The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy
In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.
The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.
By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".
Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.
The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:
- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.
- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.
In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.
The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.
As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.
I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.
Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.
I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.
The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.
Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.
Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):
Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000
Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:
Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000
If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.
So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.
Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 — Blog Index
The leaked emails raise even more doubt about the honesty of the science underpinning AGW and as long as there is even a hint of fraud in the air, public opinion and future elections will go against those seeking to control CO2 emissions.
There's only one way to address the public skepticism and that's a full review of the IPCC's fourth assessment starting with making all data and metadata publicly available for every study, graph or reconstruction used in that assessment. Any submission that can't or won't meet that level of transparency should be regarded as not peer reviewed and removed from the assessment. Anyone who believes the science of AGW is sound has nothing to fear and everything to gain. Yes it will take time, but as you'll see, nothing is going to happen in Copenhagen anyway, nor will it ever happen without such transparency.
You can blame the oil companies, but the climate science community is also to blame for thinking the world is going to spend trillions of dollars on CO2 reduction based on closely held proprietary data and metadata, particularly given the history of manufacturers of doubt. What were they thinking?
You are talking horse-manure. From a cow, there.
Do you not see the impossibility in what you are describing?
Even in LaLa Land, if, by some pure luck of the draw, AGW was the correct interpretation, no matter how much CO2 is removed today, all of the prognostications are only for the current global population. What happens when the population doubles? What happens when it triples as has been predicted, by the US Bureau of Statistics, to occur in around 2070?
Do we start cutting down trees so that they don't drop their leaves and introduce more carbon as the leaves decay? Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Kinda sounds like the AGW crowd with their solutions as well.
How can we reconcile the fact that a large proportion of the AGW crowd gleefully circles the globe to attend meetings, spewing untold tons of carbon into the atmosphere, when those same meetings could be done over the internet?
Hiding the raw data, blowing carbon into the atmosphere with glee, then lecturing the rest of us on our waste and demanding that we give up our hard earned money so that they can afford to buy those carbon offsets , which they use, subsequently, to justify violating the very principles that they demand we live by?
Does that seem right to you?
I do agree that solar, wind, tidal and hydro-electric energy will be our way to the other side of this predicament. Lying to us that carbon credits are a good thing, for example, only goes to show that removal of carbon is not the goal, it is the excuse. What excuse? The excuse to steal our hard earned money from us. It is a get rich scheme, nothing more nothing less.
Dr. Masters could and should be standing up, demanding transparency with the data and calling upon all the scientists to release any and all of their data, raw and processed, for the rest of us to inspect.
Why hasn't he?
Maybe he doesn't want the truth to get out for fear of being embarrassed after having given support to something so dreadfully incorrect.
I'm just saying...
Excellent one.
AMEN.
(right, I am all caught-up now)
over-breeding...therein lies a major part of the problem.
The life expectancy in Europe, 200 years ago, was 45 yrs I believe.
But doubling or tripling the world's population?
More children born that can not be supported by their own families, without gov't help?
That's my point.
You're very welcome, and hope you're having a wonderful Thanksgiving, CosmicEvents!
Hey, folks, you really don't have to argue, I mean discuss, AGW/climate change today...I mean, you get carte blanche to post anything you want, and what I'm seeing here is that you still WANT to vent about the topic. Sigh, being around family really does make people whacky.
Enjoy the rest of the holiday and weekend, please!
What's for dinner? I was going to make chicken & matzoh ball soup for a light late supper, but I'm not sure we can even handle that after grazing all afternoon!
NWS For North Carolina Mountains
Northwest winds will increase to 25 to 35 mph by late this
evening... with gusts to around 60 mph along the higher ridges.
The winds will remain gusty through the day Friday into Friday
evening. This in combination with the wet soil conditions will
likely result in downed trees across the higher elevations. In
addition... some light snow accumulations are possible along the
highest west facing ridges late tonight and into Friday... which
will result in some blowing of snow across roadways and locally
reduced visibilities.
1inch of snow for northern mountains with gusts to 60.
1-3 inches for southern mountains with gusts to 55.
High wind warnings north, wind advisory and winter weather advisory south.
Line of rain pushing east of the mountains down in elevation has been producing hail in spots covering the ground.
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
1030 AM CST THU NOV 26 2009
...FIRST FREEZE EXPECTED ACROSS PORTIONS OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
AND SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA...
.A VERY COOL AND DRY AIR MASS WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE INTO THE AREA
TODAY AND TONIGHT. AS THE SURFACE RIDGE BECOMES MORE CENTERED OVER
THE LOCAL AREA...CLEAR SKIES...LOW DEWPOINTS AND CALM OR VERY LIGHT
WINDS WILL ALLOW FOR VERY EFFICIENT RADIATIVE COOLING OVERNIGHT.
TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO PLUMMET NEAR DAYBREAK FRIDAY AND A
FEW HOURS OF FREEZING TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED ACROSS THE
NORTHEASTERN HALF OF THE LOCAL FORECAST AREA. THIS INCLUDES AREAS
THAT ARE GENERALLY ALONG AND NORTH OF A ST. FRANCISVILLE TO
HAMMOND TO SLIDELL TO PASCAGOULA LINE. THE COLDEST TEMPERATURES
ARE EXPECTED ACROSS PIKE AND WALTHALL COUNTIES...WHERE AN HOUR OR
TWO OF TEMPERATURES IN THE UPPER 20S CANNOT BE RULED OUT.
LAZ035>040-MSZ068>071-077-080>082-270030-
/O.NEW.KLIX.FZ.W.0007.091127T0900Z-091127T1300Z/
WEST FELICIANA-EAST FELICIANA-ST. HELENA-TANGIPAHOA-WASHINGTON-
ST. TAMMANY-WILKINSON-AMITE-PIKE-WALTHALL-PEARL RIVER-HANCOCK-
HARRISON-JACKSON-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...ST. FRANCISVILLE...JACKSON...CLINTON...
GREENSBURG...MONTPELIER...HAMMOND...PONCHATOULA...BOGALUSA...
FRANKLINTON...SLIDELL...MANDEVILLE...COVINGTON...LACOMBE...
CENTREVILLE...WOODVILLE...GLOSTER...LIBERTY...CROSBY...MCCOMB...
TYLERTOWN...PICAYUNE...BAY ST. LOUIS...WAVELAND...DIAMONDHEAD...
GULFPORT...BILOXI...PASCAGOULA...OCEAN SPRINGS...MOSS POINT...
GAUTIER...ST. MARTIN
1030 AM CST THU NOV 26 2009
...FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 3 AM TO 7 AM CST FRIDAY...
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NEW ORLEANS HAS ISSUED A FREEZE
WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 3 AM TO 7 AM CST FRIDAY.
TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO FALL BELOW FREEZING FOR A FEW HOURS
TOWARD DAYBREAK FRIDAY ACROSS SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI AND PORTIONS OF
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA THAT ARE GENERALLY ALONG AND NORTH OF A LINE
FROM ST. FRANCISVILLE TO HAMMOND TO SLIDELL TO PASCAGOULA.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
A FREEZE WARNING MEANS SUB-FREEZING TEMPERATURES ARE IMMINENT OR
HIGHLY LIKELY. THESE CONDITIONS MAY KILL CROPS AND OTHER SENSITIVE
VEGETATION.
Nov 26, pm.
Dreadful day. Stuck in Tobago airport for 3 hrs while Trinidad airspace shut down due to arrival of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11. And several dozen other Leaders of the Commonwealth of Nations. 53 in all, I believe. Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia, Tonga, Anguilla, Brunei, St.Kitts, you name it, they are all here. Several cruise ships alongside to acommodate the media and all that. Glad to be home with the Magic Bottle. Never seems to go down. City is virtually shut down from tomorrow to Monday. Suits me. I'll be right here. 2" rain on Wed., with gusty winds blowing down some houses south of here.
I have heard it said that the Earth can sustain tripple the current population. OF HUMANS that is. Cant think what is going to have to happen to every other life-form! Kind of scary, that thought.
Moo....
Link above has several outside cams in the mountains of NC with a few others. Some are at ski resorts, give it another 5hours before the snow hits. Not sure how long they will last or be visible with night and 60mph winds!
I use this website all winter. Check it out!
If the power does not fail, check the cams Friday when daylight arrives to see if it snowed up in the high country.
Good one. How you doing?
Hangin' in there like a hair in a biscuit...
It hasn't updated past 180 hrs on Accuweather pro..
Keep good.
18Z GFS 10-image Loop
I've been on the other side of that mess; Summit of the Americas in Quebec; G-8 in Calgary.
Fabulous food in Quebec and free Rodeo & swag in Calgary made it worth it for me, though!
So sorree; at least Paradise is there for you... I have to find it, LOL.
Thanks for a great episode, to your chagrin!
South Florida StormWatch
(main site)
AOI
AOI
AOI
AOI
Humor in Comments
A little further south and it would resemble the 1993 outbreak. Models still slap happy with the area of interest?
What happened to StormW?
We may have something here boys...
Is that Climate Change is just one issue. A large one at that, but just one.
There is also:
deforestation - 95% of all rainforests gone
loss of coral - could be gone in our lifetimes
water crisis - U.S. government agencies and others find that 1/3 of countries will face large water shortages in 2015, and 2/3 by 2025.
oil - oil could peak in the next 5 to 10 years and many oil executives embrace.
fish - all viable fisheries could be gone within the next 30 years.
It comes down to a fundamental difference to the way that we think and operate with ourselves and our planet. Not really more complicated than that.
The results we could create by resolving these issues could easily create such tremendous prosperity for us all. Let's remember that we are planet floating through the middle of no where in the universe. Our potential as a people is infinite, and we can create anything we want. It is our choice.
Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.
To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.
The paper initially tackles the concept of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere (vital for any discussion of radiative heat transfer) and how it is affected by carbon dioxide, which, they point out, is a trace gas. The current estimated concentration of CO2 is 0.04% by volume and 0.06% by mass. Gerlich and Tscheuschner show that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% -- within the margin of measuring error.
(Hit the link for the entire interesting read... I am sure that the results are rather surprising...)
Well, for oil, my understanding is that the GOM holds at least as much oil reserves as Saudi Arabia. And, there are other known Western Hemisphere reserves.
And more discoveries consistently.
For water, easy, worst case scenario is desalination plants.
Realistically, water is an unlimited resource.
Deforestation? You should want warming. History shows that warmer = more vegetation.
Coral? Don't know enough to comment.
Fish? Certainly over-fished in areas, but fisheries? You are kidding, right?
As with the lumber industry in the US, they produce way more than they consume. Hmmm... I have a business that is based on a renewable resource. Call me crazy, but I would renew at a larger rate than I consume. When matured, I win. Really a win win, even excluding the fact that new growth vegetation sucks up way more CO2 (if that's your issue) than old growth.
OK. I'll take that for now, but will research. Heard it somewhere, but by no means do I know that as fact.
I am a verify kind of guy.
Ike! it's COLD!!
do something!!
Depends where you were.
If you were in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, in areas such as Liverpool, Manchester, and Bradford, you would be lucky to see 20.
Even in 1900 - so a 100 years ago - only a handful of places were you expected to see 45. Of course, it depended on the rural/urban divide.
Only Scandinavian countries had an average over 50 overall. Britain was 46 for a male, 50 for a female. Roughly the same for the United States. However, these were just the higher ones. Even in 1900, Spain or Portugal didn't have a life expectancy above 40. Neither did countries such as Austria-Hungary (as it was then known), Greece, and Czechoslovakia (though that was also submerged in Empires at the time, and of course those two countries split in 1993).
Sure, some people did hit 65 and over, it wasn't a totally mythical age. It wasn't helped by so many people in squalid conditions and a destitute life which distorts the overall average. Unfortunately, that was the sign of the times. 'Course, Pottery's comment remains the same. Both of those things have been improved dramatically over the last hundred years (and particularly the last fifty). Though, population will eventually sort itself out as birth rates are already declining in places, such as Germany.
But back to the weather... It's not raining in Britain for once. At least here. Cumbria and SW Scotland are seemingly going to avoid any substantial rain for the near future. Gives it a good chance to dry out, as it's still quite bad up there.
Finally seeing a bit cooler weather here. After the heavy storms on Wednesday night I hoped for cooler temps yesterday, but that didn't eventuate. It seems like it will be cooler today, though. At last.
TTYL
Viewing: 601 - 651
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 — Blog Index