1681

Given the audience I understand why Phil Plait wrote it the way he did. His audience is much less… academically inclined… than your link.

But your point is well taken.

1682

Ya, that’s the biggest problem with all this stuff… You have a bunch of complex scientific stuff that’s being presented to non-scientific people, and unsurprisingly, this doesn’t make any sense.

1683

I was criticizing the journalism, not the underlying reasons for sexing up the data.

1684

I was wondering about the Monarchs. I used to see huge numbers of them once a year as they passed through :/. I’m sure the recent droughts haven’t helped at all - much of the countryside has been ravaged by drought for years. Prairie dog and rabbit populations have all plummeted as well. Even the mesquites are dying from lack of water. That’s almost like saying cactus dying from heat and drought. It’s got to be bad.

1685

I recall being driven to Chicago to visit relatives. I was around 10, 11. Twice we ended up driving through tremendous flocks of monarchs. We had to slow down because visibility was so bad. A truly amazing experience.

1686

While the west throttles energy production, causing massive price hikes and inferior products and services, the US signs deals that allow China and India to more than double coal output over the next 20 years: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-29/news/58586736_1_coal-output-plan-generation-renewable-portfolio

Re China - not very comforting outlook:

screenhunter_5214-dec-15-07-31.gif589×580

1687

If you cared, you’d be arguing for pushing nuclear plant research and sharing thereof internationally, not trying to suppress US wages to Chinese levels to suppress goods to Chinese-quality levels (well below “shoddy” in many cases).

1688

‘US at risk of mega-drought future’:

The American south-west and central plains could be on course for super-droughts the like of which they have not witnessed in over a 1,000 years.

Places like California are already facing very dry conditions, but these are quite gentle compared with some periods in the 12th and 13th Centuries.

Scientists have now compared these earlier droughts with climate simulations for the coming decades.

The study suggests events unprecedented in the last millennium may lie ahead.

“These mega-droughts during the 1100s and 1200s persisted for 20, 30, 40, 50 years at a time, and they were droughts that no-one in the history of the United States has ever experienced,” said Ben Cook from Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

“The droughts that people do know about like the 1930s ‘dustbowl’ or the 1950s drought or even the ongoing drought in California and the Southwest today - these are all naturally occurring droughts that are expected to last only a few years or perhaps a decade. Imagine instead the current California drought going on for another 20 years.”

Dr Cook’s new study is published in the journal Science Advances, and it has been discussed also at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

There is already broad agreement that the American Southwest and the Central Plains (a broad swathe of land from North Texas to the Dakotas) will dry as a consequence of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But Dr Cook’s research has tried to focus specifically on the implications for drought.

1689

‘Australia divestment war shows investment is now the main climate change battleground’:

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/29/australia-divestment-war-anu-investment-climate-change-battleground

For those following the rapid change in the climate change debate towards a more financial system orientation, a remarkable situation is unfolding in Australia that will act as a pointer to future developments elsewhere.

In response to the fossil fuel free divestment campaign, the pride of the Australian education system, the Australian National University (ANU), finally caved to pressure and decided to engage the services of a socially responsible investment analyst firm to look at climate change issues.

As a result of this analysis, ANU declared that it was divesting in a few carbon exposed companies. Nothing new in this, many organisations have done the same, but what quickly ensued was an extraordinary series of high-powered public clashes that could be a taste of things to come in other countries’ backyards.

The story exploded into a heavyweight battle between current and former prime ministers, party leaders and global notables. And the current Australian government showed that it simply doesn’t know the difference between socially responsible investment, fossil fuel divestment and financial risk management. The Australian Prime Minister himself Tony Abbott declared the ANU’s decision “stupid” and said that entities following suit were depriving members of good returns.

Those members to which Abbott referred are increasingly aware that over half of their average pension portfolio is in carbon-exposed investments, so they don’t need to worry too much that they are depriving the fossil fuel based industries of capital. Quite the opposite as less than 2% of portfolios is in low carbon alternatives representing a 25-1 gamble on business as usual for high carbon investments.

In a stunning misreading of the tea leaves, the Australian prime minister went further, announcing that coal was good for humanity. But with a 40% slump in coal prices since 2011, it sadly isn’t good for retirement savings and unlikely to benefit from better carbon risk management by investors.

The notion that this debate could occur over a decision to divest less than 1% of a portfolio that doesn’t rank even near the 50 largest in Australia is a strong pointer to the rest of us that investment is now the main climate battleground. Globally, ANU’s investment size doesn’t even make the top 1000.

An interesting thing to follow, this divestment from fossil fuels stuff. It’s certainly one way to ensure companies that lobby around democracy (ie bribes to elected officials etc) do feel the heat of public opinion, and in that i’m all for it.

1690

‘Fossil fuel industry must take stranded assets seriously, says Tim Yeo’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/fossil-fuel-industry-must-take-stranded-assets-seriously-say-tim-yeo

The chairman of parliament’s energy and climate change committee has joined those warning the fossil fuel industry to take the threat of stranded assets seriously, and believes Shell is wrong to write off critics as naive.

Tim Yeo, a veteran Conservative MP and nuclear enthusiast, also expressed alarm at the latest delays at the new Hinkley Point building project in Somerset, saying he hoped they would not lead to eventual cancellation.

Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, told a dinner of the international petroleum industry last week that those who argued fossil fuels should be kept in the ground were misguided in a world of rising energy demand.

Yeo, however, said the company should be wary: “I do believe the problem of stranded assets [where fossil fuels are rendered worthless because they cannot be burned in a world threatened by global warming] is a real one now.

“Investors are starting to think by 2030 the world will be in such a panic about climate change that either by law or by price it will be very hard to burn fossil fuels on anything like the scale we are doing at the moment.”

Catherine Mitchell, professor of energy policy at Exeter University, said it was disingenuous of Van Beurden to accuse industry critics of being naive given the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) had warned about the dangers of a carbon bubble.

“We have to recognise those realities, but its disingenuous to attack critics over stranded assets given the findings of the IPCC. Shell’s comments are also undermined by its commitment to drilling in wilderness areas.”

The Green MP Caroline Lucas said that the IPCC’s evidence made clear that 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground.

“Shell has given evidence to MPs on the environmental audit committee several times now, on each occasion demonstrating a shocking disregard for climate science and for the wider environmental risks of their reckless oil drilling plans – notably in the Arctic.

1691

‘Fossil fuel industry protests over ‘risky’ assets warning from energy secretary’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/18/fossil-fuel-industry-protests-over-risky-assets-warning-from-energy-secretary

The fossil fuel industry was deeply “unsettled” by comments from energy secretary Ed Davey raising the prospect that their assets could be rendered worthless by global action on climate change, according to a letter of protest sent to the secretary of state.

Malcolm Webb, chief executive of Oil and Gas UK, which represents the industry, wrote to Davey saying he was “perplexed” by the “conflicting and confusing messages” and accused him of making investment in the North Sea less attractive. The letter was released to the Guardian under freedom of information rules.

The issue was also raised by Erik Bonino, chairman of Shell UK, at a meeting with Davey in January, at which Bonino said if Shell “knew there were to be no more fossil fuels, [it] could cash out and give shareholders their money back in four years”.

The strong reactions reveal the depth of concern inside fossil fuel companies at analyses showing there are already three times more fossil fuels in proven reserves than can be burned if global warming is to be limited to 2C, the pledge made by the world’s nations. If a global climate deal makes good on that pledge, those coal, oil and gas reserves could become worthless, potentially losing investors trillions of dollars. Fossil fuel companies, which spent $650bn in 2013, searching for more reserves are also under attack from a fast-growing divestment campaign, which has persuaded over 180 groups to dump their fossil fuel stocks.

Davey made the comments at the UN’s climate change summit in Lima in December, saying that some analysts estimated that the action needed to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change could result in the global fossil fuel industry losing as much as $28tn (£18tn) in the next 20 years. Davey said he supported calls for asset managers and banks to disclose the size of their fossil fuel holdings to investors. “There is a case for making it mandatory,” he said. “People need to know the risks.”

1692

So those last couple were uk-centric (but with international concerns), so now it’s time for Canada, but keep in mind this is ‘right-wing Canada’ the guys (like with Australia currently) that are fully in bed with the corporations that are part of the problem causing global warming:

‘Canadian mounties’ secret memo casts doubt on climate change threat’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/18/canadian-mounties-target-anti-oil-activists-in-secret-memo

The US security establishment views climate change as real and a dangerous threat to national security. But Canada takes a very different view, according to a secret intelligence memo prepared by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The memo, stamped “Canadian eyes only”, repeatedly casts doubt on the causes of climate change – the burning of fossil fuels – and its potential threat.

The 44-page intelligence assessment of Canada’s environmental protest movement was prepared for the government of Stephen Harper, who is expected to roll out new anti-terror legislation.

In the memo, obtained by Greenpeace and seen by the Guardian, the RCMP repeatedly departs from the conclusions of an overwhelming majority of scientists – and the majority of elected leaders in the international arena – that climate change is a growing threat to global security.

Instead, the memo on the “anti-Canada petroleum movement” presents continued expansion of oil and gas production as an inevitability, and repeatedly casts doubt on the causes and consequences of climate change.

It mentions the “perceived environmental threat from the continued use of fossil fuels”. It suggests that those concerned with the consequences of climate change occupy the political fringe.

1693

The memo, stamped “Canadian eyes only”,

This makes me immediately lean towards calling bullshit on this.

1694

Oh, it’s entirely bullshit (not Zak’s posting of it, but the notion that there’s any legitimacy to the memo). For one, the Canadian Royal Mounted Police don’t do “secret intelligence” aside from communicating information about criminals to other agencies. I mean, imagine your state troopers issuing a report over climate change. How hard would you laugh at it? Second, how the heck is it “secret” if it’s labeled to be meant for the eyes of an entire nation? Finally, even if it’s a legitimate report on environmental terrorist groups, why would that have anything to do with the science of climate change aside from saying “this is what they care about” in a blurb for each of them?

1695

It’s honestly like something you’d see on Southpark.
“Canadians! Open your box of faith!”

1696

Reading between the lines of the article, that’s exactly what the memo is. I’d wager the bulk of it is assessing the threat of terrorist (or at least what the security services deem terrorist) activity against Canadian companies from various environmental groups. Certainly that’s what the bits the Graun excerpts directly are doing.

Also, “For Canadian eyes only” is a legit classification.

1697

Seriously? I mean, that’s honestly and truthfully real? Good lord … (thanks for the info, by the way)

1698

Sure Dan. You’re always going to have an additional classification on some types of secret documents which mean “for your nationals only”.

Your equivalent in the US is “NOFORN” (NO FOReign National access allowed)
The UK uses “UK EYES ONLY”

(We also have “CANUKUS EYES ONLY”, which is UK, US and Canadian, and AUSCANNZUKUS, adding Australia and NZ for the “Five Eyes”. And there’s even funnier looking ones around too)

1699
1700

Can I say how much I love the idea, not even necessarily the truth, of there being a CANUKUS designation. We’ve got a whole bunch of Canucks coming through here!