Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized 14 Jun 2017

Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice

via Principia Scientific International
http://ift.tt/1kjWLPW

A global warming research study in Canada has been cancelled because of “unprecedented” thick summer ice. Naturally, the scientist in charge has blamed it on ‘climate change.’ According to Vice: The study, entitled BaySys, is a $17-million four-year-long program headed by the University of Manitoba. It was planning to conduct the third leg of its […]

Click title above to read the full article

via Principia Scientific International http://ift.tt/1kjWLPW

June 14, 2017 at 06:17AM

Uncategorized 14 Jun 2017

Lawrence Solomon: Why Big Business CEOs Support The Paris Climate Deal

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

For the most part, big business and big government are two sides of the same coin, each dependent on the other for its funding, each scratching the other’s back, each seeing the world through the same eyeglass.

To the surprise of many, big business went ballistic last week when President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. “Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real,” tweeted Jeff Immelt, General Electric’s CEO. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach’s CEO, was so moved that he uttered his first-ever tweet: “Today’s decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.’s leadership position in the world.”

The avalanche of corporate condemnation was so severe — countless top executives were moved to publicly express their outrage — that presidential historian Douglas Brinkley described it as “an absolutely bizarre and unprecedented moment in American history.”

Neither Brinkley nor the others should have been surprised. A little history — and an opening of the eyes — would help explain why big business spoke almost as one in favour of sweeping regulation by the governments of the world. Contrary to popular perception, big business overwhelmingly leans left. That is how much of big business gets rich and how most of it stays rich.

Some big businesses make their fortunes exclusively through direct government subsidies and government mandates. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the renewable energy industry is slated to receive US$7.8 trillion in investment between now and 2040, more than double the investment expected to flow into oil, gas and coal combined. All of those trillions in the pipeline are entirely the result of successful lobbying by the likes of GE’s Immelt and Goldman Sach’s Blankfein — without government intervention, renewables would represent a trivial part of the economy, primarily occupying niches, such as solar-powered calculators and wind turbines charging battery arrays at remote tourist retreats.

Likewise, without government intervention other uneconomic industries such as commercial nuclear reactors would disappear as major players, as would the industries that feed them, such as uranium mining. Many others, right-sized, would be severely cut back.

For the most part, big business and big government are two sides of the same coin, each dependent on the other for its funding, each scratching the other’s back, each seeing the world through the same eyeglass. They usually write legislation co-operatively, to gain advantage for the big businesses holding the pen. Little wonder that lobbyists have become indispensable wherever legislatures sit.

Over the last two decades, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical lobby has spent US$4 billion in aid of obtaining legislated advantages. The insurance industry spent almost US$2.5 billion. Other big-spending regulated industries include the financial sector, telecommunications, and real estate. The U.S. lobbying machine now supports legions of lobbyists who do their best to change laws and redistribute incomes at the federal, state and local levels. As a result, few areas of the economy operate as part of an atomized free market; mostly, all is skewed to the benefit of the big. The disbenefits go to the smaller businesses prevented by regulation from competing, and ultimately to the individual consumer, who is consigned to pay monopoly prices.

Adam Smith famously said that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” That observation of the 18th century was dramatically illustrated in the first decades of the 20th, when national socialism was very much in vogue on both sides of the Atlantic. Stabilization of Industry, a hugely influential book by General Electric’s president in the 1920s and 1930s, Gerald Swope, called for the compulsory cartelization of major corporations into federally controlled trade associations. Under the Swope Plan, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Industrial Conference Board, central planning would be carried out by a national economic council of corporate and union leaders. A Chamber of Commerce poll of its members found that 90 per cent favoured central planning.

For those enthralled by central planning today, no star could shine brighter than the Paris climate accord, an agreement among 195 countries to not only control the production of energy, the world’s largest industry, but also its consumption, which is to say virtually every part of our daily activity. The exercise of such control is in the DNA of many leaders in major industries, as it is in many government leaders. When Trump sunk the Paris accord, he sunk the great hope of much of the world’s elites. The cries emanating from the CEOs weren’t for the lost chance to save the planet — they knew the Paris Accord, even if followed scrupulously by all the signatories, would have done little to lower temperatures. They were crying out for central control, and the loot that comes with it, that had just been snatched from them.

The extent to which these elites are out of step with the average person can be seen in numerous polls taken by Gallup and other organizations over the years. Time and again, climate change was rated at the very bottom of all concerns that the general public had. When the public wasn’t asked to rank climate change’s importance, the polls show the public to be split over climate change, with Republicans overwhelmingly dismissing climate change, Independents being mixed and only Democrats expressing worry. The big business CEOs now lamenting the loss of Paris are, by this measure too, firmly on the left of society.

Full post & comments

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 14, 2017 at 06:11AM

Uncategorized 14 Jun 2017

Marijn Poels: The Climate ‘Debate’ Is Paralysing Free Thinkers And Undermining Democracy

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Over a year ago I decided to invest my saved money in a completely independent documentary, “The Uncertainty Has Settled.” It was a ‘once in a lifetime’ experience.

The past nine years I worked non-stop for several foundations and TV-stations as a documentary maker. Mainly focussing on human rights, environmental issues, and international development. My aim as a documentary maker is to make independent films about important topics which will open debates in order to spread awareness and find solutions. I did very well over those years and made over 50 documentaries within nine years.

So I went off and decided to make a film about the effects of globalization and energy policies on agriculture. I’m originally from a small agricultural village and feel strongly connected with farmers. However, I’ve seen them change radically over the past ten years.

The planned documentary “The Uncertainty Has Settled” tells the story of thousands of German farmers who changed their inefficient food production into the production of growing ‘energy’ crops. A highly subsidized and attractive business which is pushing valuable food production abroad.

Not only do farmers have difficulties in maintaining a livelihood, but last year over 600,000 families couldn’t pay their energy bills anymore because they were skyrocketing. Also included in the film was the introduction of different scientific beliefs where I interview climate critics as well.

I believe in the importance of having different opinions to stay critical and focused toward important system shifts. All to maintain a balance between people, planet, and profit.

Advisedly, we decided to produce a film in the purest form. No propaganda or truth-claiming but rather make a film “to encourage them to think critically and independently.” In the end, my film doesn’t claim a side but does expose the uncertainties within climate science.

We applied to more than 45 film festivals worldwide and planned our release in Berlin in February 2017. The people who saw the film during rough viewings were enthusiastic and full of expectations on the impact the film would have on viewers. We sent out over hundreds of press releases, towards the bigger media channels and waited. However, it remained silent, very silent.

After calling journalists for reviews they simply refused. The story – according to them – was too confusing to the public during a time when ‘climate change was under pressure’ and populism was on the rise. They called it their ‘journalistic responsibility’ not to give it any positive attention (?!) Not only the journalists but almost all the bigger film festivals rejected the film as well for the same reason. Dumbfounded I was left behind.

I started campaigning the film via social media by myself. But at a rapid pace, I saw my general left-liberal followers disconnect more and more with my platforms. Hundreds of followers left me within two days. Cinema distributors, managers, and TV channels, who we wrote, asked for a confidential screener link. Not one of them wrote a single line back. I instead received a bunch of aggressive hate mails and threats afterwards. What did I do? What was my crime?

Ah, what the heck…we decided to self-distribute the film within independent cinemas. We succeeded and organized a tour through cinemas in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and the U.K. I traveled to most of the screenings for discussion with the audience. I wanted to find out how the audience was experiencing the film. It turned out to be a movie where the discussions were longer than the film itself. It was clear I made a controversial story, which was not what the ruling class and media elite wanted.

However, the majority of the audience were very open. They experienced the film as a tool, which was providing oxygen to the suffocating debate on climate. People are afraid to have a different opinion on climate change and energy. Social pressure and mainstream politicos are sucking the oxygen from the free thinkers and preventing any form of discussion.

Those who dare to speak out differently are being labeled as a “Trump voter” or “Far right.” Journalists and politicians we invited to attend a screening or discussion – and who pledged to come – reported sick one day in advance…They might call it responsibility, but in my opinion, it’s nothing more than censorship. Propagating the exclusion of opinions by “experts.”

It was very clear to me: The debate on climate and energy were even more sensitive than the debate on refugees, terrorism, and religion combined.

Where are the independent, critical journalists who are, despite the controversy, covering the different perspectives? Being the critical voices in times the world needs nuance to open up a debate for the benefit of the people?

I’m from the progressive left myself, son of a passionate journalist. I learned that we should believe in debate, no matter how different the others are or how dangerous the heretics can be. Debate is the key for a healthy society. Debating a healthy environment, protecting nature, biodiversity, religion, cultural diversity and even forms of extremism. With only one goal: Getting a workable solution and balance at the end of the debate.

From my dad, I learned that journalism is nothing more than providing information based on adversarial coverage, with integrity and respect. Exclusion of certain perspectives and groups only creates frustration, anger, and in the end, the populism we’re facing today. As a matter of fact, if democracy excludes opinions, dictatorial censorship will replace it.

To make a long story very short: The investment of roughly 60,000 Euros to produce the most important film in my life, left me behind with a sour taste and skimpy bank account.

But not only that, it left me with an even bigger fear. It wasn’t the loss of my friends or the climate fear.

It was openly excluding opinions and groups from the debate. Under the skin of that specific ‘responsibility’ were the frustrating ideologies fueled by radical movements and dividing society with extremism.

Frankly, I knew the film would face challenges, but not as much and aggressive as it eventually did. It let me experience and understand the deeper cause and consequences of polarization in a time where critical thinkers are needed.

Although there is a disappointment, this adventure fueled me with an untameable urge to break the silence and depoliticize the debate. Independent journalism is the key to nuance. However, I do realize we are a dying breed.

The film “The Uncertainty Has Settled” is screened in over 100 cinemas inside five countries, and has received three awards in Los Angeles, Berlin, and Austria. We opened heated discussions during congresses and screenings. It’s currently still touring until late July. Universities have purchased the movie as part of their education programs and by July it will be released online worldwide on iTunes, Amazon, and Vimeo.

It’s still rowing against the wind. But as I learned from renowned physicist and Professor Freeman Dyson: We are building beliefs on who is saying something rather than looking at observations and actual evidence. That’s why the world needs independent heretics!

Marijn Poels
http://www.marijnpoels.com

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 14, 2017 at 04:09AM

Uncategorized 14 Jun 2017

Reality Check: Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

“As scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”

At the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin took the podium to address a ballroom full of geologists on the dynamics of mass extinctions and power grid failures—which, he claimed, unfold in the same way.

“These are images from the NOAA website of the US blackout in 2003,” he said, pulling up a nighttime satellite picture of the glowing northeastern megalopolis, megawatts afire under the cold dark of space. “This is 20 hours before the blackout. You can see Long Island and New York City.”

“And this is seven hours into the blackout,” he said, pulling up a new map, cloaked in darkness. “New York City is almost dark. The blackout extended all the way up into Toronto, all the way out to Michigan and Ohio. It covered a huge section of both Canada and the United States. And it was largely due to a software bug in a control room in Ohio.”

Erwin is one of the world’s experts on the End-Permian mass extinction, an unthinkable volcanic nightmare that nearly ended life on earth 252 million years ago. He proposed that earth’s great mass extinctions might unfold like these power grid failures: most of the losses may come, not from the initial shock—software glitches in the case of power grid failures, and asteroids and volcanoes in the case of ancient mass extinctions—but from the secondary cascade of failures that follow. These are devastating chain reactions that no one understands. Erwin thinks that most mass extinctions in earth’s history—global die-offs that killed the majority of animal life on earth—ultimately resulted, not from external shocks, but from the internal dynamics of food webs that faltered and failed catastrophically in unexpected ways, just as the darkening eastern seaboard did in 2003.

“Because it was not clear how to manage that collapse—although after the fact it was clear that it should have been easily contained—it cascaded into failure of grids across the northeastern United States … I mention this because it turns out that, from a mathematical point of view, the problem of understanding these food webs is exactly the [same] problem as understanding the nature of the power grid. There’s a very rapid collapse of the ecosystem during these mass extinctions,” he said.

I had written to Erwin to get his take on the contemporary idea that there is currently a sixth mass extinction under way on our planet on par with the so-called Big Five mass extinctions in the history of animal life. Many popular science articles take this as a given, and indeed, there’s something emotionally satisfying about the idea that humans’ hubris and shortsightedness are so profound that we’re bringing down the whole planet with us.

Given how severely humans have damaged the natural world over the millennia, it was an idea I found attractive, and it’s one even shared by many geologists and paleontologists. Our destruction is so familiar—so synonymous with civilization—in fact, that we tend to overlook how strange the world that we’ve made has become. For instance, it stands to reason that, until very recently, all vertebrate life on the planet was wildlife. But astoundingly, today wildlife accounts for only 3 percent of earth’s land animals; human beings, our livestock, and our pets take up the remaining 97 percent of the biomass. This Frankenstein biosphere is due both to the explosion of industrial agriculture and to a hollowing out of wildlife itself, which has decreased in abundance by as much as 50 percent since 1970. This cull is from both direct hunting and global-scale habitat destruction: almost half of the earth’s land has been converted to farmland.

The oceans have endured a similar transformation in only the past few decades as the industrial might developed during World War II has been trained on the seas. [….]

So things don’t look so good, no matter where we look. Yes, the victims in the animal world include scary apex predators that pose obvious threats to humans, like lions, whose numbers have dropped from 1 million at the time of Jesus to 450,000 in the 1940s to 20,000 today—a decline of 98 percent. But also included have been unexpected victims, like butterflies and moths, which have declined in abundance by 35 percent since the 1970s.

Like all extinction events, so far this one has been phased and complex, spanning tens of thousands of years and starting when our kind left Africa. Other mass extinctions buried deep in earth’s history have similarly played out over tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years. To future geologists, then, the huge wave of extinctions a few thousand years ago as First Peoples spread out into new continents and remote archipelagoes will be all but indistinguishable from the current wave of destruction loosed by modernity and its growing appetites. Surely we’ve earned our place in the pantheon next to the greatest ecological catastrophes of all time: the so-called Big Five mass extinctions of earth history. Surely our Anthropocene extinction can confidently take its place next to the juggernauts of deep time—the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions.

Erwin says no. He thinks it’s junk science.

“Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, much less how truly awful the mass extinctions recorded in the marine fossil record actually were,” he wrote me in an email. “It is absolutely critical to recognize that I am NOT claiming that humans haven’t done great damage to marine and terrestrial [ecosystems], nor that many extinctions have not occurred and more will certainly occur in the near future. But I do think that as scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”