global warming

Tue, 2012-07-17 05:00Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Scientists Tell US State Department Excluding Climate Impacts in Keystone XL Review 'Neither Wise nor Credible'

Ten of the nation’s top climate scientists penned a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today questioning why the State Department isn't considering the enormous climate change impacts of developing the Alberta tar sands in its review of the controversial Keystone XL export pipeline project

“At the moment, your department is planning to consider the effects of the pipeline on ‘recreation,’ ‘visual resources,’ and ‘noise,’ among other factors,” the scientists wrote. “Those are important—but omitting climate change from the considerations is neither wise nor credible.” 
 
The State Department is currently accepting comments on the scoping evaluation that will determine what environmental considerations will be included in the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) required for the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline.The public comment period ends July 30.
 
The department’s previous draft EIS downplayed the climate risks of Keystone XL, arguing that the Alberta tar sands would be developed with or without it, so therefore the Obama administration has no accountability for the additional global warming pollution that will result from burning dirty tar sands oil. 
 

Steven Goddard

Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)

 Credentials

  • Bachelor of Science.
  • Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.

Source: [1]

 Background

Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]

Read more: Steven Goddard
Fri, 2012-06-15 11:50Laurel Whitney
Laurel Whitney's picture

Why Is Pfizer Still Aligning Itself With Heartland Institute On "Public Health" Record?

The Heartland Institute has had a rough time the last couple of months. The climate denial shop has endured the release of embarrassing leaked documents. Then it launched a devastatingly ill-conceived billboard campaign associating climate science adherents with serial killers. That didn't work out so well. So Heartland's donors started pulling out. Its annual Denial-a-palooza festival was put out to pasture.

Despite the exodus of support for Heartland's extremist views, one major health care company remains a financial supporter of the Heartland Institute.

Pfizer, a major pharmaceutical company, continues to support Heartland, although its competitors, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eli Lily, have already pulled out. Now Forecast the Facts is issuing a call to medical professionals to sign a letter urging Pfizer to dissolve its relationship with Heartland.

According to Pfizer, while the company has publicly stated it disagrees with Heartland on its stance on climate, it still supports Heartland's record on health care.

Here's why that's ironic.

Sun, 2012-05-20 14:29Guest
Guest's picture

A Scientist's Perspective: On Blogging, Comments … and Online Civil Discourse

This is a guest post authored by John Abraham, cross-posted with permission from the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media.


A recent posting on The Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media website linked to a very long piece regarding climate change by Christopher Monckton.

As a practicing scientist, I recognize and value the role that The Yale Forum plays in furthering civil discussion on this topic. As a society, we have too few venues of this type where ideas can be discussed, solutions proposed, and our preconceptions challenged.

Commentary

It is not difficult to appreciate the dilemma faced by editors of sites like The Yale Forum when submissions such as that cited are offered, particularly when, as here, the respondent is addressing an earlier posting in which he or she was specifically named.

On the one hand, sites such as this want to encourage vigorous and candid debate. On the other, they must be mindful of the very extreme views taken by some participants in this discussion. Inclusion of the most extreme views may not advance the purpose of the site.

So, how does Monckton’s post fit into the category of extreme views? That, really, is the easy part.

Jerome Arnett

Jerome C. Arnett Jr.

 Credentials

  • M.D., West Virginia University School of Medicine. [1]

 Background

Jerome Arnett Jr. is a pulmonologist in Elkins, West Virginia. Arnett is also a fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians and once served on its ethics committee.

Read more: Jerome Arnett
Thu, 2012-05-17 11:30Guest
Guest's picture

New National Standards Ask Schools to Teach Climate Change

This is a guest post by Juanita Constible, Science and Solutions Director of The Climate Reality Project, cross-posted with permission.

As a scientist, I know how important it is for our kids to get a top-notch science education. So it’s extremely significant that a new set of national science standards – the first to be released in over a decade – explicitly ask our schools to address climate change.


The Next Generation Science Standards lay out core ideas K-12 students should understand about the basics of science – from biology, to physics and chemistry, to earth science. The last national standards were released back in 1996, and manmade climate change wasn’t mentioned. However, the new standards recognize that students need to know human activities are changing our climate. They also recognize that schools are training the next generation of engineers and scientists who can help solve the problem.

In the standards for middle school, for example, one of the core ideas is that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (‘global warming’).” The standards for high school note that “changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate.”

This is welcome news after a disheartening couple of months in the science education world. In February, news broke about the industry-funded Heartland Institute’s plans to push misinformation about climate change into schools. (Yes, the same Heartland Institute that compared people who believe in climate change science to mass murderers. Many schools already avoid teaching about climate change because some teachers (and parents) view the topic as too controversial. (Of course, there’s nothing controversial about the underlying science.)

Pages

Subscribe to global warming