concrete structures, and a thousand others, to say nothing of greenhouse gases. The denialists often totally disregard any and all of these relative differences. And yet, most variables have been examined and estimated. And published.

Despite all this, willful ignorance abounds.

Agreed in principle, but one common element of many denialist claims is to take one of the forcing factors and make an exaggerated claim about how it is going to become more important burning fossil fuel. There is the notion that Milankovitch earth's axis tipping factor is more powerful than fossil CO₂, or that the solar cycle is going to stop and get stuck on cold. Some are quite aware that CO₂ is only one of many factors. They just remain willfully ignorant of how strong and how fast each factor is. They avoid studying the subject thoroughly enough to understand it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Agreed in principle, but one common element of many denialist claims is to take one of the forcing factors and make an exaggerated claim about how it is going to become more important burning fossil fuel.

But that doesn't make it so. My point is, to advocate their concept, they have to have substantive backup for the claim. Making fanciful claims about one of the variables does not make it so. There is a LOT of solid work out there dealing with many of the "other" variables that go into global warming.

And, of course, if we had a nuclear winter, or if Yellowstone blew up, we wouldn't have to worry about it any more. Woulda - coulda - shouldas just don't make it.

One of the things that makes me sick to my stomach about CO2 is not even what always gets talked about. What is seldom mentioned is the impact on the earth's salt water. If we fuck that up, there really won't be much left to worry about.

Originally Posted by TnT

But that doesn't make it so. My point is, to advocate their concept, they have to have substantive backup for the claim. Making fanciful claims about one of the variables does not make it so. There is a LOT of solid work out there dealing with many of the "other" variables that go into global warming.

And, of course, if we had a nuclear winter, or if Yellowstone blew up, we wouldn't have to worry about it any more. Woulda - coulda - shouldas just don't make it.

One of the things that makes me sick to my stomach about CO2 is not even what always gets talked about. What is seldom mentioned is the impact on the earth's salt water. If we fuck that up, there really won't be much left to worry about.

So then why fiddle around with naysaying about the needed transition away from fossil fuel burning? If we're concerned, support the transition.

Originally Posted by TnT

Back in the day, when I was in graduate school in Chemistry, I took a course called "Statistical Thermodynamics." The content impressed upon me the value of actually estimating the amount of several different kinds of energy present in a system. In our case we were operating at the atomic and molecular level, but it applies just as well in macro systems.

Hence, when chatting about global warming and what might be causing it, one really needs to look at the relative fractions of cooling and/or heating that comes from different variables.

You have sunspot cycles, earth's axis tipping cycles, heat absorbed by asphalt and concrete structures, and a thousand others, to say nothing of greenhouse gases. The denialists often totally disregard any and all of these relative differences. And yet, most variables have been examined and estimated. And published.

Despite all this, willful ignorance abounds.

Willful ignorance is in part a consequence of willful deceit.

The willful deceivers know how to make parodies of scientific writing and scientific imagery. Of course much of the writing and pseudoscience is directed at people who have little to no familiarity with the conventions of science, like references, double-blind testing, and peer review.

They know how to put the common touch on their writings, typically relating banal preciousness. So you do prefer to have your trusty automobile for taking home stuff bought at Everyday Low Prices at the box store? Then surely you want plenty of oil from tar shale, don't you, supplied through the Keystone Pipeline that your friends the Koch Brothers want to provide you, don't you?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So then why fiddle around with naysaying about the needed transition away from fossil fuel burning? If we're concerned, support the transition.

We're all in favor. We're not in charge. Until that little matter is resolved, don't expect much.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We're all in favor. We're not in charge. Until that little matter is resolved, don't expect much.

That's true; until then it's what is already on the books; plus what the capitalists do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So then why fiddle around with naysaying about the needed transition away from fossil fuel burning? If we're concerned, support the transition.

What? By speaking up on the 4T forum? Well sure. I'm all in favor of transitioning to alternative energy. There. I supported it.

On the other hand, my old pappy used to say, "They's talkers and they's do-ers. Pay attention to the do-ers."

"The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Wednesday ruled against India over its national solar energy program in a case brought by the U.S. government, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.

As power demands grow in India, the country's government put forth a plan to create 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules, and included incentives to domestic manufacturers to use locally-developed equipment.

According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies—siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said on Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."

Shame, shame, US government. I'm going to send this to the president.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...=socialnetwork

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Originally Posted by TnT

What? By speaking up on the 4T forum? Well sure. I'm all in favor of transitioning to alternative energy. There. I supported it.

On the other hand, my old pappy used to say, "They's talkers and they's do-ers. Pay attention to the do-ers."

Good! Now if we could just get Marx and Lennon to join the fray!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Wednesday ruled against India over its national solar energy program in a case brought by the U.S. government, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.

As power demands grow in India, the country's government put forth a plan to create 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules, and included incentives to domestic manufacturers to use locally-developed equipment.

According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies—siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said on Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy—not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."

Shame, shame, US government. I'm going to send this to the president.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...=socialnetwork

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

You'll get no argument from me. So called "free trade" (which is in reality freaked out trade) is bad for workers, bad for the environment and even bad for technological advancement. Bad all around.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good! Now if we could just get Marx and Lennon to join the fray!

Then we could all be "talkers."

Originally Posted by TnT

Then we could all be "talkers."

Talking is somewhat important, because IF people listen to the facts, and that's a big IF, then they are motivated to take action and do! Speak up, take personal actions, support global and national policies.

Gore on autotune! Better than Katy Perry! fun


I'm pretty good at not letting deniers go unanswered. But I don't know if it's worth much.

Here Gore alludes to Strauss and Howe generation theory:
https://youtu.be/b-0p7GbPJ14?t=18m20s

and sounds like Kennedy too!

Remember when Kennedy said he lived in the hour of maximum danger, and said "I do not skrink from this responsibility, I welcome it!"

Generally, most studies coming from serious science sources have been bad news for the planet. NASA just broke the trend with satellite data indicating that Antartica is gaining ice. The Weather Channel has an overview. While certain areas that are easier to access are definitely melting in a serious way, in other large areas there has been considerable snowfall while the temperatures aren't warm enough for much melting.

This won't necessarily be a long term trend, but that seems to be the way it is for the moment. If it holds, this is good news in terms of sea level rise. While Greenland is definitely melting, if both Greenland and Antarctica went there would be big coastal problems.

As usual with anything new in climate science, there are some that are contesting the result, and propagandists that are exaggerating it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Generally, most studies coming from serious science sources have been bad news for the planet. NASA just broke the trend with satellite data indicating that Antartica is gaining ice. The Weather Channel has an overview. While certain areas that are easier to access are definitely melting in a serious way, in other large areas there has been considerable snowfall while the temperatures aren't warm enough for much melting.

This won't necessarily be a long term trend, but that seems to be the way it is for the moment. If it holds, this is good news in terms of sea level rise. While Greenland is definitely melting, if both Greenland and Antarctica went there would be big coastal problems.

As usual with anything new in climate science, there are some that are contesting the result, and propagandists that are exaggerating it.

The system is far more complicated than most people realize. An huge complicating factor is the abundance of H2O we have. Oceans and atmospheric H2O (especially in the form of towering CuNim) serve to move heat, ultimately into space or convert it to mechanical energy (currents). Solid H2O's albedo reflects solar energy into space as do clouds. There are negative feedback loops in the system. Beyond gains in Antarctic glacial ice, the seasonal sea ice behavior has also been of note. As the northern hemisphere sea ice has undergone a decline over the past several years, the southern hemisphere sea ice has gained.

AGW may also increase solid precipitation in areas such as interior Antarctica and Greenland. That is a net positive for mass balance.

Beyond the impacts of back radiation owing to green house gases, Earth's tilt and orbital mechanics, and other overt forcings, the configuration of Earth's continents and how this affects currents (both at the surface and subsurface) plays a further role. While possibly far fetched, "The Day After Tomorrow" does contain a kernel of truth in that a shift in thermohaline circulation may be capable of initiating at least a Younger Dryas type event if not an interglacial termination.

So much still left to learn about these systems.

We define climate change denial as “anyone who is obstructing, delaying or trying to derail policy steps that are in line with the scientific consensus that says we need to take rapid steps to decarbonize the economy.”

We do this to hold accountable those who do not state their intentions honestly. Modern lobbyists decreasingly deny outright the irrefutable science, but instead deny the need for viable solutions – such as a cost on industrial carbon pollution, energy efficiency, clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels – as demonstrated by the science.

The Koch brothers continue to finance campaigns to make Americans doubt the seriousness of global warming, increasingly hiding money through nonprofits like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global...ch-industries/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate | December 23, 2013
Dusk at U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.


A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders

To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here’s Why.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/29/...2-years-heres/

It’s been one of the big themes at the World Energy Future Conference here in Abu Dhabi. Solar, and other technologies such as wind power, are no longer more expensive than traditional fossil fuels in many parts of the world. Indeed, they are cheaper.

The big oil and gas players recognise this. Dr Adaba Sultan Ahmed al Jabber, the minister of state of the United Arab Emirates, said at the lavish opening on Monday that the cost of solar was competing with traditional sources of energy, and would not be derailed by the plunge in the oil price.

He saw that as an opportunity to call for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, which he noted outstripped those of renewables by a factor of 5:1 in 2013. “If we have courage and opportunity to saying yes to thinking differently, could deliver better future,” he told the conference. This from a country which is in the top eight oil producers in the world, and the top seven in gas reserves.

A day earlier, the International Renewable Energy predicted that solar costs would fall substantially in coming years, underlying its competitiveness with fossil fuels. If government policy makers did not understand this, IRENA said, then they risked making bad decisions about their energy future.

Last week, the Saudi Arabian power company ACWE, with some $24 billion in assets, set a world record low for the price of solar in the world’s largest tender. Its CEO, Paddy Padmanathan, told RenewEconomy in an interview on Monday that the price of solar will fall by at least a third in coming years. He expects at least half of the 140,000GW of power capacity to be installed in the Middle East and north Africa in the coming decade to be solar.

Extreme Heat Is Defining Climate Change
By Brian Kahn
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/e...e-change-19641

The lasting legacy of climate change will be heat. The land, the oceans, all of it. It’s the tie that binds and while the global average temperature is the defining metric, the increasing incidence of heat waves and longer lasting extreme heat is how the world will experience it.

All eight papers dealing with extreme heat events in this year’s Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society’s attribution report show a clear climate change signal that made them more likely, more hot or both. In fact, of the 22 studies scientists have submitted to the annual review over the past four years, only one didn’t find that climate change increased the odds or severity of extreme heat.