Most-Cited Climate Skeptics Linked to Big Oil

Nine of the ten scientists, who have written the most papers skeptical of man-made global warming, are linked to oil giant ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), according to the blog The Carbon Brief.
Furthermore, those ten authors account for 186 of the 900+ peer-reviewed papers, which climate skeptic group The Global Warming Policy Foundation compiled as proof that there is widespread dissent on climate change science. 
The Carbon Brief's analysis shows that the pool of skeptical scientists is, in fact, much smaller than this list suggests, and it is heavily influenced by funding from Big Oil. 
Sherwood B Idso is the most prolific scientist on the list. He is the author or co-author of 67 of the 938 papers (7%). He is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a thinktank funded by ExxonMobil. 
Patrick J Michaels is the second most cited author, with 28 papers. He is a well known climate skeptic who  receives around 40% of his funding from the oil industry.
Agricultural scientist Dr Bruce Kimball is third on the list, and all of his cited papers were co-authored with Idso.
The Carbon Brief explains the significance of this analysis:
"Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry. There are numerous other names on the list with links to oil-industry funded climate sceptic think-tanks, including more from the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Marshall Institute.
"Compiling these lists is dramatically different to the process of producing IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports are thoroughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is relevant and diverse."
The Carbon Brief is headed by Tom Brookes, director of the Energy Strategy Centre, which is funded by the non-profit European Climate Foundation. 

Will global warming spawn super-giant, flying ants? Science (sort of) says yes.

The fossil of one of the biggest ants ever has been discovered in Wyoming. Over fifty milliion years ago, it crossed the arctic to get there. Scientists have analyzed the data, and believe that a hot planet fosters the spread of super-sized ants.

It's funny how size affects the way people think of things. An adorably small hippo would make an unsettlingly large cat. And that lovable little pipsqueak, the hummingbird, would be a hideous monster if instead of a bird it was an ant. Bad news. At one time - it was an ant. Like a hummingbird, this ancient ant had wings and could fly. It was about two inches long, and spread to Wyoming from Europe, through the arctic.
To be fair, the continents were different shapes and in different places than they are now, so going from Europe to America wasn't the difficult journey it later became. But no matter the duration of the journey, it required heat. The world was a hotter place in the past, and for some reason, 'hot' means 'giant ants'. Researchers believe that the earth was heated by bursts of greenhouse gasses throughout this period, and the heat that generated gave the ants the climate they needed to go through the arctic. Once they'd walked the land bridge between continents, the ants spread down through what would become North America. Impressions in rocks are all that remain of these ants, but that doesn't mean people can breathe easy. When researchers mapped out the habitat of large ants, past and present, they found that they were always associated with warm temperatures. No one is sure why, but if the planet heats up too much, future researchers may get a look at the reason for this enlargement in real time.

Pastor Skeptics

Protestant pastors are more skeptical about global warming today than they were two years ago, according to a LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors conducted in October 2010.

The survey also found that pastors’ views on the subject vary widely by denomination, education, location and political ideology.
When asked to respond to the statement, “I believe global warming is real and man-made,” 41 percent of pastors strongly disagree, up from 27 percent in a similar survey conducted in 2008.
That marks an increase of more than 50 percent. According to the 2010 survey, 19 percent of pastors somewhat disagree with the statement, 13 percent somewhat agree and 23 percent strongly agree.
Twenty-five percent strongly agreed in 2008 that global warming is real and man-made. Lifeway is the research and publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. Evangelical and mainline pastors are divided on global warming.
A majority of evangelicals (68 percent) disagree strongly or somewhat that global warming is real and man-made, compared with 45 percent of mainline pastors.

Forty-four percent of evangelicals strongly disagree, but only 30 percent of mainline pastors feel the same. In contrast, more than a third (39 percent) of mainline pastors strongly agree that global warming is real and man-made, but only 14 percent of evangelical pastors strongly agree.

Google is diving headfirst into the climate-change debate with a "21 Club" of hand-picked experts that the search engine giant hopes will drive the conversation -- and guide investments -- in climate change. 

But it's a discussion that even the club's members say is meant to be one-sided. 

“If Google included people who challenged that debate, they would be wrong to do so,” said Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor for the School of Communication at American University and one of the 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.

“As to whether climate change is happening, humans are a cause and it is a problem -- there is no scientific debate over that," Nisbet told FoxNews.com.

A review of the 21 Club confirms Nisbet's comment. The group includes meteorologists, communication specialists, and even weather forecasters, as well as few scientists who research climate change for a living. None argue that the planet isn't in imminent danger.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/05/google-wades-global-warming-debate/#ixzz1JzQxvQPQ

Fish carried up a mountain on backs of llamas to escape global warming

The endangered vendace, that has been in Britain since the Ice Age, is in danger of dying out as lakes and rivers warm up because of man made global warming.

To ensure the species survival, the UK's environmental watchdog took eggs from Derwentwater in Cumbria, thought to be the only remaining site where the fish are found in England and Wales.

They then took 25,000 young fish from the hatchery to a cooler lake higher up the mountains of the Lake District, Sprinkler Tarn, to establish a new 'refuge' population that is more likely to survive warming temperatures.

Because the route to the lake is so rocky and uneven, it was impossible to use conventional transport like a 4x4 motorbike or landrover. So, the fish were given a ride during part of the two-hour trek by sure-footed llamas from a local charity. The journey was finished by fisheries officers on foot to ensure none of the smarts were spilt.

Lord Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, said British species have to be protected from climate change.

"In addition to the anticipated warming of lakes and rivers, we may also see an increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and heatwaves.

"All of these could have an impact on much of the native wildlife in England, especially aquatic species such as the rare and specialised vendace, so we are taking action now to conserve the existing populations."

Andy Gowans, fisheries technical specialist for the Environment Agency, said the fish are now safe from global warming.

"By introducing these vendace into Sprinkling Tarn, where water temperatures will be lower, it will provide an additional element of safeguarding for this endangered species," he said.

"The fish will be closely monitored, in the hope that a self-sustaining population will be established."

joooshua trees don't go away

Over several months this fall and winter, dozens of volunteers fanned out across theMojave Desert in search of the smallest Joshua tree they could find.

They were part of a project to determine whether Joshua Tree National Park will lose its namesake plants to global warming within the next century -- a problem that park officials have been grappling with.

Previous studies painted a dire picture about the Joshua trees' future. But scientist Cameron Barrows found the park's plants are better adapted to handle drought and are less likely to give up so easily; he expects them to be reproducing in the park 100 years from now.

Rodrigo Peña / Special to The Press-Enterprise

Cameron Barrows, a researcher at UC Riverside's Palm Desert campus, is studying the effects of climate changeon Joshua trees. He's shown with young trees at Living Desert Zoo & Botanical Garden.

In all, the citizen scientists found 800 baby Joshua trees. They narrowed the field to about 80 of the newest plants that were a foot tall or less, so Barrows could chart their distribution in relation to rising temperatures.

Barrows was not surprised to find evidence that Joshua trees have stopped reproducing in the hotter areas of the park, where yearly low temperatures in the south have increased 3.2 degrees in the past 36 years. But enough recent offspring were found to give him hope for the future.

"What this indicates is more of a hopeful scenario, in that if we as a world of people who consume carbon and expel it, start living more sustainably, then things like protecting Joshua trees in the boundaries of Joshua Tree National Park are possible," said Barrows, a research ecologist at UC Riverside's Palm Desert campus.

His findings veer from a 2005 study by Ken Cole of the U.S. Geological Survey showing that Joshua trees likely will be gone from 90 percent of their current range in the next 60 to 90 years.

The spiky trees, plentiful throughout the Southwest and Mexico in the Ice Age, now are limited to Joshua Tree National Park; eastern San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Kern counties; Inyo County; southern Nevada; extreme southwestern Utah; and northwest Arizona.

Cole predicts that all of the Joshua trees in San Bernardino and Riverside counties will migrate to Nevada and the higher elevations of Death Valley by the next century.

The difference, Barrows said, is that Cole's work covered the entire southwestern United States, while Barrows looked specifically at Joshua Tree National Park.

The park's location at the southern boundary of their habitat has allowed the plants there to better adapt to drought and high temperatures than those living in less extreme climates, he said.

Studies that indicated Joshua trees would disappear from the national park are being followed by much more positive news.

"If we accepted the previous simulations, then it was really depressing," Barrows said.

climate change

The concentration of Joshua tree seedlings were found above 4,000 feet at Upper Covington Flat, Blackrock Campground and within the city limits of Yucca Valley, Barrows said. The smallest tree was 2½ inches tall, indicating growth of only a year or two.

In the plants that were 3 feet tall and about 50 years old, their distribution was no different than adults, indicating no impact from warming, Barrows said. But the prevalence of 1-foot trees that were 10 years old or younger matched the climate-change predictions.

At the hottest southern and eastern boundaries of the park, Joshua trees haven't reproduced in 20 years, Barrows said.

"What this research says is, climate change is happening and it is going to have an impact on these species unless we are able to find a way to reduce the emission of carbon into the environment," he said.

Barrows will present his findings Saturday at a conference, "Climate Change in theCalifornia Desert," sponsored by the National Parks Conservation Association. The report is under review by national park staff.

Park Ranger Joe Zarki said Barrows' work will help fill in missing information on the micro-climate, such as rainfall, types of soils and direction of slopes that would influence the ability of a Joshua tree to survive.

Global warming destroying archaeological treasures frozen for thousands of years

Climate change is damaging archaeological treasures which have been frozen for thousands of years, according to British scientists.

Remains in some of the coldest places on earth are becoming exposed as warmer temperatures cause ice and hardened ground to thaw, research by experts at the University of Edinburgh's Business School has found.

Terrible thaw: Ice melting due to climate change is damaging ancient relics

The scientists, who studied cases of damage at three sites across the world, are calling for a global organization to be set up to maintain a record of vulnerable sites and to co-ordinate efforts to conserve items that are at risk, particularly indigenous remains.
Dr Dave Reay, who supervised the study, said: 'Warming climates are expected to lead to more melting ice, and we need to take action to safeguard ancient treasures.
'Long-term efforts are needed to locate archaeological remains that are at risk, and research how best to care for them.

The research also showed that thawing temperatures in the Altai Mountains put burial mounds at risk.
The site contains the only frozen tombs in the world and is the resting place of Eurasian nomadic horsemen with links to modern-day Siberian nomads.
Katie Molyneaux, primary researcher on the study, said: 'There have been studies that climate change is a major factor affecting all of these sites.
'At the site in Alaska I was blown away by the rate of damage. The melting sea ice has meant large waves have caused the coast to retreat by metres every year.
'A lot of these sites are undocumented and are only being studied as they protrude out of the ice when they are already starting to degrade.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1365206/Global-warming-destroying-archaeological-treasures-frozen-thousands-years.html#ixzz1HLAFvw7q

 

 

Y2K GLOBAL WARMING

Should global warming send us to the bunker?

By Andrew Freedman

Last Sunday, the Washington Post ran a provocative essay on the front page of the "Outlook" section by climate activist Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. In it, Tidwell reveals the lengths to which he is going to prepare himself and his family for what he sees as the now inevitable consequences of climate change. For example, he is stockpiling food, testing guns, and invested in an emergency generator - all in an effort to stave off social unrest that he sees coming down the pike due to climate change-related extreme weather events.

Bunker photo by Kim Newberg.

The essay is surprising - and completely misleading - in two main respects.

First, Tidwell never mentions the fact that there are a plethora of options available to national, state and local governments - not to mention families - to help cushion the potential impacts from climate change. This is actually an entire, growing field within climate policy, known as climate change adaptation (slowing manmade climate change or stopping it entirely falls into the "mitigation" category).

Given that society is already experiencing some impacts from climate change, such as an enhanced likelihood of heavy precipitation events and sea-level rise, increased attention is being directed to adaptation efforts. The Obama administration, for example, has directed the federal government to factor climate change impacts into planning for everything from national parks management to constructing new infrastructure projects, and established a climate change adaptation task force to coordinate efforts.

Tidwell, however, seems to be taking adaptation to the extreme, while claiming to be a climate change "realist."

"I coach Little League and go to church on Sundays and contribute to a 401(k). I'm normal," Tidwell writes. "But wouldn't even a level-headed person want to be ready to defend his family if climate chaos goes to the max?"

Yes, a level-headed person should be ready to protect his or her family. However, the way to deal with climate change is not by putting bars on your windows and investing in firearm training, but rather by factoring climate change into more reasoned decision-making. Thus, rather than buying a beachfront home, you might consider living further inland due to the expected effects of sea-level rise. Rather than saving money by not purchasing flood insurance, you might fork over some extra cash in light of scientific findings that climate change has tipped the odds in favor of heavy precipitation events.

As Dan Sarewitz, a professor of science policy at Arizona State University, wrote in response to Tidwell's essay: "Societies actually have abundant tools at their disposal for reducing vulnerability to weather and climate - building codes, land-use planning, insurance programs, poverty-reduction polices, and so on - and much capacity for wielding those tools more effectively, should they focus on doing so. Sending families into their basements is not on that list (except during tornadoes!)."

Instead of discussing smart ways to reduce the impacts of climate change, Tidwell has skipped about a gazillion steps, and gone straight into a bunker mentality - quite literally. I highly doubt this will be productive for the climate movement he is a part of, but more important to me is the question of whether it is scientifically justified.

This brings me to the second key flaw in Tidwell's essay, and it is one that should not have slipped past the Post's editors. Several times in his piece, Tidwell claims or strongly implies that recent extreme weather events were caused by climate change. Here is what he says about severe thunderstorms in the Washington area last summer:

It wasn't the wildfires that blackened much of Russia last summer that led me to buy my portable generator, nor the unspeakable rains in Pakistan that inundated nearly a quarter of that country. It was the one-two punch of thunderstorms that blew through the D.C. area on July 25 and Aug. 12 of last year. The first storm, with wind gusts of 90 mph, knocked out power to 400,000 people and generated a wave of lightning that, by a freak tragedy, killed my friend Carl Henn at a community picnic in Rockville.

Also on the topic of extreme weather events and climate change, Tidwell states:

The proof is everywhere - outside my front door, in my neighborhood, on the news. After a decade of failure to address climate change at the national and international levels, our weather has gone haywire. In the Washington region alone, in barely a year, we've annihilated all records for snow accumulation, we've seen appalling power outages associated with year-round thunderstorms, and we've experienced the hottest summer in the 140 years we've been measuring. Winston Churchill's oft-quoted warning on the eve of World War II now applies directly: "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Those consequences explain the generator in my garage and why I'm reinforcing my basement windows to protect emergency supplies.

Later he states: "And yes, major snowfall events are increasing in the eastern United States even as the planet warms, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

Tying every extreme weather event to climate change may serve Tidwell's argument that we're now in an "age of consequences" from climate change, but it's scientifically inaccurate. The fact is that climate scientists have not discovered any conclusive links between a warming climate and thunderstorm activity, let alone severe thunderstorms.

Furthermore, while there are sound physical science reasons to think that heavy snowfall may become more common in a warming world - a seemingly paradoxical relationship at first glance - no conclusive evidence has emerged here either. As we've covered extensively on this blog, multiple factors contributed to last winter's record snows, including the naturally occurring North Atlantic Oscillation and an El Nino event in the Pacific.

Scientists are studying whether the loss of Arctic sea ice may be changing atmospheric circulation to such a degree that it is making colder, snowier winters more likely in the eastern U.S. and parts of Europe. But they have not stated that there is already an observable increase in major snowfall events in the eastern U.S., and no reference is provided in the Outlook piece to support that assertion.

Tidwell's essay is essentially the opposite of Post columnist George Will's notoriously inaccurate portrayals of climate change, which come from a climate change contrarian point of view, intent on convincing the reader to move along, that there is nothing to see here, and manmade climate change is not a big deal - if it even exists.

Tidwell is clearly saying, "it's time to freak out about global warming." But like Will has done on occasion, he twists facts to support his case, which should not be permitted - even in the paper's opinion section.

The views expressed here are the author's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang.