This figure by Michael Tobis should have been published when the IPCC AR5 was released as a reminder of how skewed the public discussion of climate change really is. But I had forgotten about it and it took a twitter conversation/debate between Steve Easterbrook and Richard Betts to jog my memory.
I haven’t seen this reported elsewhere (so perhaps I am way off base) but I think the new statement of climate sensitivity in the IPCC AR5 represents some real good news compared with the statement in AR4 [more]
Here is the IPCC message: We are as certain that humans are radically changing the planet’s climate as we are that tobacco causes cancer. Peter Gleick
With the fate of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline still in the hands of U.S. President Barack Obama five years on, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a crowd of business leaders gathered in New York that he will not take no for an answer.
I suppose the next step is to make an offer Obama can’t refuse:
Recently a comment published in Nature made the case for a catastrophic release of the methane (a very potent GHG) in the Arctic which in turn could cause sudden warming and cause massive economic damage in the trillions of dollars.
An oil spill in a tar sand operation in Northern Alberta has been going on for weeks and nobody seems to understand how it happened or how to stop it.
We’ve considered every potential risk, except the risk of avoiding all risks [more]
The Star claims that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has given his new ministers an “enemy” list to ensure they don’t fall prey to anyone who might disagree with the government’s policies. People like artist Franke James claim to be “on it”.
From Climate Science Watch:
Two decisions handed down July 19 in DC Superior Court affirmed climate scientist Michael Mann’s right to proceed in his defamation lawsuit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review Online for their statements accusing him of data manipulation and fraud. The Court is not buying the Defendants arguments in their Motion to Dismiss that their statements are protected speech under the First Amendment, mere “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.”
For more background see here.
The R Street Institute, which split from the Heartland Institute after the billboard fiasco, has released a response to Obama’s renewed commitment to tackle climate change. Unsurprisingly, given R Street’s desire for small government, they aren’t happy about the use of a regulatory approach to reduce GHG emissions. Instead they call for conservatives to begin to constructively engage in the debate over climate policy: