In 1988, Jim Hansen’s Senate Testimony shook my world.  How did his predictions hold up?

Below, more on what scientists knew, and when. Read the rest of this entry »

Immediately after the dire National Climate Assessment projections were released a few weeks ago, NBC’s Chuck Todd gave his Meet the Press national forum to a climate denier – a choice so drearily sad and familiar that it awakened a sense of shame and outrage that was loud enough, and long enough – to bring about an attempt to make good.
Today’s MTP featured a full hour on climate.

20 years late, but it’s a start.

Below, putrid non-scientist denial shill.

More Ocean heat = stronger storms, more precipitation. Physics.

 

Until he and Aunt Teabag start watching something besides Fox News, they’re doomed to be ignorant and obnoxious.

Chatty discussion of why internal combustion is doomed.

More details below. Scads of new EV startups coming. Q. Can a vacuum cleaner company make an EV that doesn’t suck? Read the rest of this entry »

sunturbine1small

I was raised a Catholic, but don’t take communion any more for fear I would burst into flames.

Still, great to see significant slice of Christians represented by the Christian Coalition are proponents of renewable energy.

Keith Den Hollander is Chair of the Christian Coalition of Michigan.

Keith Den Hollander in the Crawfordsville Journal Review (Indiana):

When we talk about wind energy, what are we really talking about? Different people equate the topic with many different things. For some, the first thing that comes to mind is renewable energy and being more environmental. For others, it is a conversation about climate change. For still others, it brings to mind newer forms of technology and advanced energy alternatives.

Some see it as a political issue, pitting right versus left. Others see it as a moral issue, pitting right versus wrong. Some people are thrilled at the prospect of having it in their community, while others do not share in that excitement.

For the Christian Coalition of Indiana, it symbolizes the same things that are symbolized by solar, hydro, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and nuclear energy. Wind energy symbolizes an energy resource that is not manipulated by global conflicts and markets, thus making our country more energy independent, and secure.

We have never had to engage in a middle east conflict to protect our access to affordable wind. No troops have been deployed in relation to it. The price of wind energy has never increased because of refinery failure, shut down pipelines, or supply disruption due to war. Much like nuclear energy, renewable energy is a domestic source of energy that is locally created, locally priced, and entirely independent of the fluctuations of the global markets.

As our country continues its natural progression away from coal, and toward a more robust use of natural gas, we should not ignore the fact that we are also marching ever closer to having the ability to export our natural gas to other countries. A quick perusal of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions website will reveal that the January landed price of this natural gas is nearly four times higher in many other countries than it is here at home.

It doesn’t take an economist to realize that as our supplies become globalized, so will costs. While we may not increase four times, even a doubling of the cost here at home could lead to significantly higher energy costs Indiana homeowners.

Wind energy, or any form of renewable energy is not about going green, or fighting climate change, or even about your view out your back window. It is about securing a diverse portfolio that will provide more stability in an increasingly unstable energy marketplace. It is about having a mix of energy that does not require us to send our men and women, sons and daughter, or other loved ones into a dangerous part of the world to protect our access to it.

I understand that some people find turbines unsightly, and that is an opinion to which they have every right, but I guarantee you that the view of troops on the front lines in the middle east is a whole lot worse.

Read the rest of this entry »

I bagged 20+ interviews with key scientists at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in DC.
I’ll be bringing them out in coming months, but I think this message from Permafrost expert Ben Abbott is worth sharing for starters.

Americans are ignorant, in general, about climate change. Even “green” progressive types often don’t understand the impacts, or, importantly, the range of options for action.

Clearly, anyone who is not alarmed about climate change does not understand the problem. That said, alarm to the point of paralysis does not seem like a good idea.
How best to convey the gravity of our situation without people emotionally checking out?
Coming video will explore this, with Dr Abbott, among others, contributing.

Huffington Post:

“I’m certain that most Americans would be a lot more worried about climate change if they understood even a small fraction of what has been projected by climate scientists in (recent reports). As a public health professional (and as a human), I find the prospect of 3 or 4 degree C of global warming to be nothing short of terrifying,” Ed Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, said in an email. “Thus, we need to do a much better job of sharing what we know about the likely impacts of global warming, because people are not nearly as worried as the situation warrants.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Earth is headed for a planetary catastrophe, Americans just aren’t that bothered about climate change. Only around half have thought about it more than “a little,” according to research from Yale and George Mason University. Only around a third say it is personally important to them, and just one in five say they are “very worried” about it. Numbers like that suggest scientists and advocates have perhaps been too cheerful on climate change, too reluctant to speak to the catastrophe to come.

Impacts at 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C of warming.

CARBON BRIEF: Impacts at 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C of warming.

Read the rest of this entry »