Obama named SmogMaker of 2007
Prize honors those who sow confusion and delay on Climate Change
Update: DeSmogBlog withdraws Obama Award
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has captured the inaugural 2007 SmogMaker Award for blowing smoke on global warming, the DeSmogBlog announced today.
Global warming is an environmental problem, not a political one. And people who try to ‘solve’ it with political or public relations spin are just making the problem worse,” said James Hoggan, co-founder of the DeSmogBlog.
“Yet the spin campaign continues, and it’s becoming more insidious. Climate spin used to be all about denial – self-appointed experts took money from the energy industry and then denied that humans are affecting life on earth.
But the new spin is even more dangerous and sly. Now, it’s all about delay and distraction. Now, spindoctors in industry and government are acknowledging the science, but arguing that we shouldn’t or can’t act quickly to correct the problem.”
Barack Obama may not be the worst offender among the spinmeisters, but he’s the biggest disappointment.
An outspoken supporter of the U.S. coal industry, Obama has presented himself as someone who can overcome the Bush legacy of inaction on climate change. But he is campaigning on a greenhouse gas reduction ‘target’ that the U.S. won’t have to meet for 42 years and he has continued to promote the current administration’s plan to circumvent the Kyoto Protocol, the only international climate agreement currently in place.
The world has a right to expect more from a man who wants to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States,” Hoggan said.
This is the first year for the SmogMaker Awards, honoring those who have subverted honest and forthright public conversation on global warming.
Judged by an expert panel of fraudbusters – the staff at the climate change watchdog DeSmogBlog.com – these awards recognize clever, deceptive or merely devious public relations campaigns.
The winners have distinguished themselves in five categories:
Individual
After nearly two full terms of a Republican President who sponsored climate-science censorship, the world has been looking forward to any successor as an improvement.
But on climate change, Barack Obama, is looking like George Bush lite.
While the world’s leading scientific bodies tell us we need to act immediately to avoid catastrophic climate disruption, Obama has set his own target date at 2050, long past any opportunity for voters to hold him accountable. His short-term strategy is the same as President Bush’s; Obama wants to create a new Global Energy Forum that doesn’t include the cleanest and most progressive (European) economies.
If Obama wants to be taken seriously on climate change, he has to stop promoting coal and start setting realistic, urgent strategies.
(Addendum: Joseph Romm at climateprogress.org has taken a convincing whack at us for this award, pointing out rightly that Obama has indeed called for at least one substantive early target - to reduce U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 - and that he includes Europe's biggest economies in some elements and some versions of his climate plan. That, however, leaves the issues of his support for coal and an ethanol plan that follows G. W. Bush in, mostly, pandering to the U.S. agriculture lobby. Romm criticizes the DeSmogBlog for singling out Obama, a relative good guy, rather than President Bush. We'd like to point out that our position - really, everyone's position - on the Bush performance is pretty much on the record. We were hoping to kickstart a discussion about the person currently advertising himself as the change agent. If Barack Obama offers any convincing counterpoint on his coal position, we'd be happy to "strip him" of this award. In the meantime, our position stands: he's spinning the American people on this issue.)
Industry
Toyota made itself the world’s No.1 carmaker by producing energy-efficient models, but nevertheless joined the car consortium that sued California – and 5 other state governments – for legislating lower emission levels. (Why give up the competitive advantage – or save the Earth – when profits are on the line?)
Government
You can’t beat the Canadian government for environmental hypocrisy.
Having signed an international agreement that committed the country to reducing its CO2 emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels, Canada increased its annual output by 35 per cent. Now, the Canadian government has joined the world’s biggest polluters to block, divert, or minimize any new global warming agreements.
In fact, notwithstanding that it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and one of the top five per-capita polluters, Canada says it won’t lift a finger against climate change unless the big emitters in the developing world first commit to taking action.
Media
News baron Rupert Murdoch startled the world in May of this year by announcing that he is worried about climate change and determined to bring his worldwide News Corp. into the international battle for better performance and better policy.
Yet his Fox News still employs the likes of climate quibbler Brit Hume and Steve Milloy, a PR guy who went from defending tobacco on behalf of Philip Morris to questioning climate change on behalf of the energy industry.
The idea that a man who created an entire right-of-centre network is now standing back in protection of journalistic independence is beyond quaint.
“Non-Profit”
Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus offers the best example of how climate quibblers are now playing the public for fools.
By accepting the science behind climate change as early as 2004, Lomborg presented himself as a climate moderate. Then he launched an international campaign to distract public policy makers by understating the potential devastation of climate change, while setting up a false choice between spending money addressing global warming or spending instead on eradicating poverty or AIDS.
The SmogMaker Awards are sponsored by DeSmogBlog.com, a website dedicated to exposing the public relations spin that has so distorted the debate about global warming.
DeSmogBlog co-founder James Hoggan is the president of the award-winning public relations firm James Hoggan & Associates. He is also Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education, and a board member of Future Generations. Mr. Hoggan also chairs a sustainable development project in the Four Great Rivers region, an environmentally pristine, but endangered corner of Eastern Tibet.
For further information, contact:
Kevin Grandia
Operations Manager
c: 778-240-6343
e: desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com
If you like this story, please vote for it on Digg.com by clicking here.
Agreed
Loss of major credibility with numerous readers would be a best case scenario. To save face I would write a follow - up article apologizing for your...err..umm...miscalculations regarding Senator Obama.
They already did
Haven't you checked out the top story? DeSmogBlog Apologizes to Barack Obama 7 Jan 08, at http://www.desmogblog.com/desmogblog-apologizes-to-barack-obama
Fern Mackenzie
Obama
You should be embarrassed. I was a faithful reader until today. Obviously your more then informative site took a turn and became a slanderous political scene.
Anyone interested in the facts click here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/4/161528/7185
I think you've contradicted
I think you've contradicted your mission statement with the Obama criticisms. Instead of taking the time to read his policies and his voting record, you've gone on to slander him.
How many of your other posts on the record are this poorly researched?
Basically ...
All of them.
J. Hoggan, who is Not
J. Hoggan, who is Not Verified? I doubt it.
That's pretty funny
These guys are SO clever, don't you think VJ? How dull it would be here without our beloved trolls. It must be getting pretty crowded under that bridge . . .
Fern Mackenzie
Bring on the big goat!
Bring on the big goat!
Global Warming Scam
Obama is correct to tread lightly on this issue given the hysterical rhetoric eminating from the global warming camp.The science of climate change is not about consensus as to its causes. Skepticism is the well-spring of scientific thinking. When the outcomes from a field of scientific research are deemed by its supporters to be of such certainty that further debate or research is pointless, then it ceases to be science and enters the realm of propaganda.
Is our climate warming? As Professor Carter, at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, so ably points out; “It depends”. If the measure is the trend from the beginning of the last Ice Age to the present day, based on sampling of ice cores taken from Greenland, then yes, the climate is warming. If the measure is the temperature trend from the beginning of the Holocene period (10,000 years ago) until the present day, then the climate is cooling. If the measure is the temperature trend from say, 2000 years ago until the present day the cooling is even more dramatic. If the measure is the earth’s temperature over the last 700 years from the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" the temperature trend is stable. Over the last 100 years the climate shows a warming trend and over the last 10 years the temperature has been demonstrated to be stable.
Of course, advocates for anthropogenic warming in countering any questioning of their pet theory will point to climate models that show rising levels of man–made CO2 are indeed the cause. What they do not point to is that these same models, when applied to historic climate data, are unable to recreate past known conditions (also known as ‘hindsight forecasting’).
What we need is an honest assessment of the situation by scientists, politicians and the media, not sycophantic agreement with those who have a scientific, political or financial axe to grind, such as Al Gore, who now as a partner at venture capital giant, Kleiner Perkins, stands to make millions from his involvement with the science of climate change.
I do not have a problem with a concerted effort to encourage and establish new clean sustainable energy sources. I do have a problem with the effort being based on a theory that is now being slowly disproved and the spending of billions unnecessarily on carbon credits and other such nonsense. So before we go tilting at windmills, let’s pause and focus on the things that do matter, like bringing clean water to the billions of people who don't have it.
Buster
Buster, I'd be happy to often refutations of your claims if I thought you'd stick around to reply, but most of the deniers that show up here are drive-by shooters and you're probably long gone.
Diamond Jim Hoggan -- Master of Irony
"Global warming is an environmental problem, not a political one. And people who try to ‘solve’ it with political or public relations spin are just making the problem worse,” said James Hoggan, co-founder of the DeSmogBlog."
Please excuse me while I go puke.
Please excuse me while I go
Please excuse me while I go puke.
When you're done, leave the lid up for others . . .
rrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaallllllllfffffff!!!!
There is just no way to 'spin' global warming into anything worse than what it really is!! it is the worst threat to human survival and the planets survival ever faced, ever!
I liked this article. enjoy-
http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/72758/index.php
In a scene from the Beatles’ “I am the Walrus”, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bob and Sarah Dylan and Britney Spears have all become entwined in a wave of positive hope and change sweeping across the United States and our home Planet Earth. In “I am the Walrus” the Beatles sang “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly, I’m crying.” Scientists say that all of our cells die and are replaced every seven years and that inside of every human being is an atom from every person who has ever lived but what do scientists know, they only flew us to the moon to play golf.
In a recent interview with Time Magazine Nobel Laureate Al Gore said, “Everything I do is within the context of priority number one: how can I help contribute to a solution to the climate crisis? When I was in the Snow and Ice Data Center, receiving a full briefing on the polar ice caps, afterwards I would turn on my TV and there were two networks with the bulletin: ‘Britney Spears loses custody of her children.’ We’re living in a madhouse if our priorities focus on Britney Spears’ custody battle, the embalming of Anna Nicole Smith, or the trial of O.J. Simpson, while we ignore the greatest crisis this nation has ever faced, climate change disaster.” According to Nobel Laureate Al Gore, our home Planet Earth is a madhouse, a lunatic asylum, and we are all insane.
Insantiy is when due to a mental illness a person is a danger to themselves or to others, or due to mental illness a person does not understand the nature and consequences of their actions.
Last night Britney Spears was declared insane by a doctor and forcibly carted off to the insane asylum in a video clip spread repeatedly around the world via TV and the internet. Bob Dylan wrote a song called “Like a Rolling Stone” which applies to Britney Spears and all the people of Planet Earth today. Bob Dylan wrote, “Once upon a time you dressed so fine, you threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn’t you? People call, say beware doll, you’re bound to fall. You thought they were all kiddin you, you used to laugh about, everybody that was hangin out, now you don’t talk so loud, now you don’t seem so proud. About having to be scrounging your nest meal. How does it feel, How does it feel, To be without a home, Like a complete unknown, Like a rolling stone?” Watch Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones sing it, here www.youtube.com/watch
The white people of the United States brought the black people over from Africa to be their oppressed and lynched slaves. The white American Ku Klux Klan terrorists dressed in white robes, with white hoods, and gathered around large burning crosses and held up small burning crosses and hung black Americans from trees because of the color of their skin. Then, on January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1964 Martin Luther King won the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1986 the United States of America declared a national holiday, Martin Luther King Day.
Martin Luther King paved the way for Barack Obama, the modern Elvis, Beatlemania, Barack Obama, whose message of hope and change, to beat back climate change, to end our dependency on “the tyranny of oil”, to end the war in Iraq led to his victory in Iowa last night, and has him poised to be the next President of the United States. If this happens, it will be like the arrival of the Messiah, to lead the charge to end global warming which is leading us all to desertification of our home, Planet Earth which will lead to fighting over the remaining fresh water and soil and nuclear world war III which will have no survivors and leave the planet earth our home permanently radioactive and uninhabitable.
Because Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream”, the United States is about to cast off it’s last vestiges of racism, elect a black President, and become a light unto the world, leading it to world peace and safety. In her song “Dreamer”, Sarah Dylan of the young generation supporting Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey’s battle against climate change sings, “If I asked you just one question, what would your answer be, life was simple, but I knew that it would be more complicated. Who can laugh like, who can be mine, who can ask for more, the score is falling, my dreams are calling, they lead me past your door. Who loves you, who needs you, who wants you to come home, they say that you’re a dreamer, But I want you as my own…Your mind is slipping…You’re lost, I can’t help you to find the one you’re looking for. Don’t you know you’re the one I’m looking for.” www.myspace.com/sarahdylanmusic We all are lost in a madhouse, says Al Gore, but now we are finding our way thanks to the many courageous dreamers and visionaries among us.
Britney, the answer to Sarah Dylan’s question is your two beautiful sons, Sean Preston, 2, and Jayden James, 1. Your children love you, your children need you, your children want you to come home. The United States is mainly a Christian country based upon love for yourself, the components of your body, air, water and earth, and the air, water and earth making up your neighbors. Loving yourself and loving your neighbors does not include mocking them, or laughing at them, or tearing them to pieces or poisoning the air, water or earth the children are all made of, no matter their skin color. If we continue on this course, then soon Bob Dylan’s words will come true for every child on earth, “How does it feel, How does it feel, To be without a home, (Planet Earth) Like a complete unknown, Like a (radioactive) rolling stone?”
Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The time has come for Barack Obama. The future of our home Planet Earth depends upon it. If the United States can evolve from a racist to a non racist country then everything is possible if we all unite to beat back the impending disaster of climate change. The time has come to replace hatred with love. It’s now or never. Do it for the children. Blessed are the peacemakers and blessed are the environmentalists.
Obama won't need to do
Obama won't need to do anything.
It's all over but the crying now.
Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.
“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”
As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”
links on soalr activity
Here are some links. The first, the original NASA story; the second, a recent update: the newest cycle has begun; the third, a wiki article on solar cycles
But bear in mind all serious climate activists have disregarded solar cycles as having any effect on climate. the science is in, and it is undebatable that CO2 is forcing the present warming. These links for research and entertainment only.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200801051652.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
"But bear in mind all
"But bear in mind all serious climate activists have disregarded solar cycles as having any effect on climate."
"Climate activists"? No. They're called climate scientists, RA.
Excuse me, Mr. Berg
I stand corrected.
Yeah, and pigs will fly and
Yeah, and pigs will fly and polar bears will adjust to temperatures in the thirties Celsius. Dream on...
Polar Bears are a myth. They
Polar Bears are a myth.
They all died off during the last climate optimum when it was even warmer than now. Back in the MWP.
What you see now are nust computer animations of what they probably looked like.
Gary, may I refer you to:
this comment from John Mashey in response to a similar post at Jennifer Marohasy's blog:
SSRC: you have to be kidding me: http://spaceandscience.net/ looks impressive! until you realize that:
John L. Casey looks like a one-man-band apparently pushing consulting services based on some climate theory he has.
His address is 4700 Millenia Blvd #175 Orlando FL, and if you Google that, you will discover an amazing number of companies that seem to be located in that office suite.
That's because the suite in this this impressive building isn't even Casey's own office, but is occupied by: http://www.intelligentoffice.com/list.html:
"Intelligent Office locates your business in one of the best buildings in town. You'll have a prestigious business address for your mail, your stationery and your advertising, as well as an impressive place to meet your clients. Your address with us will have your company's name, not ours, and if you work from home, this is a great way to protect your privacy."
There is nothing obvious in Casey's background to establish any particular expertise in climate science, no obvious presence in Google Scholar, and nothing before a recent press release. The info sounds like yet another "I've discovered cycles" thing, which happens all the time. (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002658.html)
To this I can add (from the SSRC site at www.spaceandscience.net) that Mr Casey claims that the SSRC has on its staff of consulting scientists, some of the world's best known experts in the field of solar physics pertaining to the research into the matter of the coming major solar minimum, but doesn't bother to name them. His personal areas of expertise include a BSc in physics and mathematics, and an MA in management, with experience as a space shuttle engineer, military missile and computer systems officer, advanced rocketry and commercial space developer.
So when reading the above press release, do take a moment to consider the source, and perhaps check out what the original NASA source he cites to see what it really says.
Fern Mackenzie
Predictable: Attack the
Predictable:
Attack the messenger and ignore the message.
LOL......
Gary, it's not a matter of
Gary, it's not a matter of attacking the messenger; it's a matter of determining how authoritative he is. This man has no basis for claiming any authority whatsoever. He's just another guy like you or me. He's welcome to his opinions, but the fact that he wrote them down in a press release rather than a blog entry doesn't make them any more noteworthy. This is just one man's opinion, and one that is contradicted by many people who ARE authorities.
But still, if you want to discuss the ideas, let's do so. Tell me, what is your own analysis of his claims regarding solar cycles?
Damn... I had really
Damn... I had really expected the usual name calling and ridicule, but you guys were almost polite.
So I guess I should actualy answer.
I have read many articles in the past few months that lead me to the same conclusion as this one. I did not (as usual) save them, but I was able find this one again.
It also illistrated what I believe really caused the warming that happened last century.
Excerpt:
" Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. "
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
But as you pointed out, none of these papers, or the IPCC Dogma show any actual proof of anything. As you said, they are opinions and should be viewed as such.
I just find them much more believable than the IPCC Opinions. Time will tell.
Cheers;
Why?
Gary, why is it that you believe this one man but refuse to believe the many who wrote the IPCC reports? Did you just flip a coin? Is it because he's telling you what you want to hear? I'm quite serious here: what on earth would cause you to reject the recommendations of our best scientists and embrace those of this one?
Next, let me try my two standard questions on you:
1. Have you read the IPCC reports? They're the best possible source of the science. Failing to read them is like arguing politics when you haven't read the Constitution. Have you read them?
2. Do you understand the basic physics? If so, please offer your criticisms of the IPCC reports. If not, why are you questioning scientific conclusions drawn by scientists?
I take issue with the
I take issue with the statement by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, speaking about AGW, that "this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check" since it was first proposed by Svante A. Arrhenius more than 100 years ago. This is quite blatantly untrue. If you look at the history of climate science research, it is clear that Arrhenius' theories were found interesting but not particularly earth-shattering at the time. But over the past 40 years or so people within the science community have started to connect the dots, and have been carrying out all kinds of research. The gathering momentum of the accumulating evidence has caused real concern, which is why there have been international conventions taking place on the subject since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
Dr. Sorokhtin's notions about solar activity are not backed up by any original published research on his part (at least, none that I can find), and have been flatly contradicted by several recent studies published in peer reviewed journals.
The difference between Dr. Sorokhtin's opinions and the IPCC scientists' conclusions are primary research and constant re-evaluation under the microscope of peer critique. I don't believe that they carry the same weight.
Fern Mackenzie
Fern writes: Dr. Sorokhtin's
Fern writes:
Dr. Sorokhtin's notions about solar activity are not backed up by any original published research on his part (at least, none that I can find), and have been flatly contradicted by several recent studies published in peer reviewed journals.
This is true, I've looked unsuccessfully for anything myself. He doesn't have a single publication to his name about solar activity or a connection between the sun and climate. I suppose that is because Dr. Sorokhtin is a marine geologist.
I read the message
But being naturally sceptical I investigated further to find out what else the SSRC had produced, what their background is and who this Mr Casey is who generated the press release. As there have been several recent peer-reviewed studies discussing solar forcing that concluded the opposite of the SSRC's findings, I wanted to refer directly to the research paper that lays out the SSRC's case -- the horse's mouth, so to speak. I do this for every study cited here, in order to make a critical assessment of how seriously to take whatever new information is being touted. In this case, I found no paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise, and nothing to suggest that Casey has any particular expertise or experience in climate science research that would warrant taking him very seriously.
Your post did not include any citation other than the SSRC web site, and the press release there does not give any further information, except to state that Casey has extrapolated his findings from a "recent web announcement by NASA" that was actually posted on May 10, 2006. Sorry, but neither the messenger nor his press release meet my standards for credibility.
Fern Mackenzie
Gullible
You are entirely too, gullible, my friend. Did you look up anything about Mr. John Casey to see just how reliable his claims are? I did a quick Google search and discovered that most of the hits are copies of his recent press release on various denialist websites. I couldn't find much else that looked like serious scientific research. He runs a company that sells advice to big firms about his pet theory that global cooling is just around the corner. That's about it. He is not referenced in the IPCC report section on solar forcing of climate change. Thus, to the scientific world, he appears to be a nobody. But if you have any indication that he's anything more than just another nut case, please provide it.
Wow, a brand new fake
Wow, a brand new fake science company.
You owe Obama an apology
He has the best climate plan in town -- though Clinton's is very, very close. He can't possibly be compared to Bush. Bush has been doing everything in his power to accelerate global warming. You really, really need to retract that.
His plan, which I'm not sure you've read, does NOT have its first target in 42 years. It would mandate "reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.” That is a VERY ambitious plan for someone who would be taking office in 2009. Certainly we couldn't get back to 1990 levels any sooner.
Please read his full plan. You can find it here.
http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/obamas-excellent-energy-and-climate-plan/
Bush deserves "2007 SmogMaker Award" -- as I have noted in a number of recent posts. Obama ain't close to "George Bush lite." Please retract that.
Reasonable objections
This and the previous post both make reasonable points; the perfect is the enemy of the good; and Obama's may well be the best plan in town (a test that isn't that demanding).
But we're here to talk about spin. We're here to point out when the public message is being twisted more vigorously than the facts warrant.
In Toyota's case, the company is outperforming its competitors (I bought a Toyota Matrix almost purely on the strength of its fuel economy), but they remain resolutely part of the problem, actively fighting regulations that might encourage other carmakers to catch up. I think it's perfectly fair to dock them points for taking that position.
As for Obama, your point that he would "implement a mandate of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020." is also well-taken, but that does not address his enthusiasm for coal, his reliance on ethanol, and his stated preference for doing an effective end-around on the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change.
If he were to clarify his positions on those issues, I am sure we would be willing to "strip him" of the award.
wording
I am curious as to what exactly this means -
"Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology."
words words words
obama will consider using any tool necessary to save the planet. period. what's wrong with that?
We are going to hell in a bucket. somebody has to step up and get the job done!
An adage for your consideration
This article represents a near-perfect instantiation of the old adage "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Our author scans over a gaggle of AGW-denying politicians and selects Barack Obama for condemnation, because Mr. Obama is good but not good enough to meet our author's standards. Meanwhile, a host of far worse politicians go uncondemned.
Turning to industrial concerns, our author selects Toyota, the only major automobile company to actually do something serious about gasoline consumption -- and condemns them, because they're not good enough. Meanwhile, the dinosaurs in Detroit who took no action and derided Toyota for its boldness -- they get an honorable unmention.
I won't criticize the other awards. While I have some quibbles, I don't find them absurd, as I do in the case of the first two awards.
Unfair Post
A very Unfair Post.... Mr. Obama's proposed energy plan follows... it is viewed by many to be one of the best because he will auction the credits for his cap-and-trade plan:
The Problem
Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.
Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Barack Obama's Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.
Barack Obama's Record
Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
CAFÉ: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFÉ supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results."
More facts (sorry smoke)
Hi Jim,
Blowing your own horn (and quoting yourself), I see. Well, that's ok, since not many others are worrying too much about this propaganda site.
Here are some facts for you to consider:
1) The global sea ice area is above average, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
2) There is no increase in global temperature over the last 10 years, see:
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt
(And the year 2007 is the coldest on record for this millenium.)
Confusionist drivel -
1) The Arctic sea ice minimum was at the end of the warm season, long over. The Arctic Ocean always freezes solid in the winter. As a helpful reference point for you, we're in winter now. The concern is about Arctic sea ice. The plot you link to is for global ice.
You are posting links with bad data. A warning is currently posted on the U. of Illinois Cryosphere homepage:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
It says: "The timeseries graphs on this site are currently incorrect. We had a hardware problem corrupt the data and are currently recreating the timeseries from original data sources. Expect the correct data in 5-7 days. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Here is a proper graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center showing summer ice cover as a function of month & year -
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070904_timeseries.png
2) The data speaks for itself, regardless of how denialist Think Tanks spin their talking points. Hadley Centre plots of NH, SH & World temperature time series -
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Denialism
Jay,
1) Your link applies only to the Arctic, and thus not to the global ice coverage situation.
Btw the warning is now removed, the data is presumably corrected, and the situation still the same, i.e. the global sea ice coverage is at the moment larger than normal.
2) Your data set speaks differently than mine (which of course you know already). So which is right? Yours, mine, both, or neither?
I prefer satellite data because I consider them most objective.
And, according to those data, there has not been any global warming over the last 10 years.
Uh huh
1) and how thick is the sea ice? I'll wait to see how much of it disappears next summer, thanks. And you might like to check this site:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=11886&lang=eng
2) I guess we aren't reading the same sources. Personally, I prefer to credit the analysis of people who actually know how to interpret the raw data, ie -- climate scientists -- over the opinion of someone with no expertise in the science, such as yourself, for instance.
and BTW, ever hear of a Press Release?
Fern Mackenzie
predicting
Want to really predict weather & climate?
Check out Old Farmer's Almanac. Admittedly, they are a bit behind the times: they don't consider CO2, 'forcings' and all that, only relying on solar cycles. But they still are running at 80% accuracy rate ....
Something for you bright boys to ponder.
The facts are in
1) These values are global values, and refer to deviation from a period average, adjusted for the season. Note that, obviously, SH ice coverage goes down when the NH ice coverage goes up, and vice versa. The point is that, objectively speaking, based on actual data, not model data or nursery stories, the total global sea ice coverage is currently above average.
Which is not what one hears from Rev Gore, Dr Suzuki, RealClimate, or IPCC.
2) There is no interpretation needed. The facts (measured values) are there, and all you have to do is to tabulate and/or plot the data, and see for yourself. The fact is that there has been no increase in average global temperature over the last 10 years (despite continously increasing CO2 levels).
Again, this is not what one hears from Rev Gore, Dr Suzuki, RealClimate, or IPCC.
I did the plots for you
JIK I plotted the last 10 years of global temps for you over two weeks ago. Here is a copy of my post on a previous thread where you made the same lying, distortion of scientific facts as you are doing here. People like you disgust me.
"JIK, don't you ever get tired of being shown how wrong and stupid you are? Do your work colleagues realize how poor you are at math and statistics (not to mention reading simple words and numbers)?
Here are the most recent data from GISS (Dec - Nov numbers)
1995 - 0.46
1996 - 0.38
1997 - 0.40
1998 - 0.70
1999 - 0.49
2000 - 0.42
2001 - 0.54
2002 - 0.70
2003 - 0.65
2004 - 0.61
2005 - 0.75
2006 - 0.65
2007 - 0.75
The right hand column shows temp anomaly in degrees C based on the 1951-1980 average.
Then I did a series of regressions to give the slope of temperature change over a number of yearly ranges:
1995-2007 - 0.026
1996-2007 - 0.028
1997-2007 - 0.026
1998-2007 - 0.020
1999-2007 - 0.034
2000-2007 - 0.035
Right hand column represents the rate of change of temperature in degrees C for the given period (slope of the linear regression line). No matter which year you pick as a starting year the slopes are all positive, indicating RISING TEMPERATURES.
How can anyone with even the lowest level of statistics say that temperatures have remained constant over the past 9 - 10 years, let alone say that they have dropped? For anyone who claims to be "an expert in statistics", (M, M and W) it shows that they are liars.
There you go, JIK, no fancy graphs, no cloured maps just plain and simple data treated to a very simple statistical analysis. Still shows that you are either very stupid or a liar, take your pick".
You exhibit one of the many arrogant and hypocritical techniques of the denier fanatics, you repeat time after time your worthless arguments which keep on being repudiated time after time.
Get a life.
Ian Forrester
Thank you Dr Forrester
I appreciate the numbers and now have a copy of them (er..if you don't mind).
What I find so compelling is the comparison of that bugaboo year of 1998 with 2005 AND 2007.
Dear Ian (if that is your name)
your rant does not show or indicate anything, except that you do not handle "inconvenient truths" very well.
As a matter of fact,
it IS his real name and his scientific credentials are sound, which you would know if you really intended this to be a valid discussion. Personally, I find Dr Forrester's input to be very informative (not the least bit "ranting"). Until you offer some kind of reason that I should accept your analysis of the data over his (which tends to support what I hear from the climate scientists), that is where it stands.
Fern Mackenzie
Dr Ian's rants
can be illustrated with e.g. these quotations from his email above:
"you made the same lying, distortion of scientific facts as you are doing here"
"People like you disgust me"
"don't you ever get tired of being shown how wrong and stupid you are"
"Do your work colleagues realize how poor you are at math and statistics (not to mention reading simple words and numbers)?"
"For anyone who claims to be "an expert in statistics", (M, M and W) it shows that they are liars."
"shows that you are either very stupid or a liar, take your pick"
"You exhibit one of the many arrogant and hypocritical techniques of the denier fanatics"
It is quite astonishing that you "find Dr Forrester's input to be very informative (not the least bit "ranting")."
Moderators, please block
Moderators, please block this idiot (i.e. Johan I Kanada). He's not adding anything to the discussion and never really has. All he does is label people, question the authenticity of others' names (while refusing to actually give his own), and repeats Cato Institute talking-points.
Labelism
Stephen,
I really don't think I am the one you should accuse of labeling people. Btw, I only question Ian's name, and that for historical reasons. (Due to an old debate between us.) As far as Cato, I have never used them for climate related information and opinons. My sources, apart from those I have quoted here, include CA and Lubos Motl. You should check them out sometime.
I actually do add something to these discussions - it is called difference of opinion (and sometime different sets of information).
CA and Lubos Motl
I rest my case.
Ian Forrester
Hmm...
you may disagree with Steve M and Lubos M, but you must admit they are smart and knowledgeable people (not paid by Exxon).
By all means, rest, but that doesn't mean you do not have the intellectual responsibility to evaulate and interprete more than one set of opinions.