Sunday, June 8, 2008

General Electric Claims CO2 "A Possible" Factor in Global Warming


The site above is satire from The DeSmog Project, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA.

The following is a direct quote:

Despite all its green advertising claims, behind the scenes General Electric remains skeptical about the role of carbon dioxide in driving climate change. A May 28th GE press release announcing a new "clean coal" initiative states only that "CO2 is a possible contributing factor to climate change."

GE's multi-million dollar "Ecomagination" ad campaign paints the company as a concerned environmental steward and GE belongs to a growing coalition of companies calling for federal action on climate change. Kevin Grandia, the managing editor of a new collaborative web effort by several environmental groups to debunk the myth of "clean coal," noticed the GE press release and pointed to the inconsistency between the skeptical line in the release and GE's widely-publicized ads and public statements on climate change. Grandia notes that "considering the major marketing effort GE has undertaken to paint itself as a leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions...[w]hy so much investment by GE in something they only see as a possibility?"

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt admitted to Forbes magazine in 2005 that the company's lofty "Ecomagination" campaign is little more than a sales pitch. "It's primarily that," Immelt said. "In its essence it's a way to sell more products and services."

In order to confront similar greenwashing by the coal industry, environmental groups including The DeSmog Project, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA launched a new website http://www.coal-is-clean.com/ to shatter the coal industry's "clean coal" myth by mocking the lengths the coal industry will go to portray coal as clean. A companion site http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/ explains the actual impacts of coal mining and burning.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/unearthed-news-of-the-wee_b_105693.html accessed 8 June 2008.

Searching for Extreme Weather

record event report
National Weather Service
Grand Rapids, Michigan
0134 am EDT Sat June 07 2008... Record high low temperature at Grand Rapids on June 6th...

[Scroll down]

And the [Indiana] Governor worries it may not be the last blow. He said more rain, especially in the northern part of the state, could lead to even more flooding.
Source: wunderground.com
"Again, if more water comes down from north, we may have not seen the worst of it," Governor Daniels said.
Daniels spelled out what the state is doing to respond. He said the state of emergency declarations will help things happen more quickly.
"I wanted to make certain that if swift action's necessary to protect life or property that it happens on the fastest possible schedule," Governor Daniels said.
The Governor's Director of Homeland Security, Joe Wainscott, said this is some of the worst flooding he's ever witnessed.
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8447421&nav=menu35_2



A record high low temperature of 74 degrees was recored at Grand Rapids yesterday... June 6th.
The previous record high low temperature for June 6th was 72 set in both 1999 and in 1925.
Based on Grand Rapids records back to 1892... there has not been a day with a warmer low temperature earlier in the season. The low has been as warm as 74 degrees earlier than this twice... on June 1st 1934 and June 5th 1925.

While individual anomalies like this will occur, the question is if all of them were collected each day, would this represent a trend toward extreme weather? Note that extremes of all kind including cold are the result of global warming. Does such a collection exist?

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

NASA's Top Climate Scientist: Big Oil is Hiding a "Planet in Crisis"

Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/nasas-top-clima.html, accessed 3 June 2008. Direct quote courtesy of http://www.dailygalaxy.com

"We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," according to James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.

Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.

The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.
"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained. "What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.

"You need a new Kyoto protocol with all the major emitters committed to it. Then you are cooking with gas."

Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says. "We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," according to James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.
Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.
The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.

"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained.

"What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.

"You need a new Kyoto protocol with all the major emitters committed to it. Then you are cooking with gas."

Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/nasas-top-clima.html, accessed 3 June 2008.

Are "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" Sites Growing Exponentially?

It sure seems like it.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Utah State, Global Warming, and Google


Google generated these ads while I was trying to read about the Global Warming conference at Utah State (the article itself seemed to have expired). Here's what Google added to the screen:

Ads by Google
Global Warming
www.WillYouJoinUs.com Join Chevron's energy debate. Discover. Discuss. Debate.
Help Sen. Boxer Fight EPA
ga6.org/campaign/epa_censored Tell EPA: Stop Censoring Documents and Help us Fight Global Warming!
Impact Global Warming
SpectraFund.com Invest in a Greener World. Spectra Green Fund. No Load.
Global Warming Facts
www.GetEnergyActive.org Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Global Warming and the Shame of Misleading Think Tanks

You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite my ideas as © 2007, Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos? Please let me know.

OK, more than two months have gone by since I began my "crusade" to uncover organizations that want to muddy the waters about Global Warming or, for the politically correct or politically cowardly, "Climate Change," I'd like to point to a resource that lists objective, democratic-sounding (small D) organizations that are trying to calm the storm of how to address Global Warming, and how to address it now. Clearly debate on issues of public importance is to be encouraged, but when is it necessary to debate whether or not the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

There is clearly nothing "wrong" with the concept of "think tanks" in which experts form an organization to investigate political, technological, or other controversial topics of the day. The problem comes when the think tanks are deliberately deceptive in their motives, their actions, and even their names. The BP logo noted below is really an "in your face" depiction of a very environmentally friendly image fronting for a company involved in an industry that is the source of the problem.

When Michael Moore produces a film, only those completely unfamiliar with his work would be surprised at his liberal, pro-labor perspectives. (I personally wasn't quite sure what to make of the connections Moore implied between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family and other friends from Saudi Arabia in Fahrenheit 9/11, but knowing Moore's perspective, I wasn't blind-sided by this portion of his expose and I did not accept them at face value.)

There is a directory of think tanks from a Japanese organization called NIRI, the National Institute for Research which, according to Wikipedia, is "Its objective is to conduct independent research to contribute to the resolution of contemporary complex social issues in many areas, including politics, economics, international affairs, society, new technologies, and administration." It also maintains a list of think tanks around the world including those in the United States from 2005 (suggesting that some think tanks specific to Global Warming or Climate Change may have formed after this directory was published):

  • American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) / Washington, DC, United States

  • American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Asia Society / New York, NY, United States

  • The Aspen Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • Association on Third World Affairs, Inc. (ATWA) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Atlantic Council of the United States (ACUS) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Atlas Economic Research Foundation / Fairfax, VA, United States

  • Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE) / Berkeley, CA, United States

  • The Brookings Institution / Washington, DC, United States

  • California Budget Project (CBP) / Sacramento, CA, United States

  • Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (CCEIA) / New York, NY, United States

  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Carter Center / Atlanta, GA, United States

  • Cascade Policy Institute / Portland, OR, United States

  • Cato Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center for Defense Information (CDI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center for National Policy (CNP) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues-Institute for Public Policy Studies, University of Denver (CPPCI) / Denver, CO, United States

  • Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Center of International Studies, Princeton University (CIS) / Princeton, NJ, United States

  • The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) / Chicago, IL, United States

  • Committee for Economic Development (CED) / New York, NY, United States

  • The Commonwealth Institute / Cambridge, MA, United States

  • The Consensus Council, Inc. / Bismarck, ND, United States

  • Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) / New York, NY, United States

  • DEMOKRITOS SOCIETY OF AMERICA (DSA) / Alamo, CA, United States

  • Discovery Institute / Seattle, WA, United States

  • Earth Policy Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • East-West Center (EWC) / Honolulu, HI, United States

  • EastWest Institute (EWI) / New York, NY, United States

  • Economic Growth Center (EGC) / New Haven, CT, United States

  • Economic Policy Institute (EPI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Economic Strategy Institute (ESI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University / Washington, DC, United States

  • Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) / Philadelphia, PA, United States

  • The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies / Notre Dame, IN, United States

  • Henry L. Stimson Center / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Heritage Foundation / Washington, DC, United States

  • Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace / Stanford, CA, United States

  • Hudson Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Independent Institute / Oakland, CA, United States

  • The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Institute for the Future (IFTF) / Palo Alto, CA, United States

  • Institute for International Economics (IIE) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Institute for Research on Poverty (IPR) / Madison WI, United States

  • Inter-American Dialogue (IAD) / Washington, DC, United States

  • International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development (ICEED) / Boulder, CO, United States

  • Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies / Notre Dome, IN, United States

  • Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs (MCPA) / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation (MMMF) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Milken Institute / Santa Monica, CA, United States

  • National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) / Cambridge, MA, United States

  • National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) / Dallas, TX, United States

  • National Health Policy Forum (NHPF) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development / Berkeley, CA, United States

  • The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government / Albany, NY, United States

  • New America Foundation / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Nixon Center / Washington, DC, United States

  • Northeast-Midwest Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • OMB Watch / Washington, DC, United States

  • Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies / Washington, DC, United States

  • Population Council / New York, NY, United States

  • Project for the New American Century (PNAC) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) / San Francisco, CA, United States

  • The RAND Corporation (RAND) / Santa Monica, CA, United States

  • Regional Research Institute (RRI) / Morgantown, WV, United States

  • Resources for the Future (RFF) / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Rockford Institute / Rockford, IL, United States

  • Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) / New York, NY, United States

  • Social Science Research Council (SSRC) / New York, NY, United States

  • The Southern Center for International Studies (SCIS) / Atlanta, GA, United States

  • Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) / San Diego, CA, United States

  • Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), U.S. Army War College / Carlisle, PA, United States

  • United States Institute of Peace (USIP) / Washington, DC, United States

  • The Urban Institute / Washington, DC, United States

  • US-Japan-China Comparative Policy Research Institute (CPRI) / San Jose, CA, United States

  • Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies (VIPPS) / Nashville, TN, United States

  • The Washington Institute for Near East Policy / Washington, DC, United States

  • Weatherhead East Asian Institute (WEAI) / New York, NY, United States

  • Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy (Weidenbaum Center) / St. Louis, MO, United States

  • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS) / Washington, DC, United States

  • World Peace Foundation / Cambridge, MA, United States

  • World Policy Institute (WPI) / New York, NY, United States

  • World Resources Institute (WRI) / Washington, DC, United States

  • Worldwatch Institute / Washington, DC, United States

Accessed 30 December 2007, http://www.nira.go.jp/ice/nwdtt/2005/IDX2/index8.html#UnitedStates, © 2005, National Institute for Research's World Directory of Think Tanks, Japan, ISBN: 4-7955-6024-2 C3002.

When is green really green? Debunking the tricky "think tanks"

You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite my ideas as © 2007, Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos? Please let me know.
As 2007 winds down as the hottest year on record, it's time to rekindle why the conclusion that global warming is occurring and human activity clearly is playing a part in that well-documented phenomenon versus the unexpected (?) maelstrom of discontent that has been ignited ever since Democrat (gasp!) Al Gore was awarded both an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Dispassionate observers have concluded that Gore's breakdown of recent changes in weather patterns or, more cautiously, "climate change" (which somehow makes weather disasters associated with Global Warming more acceptable because they are not "our" (humans) fault) is a slam dunk, a no brainer, yesterday's news. But the scientific investigation into what we are seeing before our various eyes courtesy of television and widespread video documentation of current weather events, has been turned on its head as, fairly portrayed, reactionaries have been successfully turning scientific "fact" into a debate paralleling that of evolution "versus" intelligent design.

Why is this happening? Who stands "win" or somehow believe the status quo is a far better path to take than investing in new technologies that can begin to remove carbon from the air? Why did this "mom and apple pie" story of one year ago suddenly become a, well, a controversy?

Without a dissertation on what British Petroleum is or isn't doing in this arena, their logo is instructive. Rather than showing an oil rig, for example, instead the BP logo invokes images of a sun flower. This is a bit ironic considering that their business involves, in large part, polluting the air by providing the carbon-based fossil fuels that run our millions of motor vehicles, and more. Is this a reincarnation of George Orwell's 1984? Of course, inorganic farming might benefit from pesticides and herbicides derived by petroleum products refined by BP, but is growing sunflowers really that large a portion of BP's business?