Uncategorized

Arianna Huffington clarifies editorial policy around climate skepticism

The other day Andrew Dessler and I wrote about a piece of climate skeptic hoo-ha that somehow got published on Huffington Post. There was nothing particularly notable about the piece itself -- just the usual recycled confusions and distortions -- but it was somewhat remarkable that it appeared on a progressive news site whose proprietor has strongly criticized mainstream journalism for its pathological and misleading "balance" even on settled issues of fact.

Now, via email, Arianna Huffington clarifies:

Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost's editorial view -- and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others -- and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.

When Ambler sent his post, I forwarded it to one of our associate blog editors to evaluate, not having read it. I get literally hundreds of posts a week submitted like this and obviously can't read them all -- which is why we have an editorial process in place. The associate blog editor published the post. It was an error in judgment. I would not have posted it. Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

This, shall we say, casts a new light on a comment that Ambler left on our piece over on HuffPo:

Again, my full response will be a couple of weeks from now. In the meantime, there is a second factual error in your piece regarding how I got posted on HuffPo. My only contact with the site prior to being published was Arianna Huffington herself, who read my piece, accepted it, and directed her staff to post it.

Sure she did, Harold.

Anyway, kudos to Huffington for taking responsibility and clarifying her site's editorial approach.

Now we can all get on with our lives ... until the next skeptic fruitcake resurrects the same zombie lies on some other unsuspecting site. Then we start all over again. It never gets old!

White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution

Part 1 introduced urban heat island mitigation (UHIM). It discussed how lighter colored (or reflective) roofs and pavement, plus urban trees, can save energy, cut CO2 emissions, cool a city, and reduce smog.

But a global "cool roofs" strategy can achieve far bigger benefits -- the equivalent of several trillion dollars worth of CO2 reductions -- since it can increase the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet, thereby directly reducing the absorption of incoming solar radiation and hence planetary warming. The strategy proposed below "is equivalent to taking the world's approximately 600 million cars off the road for 18 years."

(100 m2 (~1000 ft2) of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offsets the emission of 10 tonnes of CO2.)

This is technically geoengineering, although I'd call it geoengineering-light or geo-reverse-engineering, since we are mostly undoing the albedo decrease caused by all the dark roofs and dark pavement we have covered the planet with.

A forthcoming article in Climatic Change, "Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2," [PDF] provides the detailed calculations. A two-page non-technical summary, "White Roofs Cool the World, Directly Offset CO2 and Delay Global Warming," [PDF] has been written by two of the country's leading UHIM experts: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Hashem Akbari and California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld (coauthors with me on "Paint the Town White -- and Green"). I have reprinted it below:

More on Jones and green jobs in the New Yorker

Elizabeth Kolbert waxes New Yorker-ish over Van the Man. You know, in case you've been busy under that rock.

They affect consumers the same either way, and upstream is simpler and more transparent

In his post on conservatives and carbon taxes, David said:

First, we have to remember all the places the price signal created by an upstream tax can be diluted or stymied on the way to consumers -- i.e., those who can change their behavior in response to prices. Not every industry or business will pass an increase in operating costs directly on to the next link in the chain. Information failures and split incentives abound. Price signals that begin strong, catholic, and clear become fragmented and faint downstream. For all the hype, an upstream carbon price will deliver fairly little incentive to where the carbon is used.

There are two problems with this: It is overstated, and it places blame in the wrong place, i.e., the fact that the tax is levied upstream.

An open reply to James Hansen's open letter

Dear Dr. Hansen:

An old engineer's dictum says "fast, cheap, good: pick two." Unfortunately, and I'm sure completely contrary to your intention, your solution to global warming favors "cheap" over fast.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a "smart grid" deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

Fourth generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job).

OK, this begs the question of why depending on efficiency, carbon negative forestry and agriculture, and renewables would leave us "in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide."

We certainly have the physical capacity to build wind and solar generators that could provide all our power. Archer and Jacobson, perhaps the world's leading experts on wind potential, estimate that wind energy at 80 meters in commercially developable sites alone could could supply [PDF] five times the world's current energy demand. Note the emphasis: That is not five times world's current electricity consumption, but five times total world energy consumption, including cars and factories and non-electric heating¹. Similarly, solar thermal power plants of the type already running in U.S. deserts² can provide the world's entire energy needs [PDF] from less than 1 percent of total desert land³. Those are only two possibilities, albeit the ones with the biggest potential with today's technology.

Chinese power production plunges

On DotEarth, Andy Revkin brings us this amazing graph:

(Credit: Richard K. Morse, Stanford University. Data from China's National Bureau of Statistics)

Says Revkin:

Researchers at Stanford University who closely track China's power sector, coal use, and carbon dioxide emissions have done an initial rough projection and foresee China possibly emitting somewhere between 1.9 and 2.6 billion tons less carbon dioxide from 2008 to 2010 than it would have under "business as usual" if current bearish trends for the global economy hold up.

'Anti-science syndrome' plagues the right-wing as well as blogosphere

Note: Watts Up With That, one of the web's most anti-scientific blogs, is a finalist for the Weblog award "Best Science Blog." Even more farcically, early voting suggests Watts has a chance of winning (see here). Since the fine science blog Pharyngula is doing well in the voting, I'd now suggest voting for it.

 

In this post I'm going to present the general diagnosis for "anti-science syndrome" (ASS). Like most syndromes, ASS is a collection of symptoms that individually may not be serious, but taken together can be quite dangerous -- at least it can be dangerous to the health and well-being of humanity if enough people actually believe the victims.

One tell-tale symptom of ASS is that a website or a writer focuses their climate attacks on non-scientists. If that non-scientist is Al Gore, this symptom alone may be definitive.

The other key symptoms involve the repetition of long-debunked denier talking points, commonly without links to supporting material. Such repetition, which can border on the pathological, is a clear warning sign.

Scientists who kept restating and republishing things that had been widely debunked in the scientific literature for many, many years would quickly be diagnosed with ASS. Such people on the web are apparently heroes -- at least to the right wing and/or easily duped.

If you suspect someone of ASS, look for the repeated use of the following phrases:

Diesel technology has peaked

I just encountered a typical lay media puff piece about the 2009 diesel Jetta, which won the Green Car award this year.

Did you know that the next generation of diesel-powered cars and SUVs is 98 percent cleaner than diesels sold just two years ago?

No, but I also didn't know that the older models were that dirty!

Did you know these new clean diesels offer 23 to 43 percent better fuel economy than the same vehicle with a gasoline engine?

Sounds impressive! Until you go to the EPA green vehicle website and discover that the gasoline version with a standard transmission gets an air pollution score of 9 compared to this car's 6.

Skeptic screed on progressive news site recycles familiar myths

This post was co-written with David Roberts.

Recently Harold Ambler, climate crank and proprietor of TalkingAboutTheWeather.com, published an essay on Huffington Post replete with gross factual errors about the science of climate change.

Word is that this was an editorial slip-up on HuffPo's part; they don't typically provide a place for this kind of agitprop. The essay is gone from the site's portal pages and rumor has it The Huff herself may address the issue soon.

Regardless, the essay is out there getting skeptics all twitterpated (again). These folks can't find a scientific journal with two hands and a flashlight, but nothing escapes their RSS feeds.

So lets examine a few of the claims again. After all, the only thing hucksters need is for the rest of us to get tired of repeating the same damn truths over and over again. Right?

Right off the bat Mr. Ambler recycles a classic, one of the most durable and thoroughly discredited skeptic chestnuts:

Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide [in the ice age record], unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.

The basic science of atmospheric carbon dioxide is well explained in the IPCC reports and on numerous web sites, including in Grist's How to Talk to a Skeptic series. It's puzzling that it continues to confuse skeptics.

Newsweek once again deceives its readers about energy alternatives

Two Stanford scholars have taken to the pages of Newsweek to pen a piece on "clean coal" that embodies all the pretzel logic surrounding that subject.

It's called "Dirty Coal Is Winning" -- and the reason dirty coal is winning, we're told, is that we're not dumping enough money into the quest for clean coal. Oh, and those pesky environmentalists:

Environmentalists, in their opposition to coal of any kind, may provide the coup de grâce. Greenpeace, riffing on James Bond, is hawking a "Coalfinger" spoof on the internet and is deep in a campaign to stop all new coal plants. U.S. environmental groups recently announced a campaign to expose clean coal as a chimera. Thanks to such efforts, in the United States it's now nearly impossible to build any kind of coal plant, including tests of clean technology. As the world economy recovers, nations will once again turn to their old stalwart, dirty coal.

Damn greens! Their efforts to expose the fact that there's no such thing as clean coal are preventing us from creating something called clean coal. (But seriously: Can someone point to a bona fide test of coal with CCS that enviros prevented? Not "CCS ready," that is, but actual CCS?)

Notice, though, the unspoken premise here: Our choice is dirty coal or "clean coal." If we don't spend billions on "clean coal," we're stuck with dirty coal.

It says something extremely bad about our energy debate that you can write a piece in Newsweek that simply assumes that premise, without defense. Let's go down the same old path: