SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (900553)11/13/2015 1:06:14 PM
From: gronieel2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577025
 
"Children won't know snow..." ...or math, or English, or even spelling.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (900553)11/13/2015 1:24:51 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1577025
 
How About Suing Bill McKibben For Racketeering?

By
William Tucker

McKibben and other environmental leaders have been deliberately hiding their views on nuclear power while
knowingly cooperating with anti-nuclear groups which have caused massive increases in US carbon emissions in Vermont, New England, and California. IOW US carbon emissions are much higher today BECAUSE of McKibben's and his green allies actions.



Bill McKibben, a writer for The New Yorker, has emerged as the leader of the popular movement to get us to give up fossil fuels. He is the founder of 350.org, which is intent on returning the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (it just passed 400).

McKibben has written more than a dozen books, including The End of Nature and most recently Oil and Money. His organization 350.org has sponsored 20,000 demonstrations around the world in every country except North Korea. He spearheaded the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and spent three days in jail in Washington after leading a demonstration. He was recently rewarded when President Obama cancelled the project. For his efforts he has been awarded the Right Livelihood Prize, sometimes called the “alternative Nobel.”

Recently he has turned to a new tactic – suing ExxonMobil for allegedly covering up their knowledge of global warming in the 1970s. Keying on reporting at the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News McKibben and others have latched on to the story that someone at ExxonMobil observed that excessive burning of fossil fuels might eventually warm the climate but the oil company did nothing about it. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island wants all climate deniers charged with racketeering. Of course all this assumes that the public would have reacted to the news any differently in 1975 than they have now. (Less than half the public believes global warming is a “very serious” problem.) But to McKibben, the press and liberal politicians it’s all part of one big conspiracy with a big rich oil company pulling the strings behind the scene. As McKibben told Rolling Stone:

'Exxon is,beyond any shadow of a doubt, morally and practically culpable for failing to speak up when they should have done so and could have saved the world a wasted quarter century. They helped waste what may turn out to be the most critical quarter century in human history.'

Now here’s an interesting story about Bill McKibben. I did a brief interview with him four years ago when he was just beginning his crusade for 350.org. The occasion was the Vermont “Solarfest,” an event held on a farm in rural Vermont every July. About 150 young enthusiasts camped on a hillside for several days, some selling wares or gathering petitions and all advertising the wonders of solar energy. Scattered in among them, however, were people also crusading for the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. They constituted about half the crowd.

After McKibben gave his rousing speech to an enthusiastic audience, I was able to grab him for a moment in back of the little makeshift stage. I asked him about nuclear power. He admitted that nuclear was going to be necessary if we were ever to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. “Why don’t you come out favorably in public for nuclear power, then?” I asked. He surveyed the hillside, almost half the people crusading against Vermont Yankee. “If I came out in favor of nuclear,” he said, “it would split this movement in half.”

So there you have it. McKibben, like many other environmentalists, knows in his heart that there isn’t much chance of reducing carbon output without nuclear. But he does not want to be caught saying so in public.

Now let’s look at what’s happened since then. Two years later, the Entergy Corporation gave in to nuclear protesters and decided to close Vermont Yankee. The reactor provided two-thirds of the state’s electricity and made it the lowest carbon generating jurisdiction in the country. Now Vermont is burning natural gas and importing some of its electricity from New York’s Indian Point reactors which are located on the lower Hudson River just north of New York City.

But that isn’t the end. Entergy is now planning to close the Pilgrim reactor, which provides eastern Massachusetts with carbon-free energy. In California, San Diego Electric was dragooned into closing the twin San Onofre reactors, a decision that threw 8 million tons of replacement carbon into the atmosphere – the equivalent of 1.6 million cars – and increased the state’s emissions by 35 percent. Now Entergy has announced it will also close the Fitzpatrick reactor in upstate New York – a move that has upset New York Governor Andrew Cuomo even though he has spent most of his time in office trying to close down Indian Point.

[ LOL Green anti-nuke policies have massively boosted US carbon emissions. Thank you, greens, for boosting the burning of natural gas. ]

The explanation of all this is that nuclear can’t compete with cheap natural gas, but that is not really true. What cripples nuclear is that it receives absolutely no credit for generating electricity without producing any carbon emissions. Despite all the yammering about cutting carbon, nuclear gets absolutely no advantage, financial or otherwise, for being a zero-carbon source. This has been reinforced by President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which gives states no credit for having carbon-free nuclear on their grid but only allows credit for newly constructed nuclear – as if anyone is ever going to get a permit for a new reactor past the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Being an environmentalist who favors nuclear is in fact not without its risks. You may recall the Audubon Society being active in the anti-nuclear movement around the time of Three Mile Island. Their spokesman was a Princeton nuclear physicist named Jan Beyea, who at one point appeared on William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line.” In the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration was trying to shut down nuclear entirely Beyea made an offhand remark that the government should at least continue to fund nuclear research. That remark caused Audubon to lose one-third of its funding and cost Beyea his job. Audubon quit energy altogether and went back to trying to protect birds from windmills.

In Canada last week a British Columbia man was arrested for making death threats against Professor Jay Cullen of Victoria University. Cullen had written a paper disputing the assertion that all the ocean life in the Pacific has been contaminated by radioactive fallout from Fukushima. Dana Dumford was charged with two counts of criminal harassment after posting a YouTube video calling for Professor Cullen’s death.

So it isn’t as if being an environmentalist who supports nuclear is completely free of dangers. Still, if McKibben and others have been willing to brave jail in order to halt Keystone, they shouldn’t be afraid to come out of the closet on nuclear. And if indeed McKibben and other environmental leaders have been deliberately hiding their views on nuclear while so much new carbon is dumped into the atmosphere, shouldn’t some ambitious attorney general charge them with conspiracy for keeping their support a secret during this most important quarter century in human history?

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2015/11/12/how_about_suing_bill_mckibben_for_racketeering_108880.html



To: Brumar89 who wrote (900553)11/14/2015 10:29:58 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577025
 
"One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet"

No, it hasn't. BTW, he didn't say there would be no snow in the future...

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,"

A rare and exciting event at WUWT Sou | 6:46 PM

A rare and exciting event has occurred at Anthony Watts' blog WUWT. He can't find one of what he calls his failed climate predictions. The rarity isn't that he couldn't find it, it's that he actually looked for the source! As you know, in deniersville, a climate prediction can fail as long as it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't have to be a near time prediction, it could be a prediction for the years well into the future. In fact, it doesn't even have to be a prediction to be a failed prediction. In deniersville, if a newspaper reporter (or occasionally a scientist) says anything about the future, and even if they don't, it can be added to one of those silly denier lists that float around cyberspace.

I don't know why Anthony Watts is so upset. He doesn't usually bother linking to original sources when he posts a list of so-called "failed predictions" that he filches from some denier website or other. In deniers' minds it doesn't matter if there never was a prediction in the first place. or if there was it doesn't matter who made it.

I once tried to source some of the supposed "predictions" he posted back in 2014, but mostly all I found was a copy of his denier list, not an original source for the quote. In other words, most of the so-called predictions are probably just made up out of thin air. At best, some might be quote-mined from newspaper articles. Very few are scientific predictions. Only eight of the 107 so-called "predictions" had a live link to any source, none of which was a "failed prediction"!

In this instance, what upset Anthony and his team of conspiracy theorists was that he couldn't find the an article about snow in the UK, published at The Independent more than fifteen years ago.

The article included paragraphs such as this:

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.And this - about fen skating:
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.
And this:
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6 °C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties. That last is now out of date, of course. Now fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have occurred from 2000 to 2015! And the estimate of 0.2 °C "every decade" was probably meant to be an average trend, not necessarily each decade. It's a serious underestimate in any case, if we stay on the current emissions pathway. By 2100 global mean surface temperature could be 3 °C higher than it is now if we don't cut emissions enough.

Anthony Watts' PDF for posterity
But deniers weren't the least bit interested in the fact that much of what was written in the article is right on track. All they were interested in was the wrong headline: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" - which didn't match anything in the article itself.

If Anthony had any internet skillz, he'd not have had to write"Fortunately, I have preserved the entire article as a PDF for posterity". He's not the only one who has "preserved" the article. It's on the Wayback Machine, and there are multiple copies "preserved" at archive.is, and one at WebCitation.org.

If Anthony had been more of a sceptic and less of a denier showman, he'd not have gone overboard with "chutzpah" and "sheer hubris" and alleging so many "certains". Read the article carefully, and look for actual quotes. See if you can find the context for a quote. If you can't, ask yourself if you can tell if the reporter was reporting honestly or if he was just adding a snippet of a quote to something with a different slant. How do you know?

In other words, don't read the following passage as Anthony Watts wants you to read it. Use your critical thinking skills. Here is what Anthony Watts wants his readers to think:
One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet
Anthony Watts / 5 hours ago November 12, 2015Readers of WUWT and millions of climate skeptics have read this article before, and in fact it is likely one of the most cited articles ever that illustrates the chutzpah and sheer hubris on display from a climate scientist who was so certain he could predict the future with certainty. Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit who famously said:From the Independent’s most cited article: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:
“However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
You'll notice that Anthony, while full of his "certains" and "certainty's, is now canny enough to not directly attribute the "snowfalls are now jut a thing of the past" headline to David Viner. That probably wasn't even written by the reporter, Charles Onians. It is more likely that it was added by a sub-editor. Anthony's "longest running" adjectives implies that he's claiming there have been a lot more articles in the UK media saying that snow has stopped falling. However he doesn't cite any, which isn't a surprise, given the original headline was wrong. Maybe he thinks that it's global warming that's a "blunder", which would be more understandable, since Anthony Watts is a science denier from way back.

But it doesn't stop Anthony from alleging chutzpah and sheer hubris and certainty, where there is none to be had.

Anthony Watts is also canny enough to not post some other parts of the article. For example, the March 2000 article included the following indication that David Viner was talking about a future 20 years or so away - from 2020 and beyond, which hasn't happened yet:
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
Snow trends in the UK
In 2006, six years after than newspaper article was published, a report from the UK Met Office showed that snow cover has been declining since the 1960s. Below is a chart from that report:
Fig 1 | Kernel-smoothed annual days of snow cover by district, 1961/62 – 2004/05 Source: Fig. 13 from Climate Memorandum No 21, UK Met Office - Matthew Perry

It didn't take 20 years for heavy snow to cause chaos in the UK. In 2010 there was heavy snow more reminiscent of earlier last century than the 21st century. And it caused chaos. This unusual event prompted a scientific paper, in which the author, Jonathan D. C. Webb, stated:
The 12-hour accumulations of 40cm at around 200m altitude and 30cm below 150m in this event do not appear to have been significantly surpassed across the southern Midlands since the phenomenal spring snowstorm of 25 April 1908 described by Pike (2008). Indeed, individual 20cm falls within 24 hours have only been twice recorded at the Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford, since 1908: on 4 March 1970 (20cm) and 5–6 January 2010 (27cm).
Two years later, in January 2013, a mere two inches of snow caused flight cancellations at Heathrow. So it's likely that if snowfall does decline in England over time, in the future even light snowfalls could cause "chaos".

Deniers are dishonest and conspiracy theorists
Now none of the patent dishonesty of deniers will surprise anyone. If there is one characteristic that stands out even above their denial of science, it's the lengths to which they will go to deny it. Printing made up stuff is one thing Anthony Watts is known for. The other is conspiratorial thinking. An example of that is in the WUWT article. Anthony Watts wrote:
One wonders about the timing, whether it is related to the upcoming COP21 climate confab in Paris, or if it was simply some blunder, oversight, or archive purge on the part of The Independent.
And perhaps it was in case someone accused him of being a conspiracy theorist, Anthony later added an update, a confirmation that he is (my emphasis):
Published in the year 2000, I thought maybe the story was just too old, and the Independent simply removed the story to save archive space, or maybe this had to do with some site redesign and the URL simply got broken. Yet when I remove the quote marks to search for the phrase in general, and not exactly, other stories back as far as 1994 about global warming and snow appear:It seems clear now that the removal was deliberate.
The headline is not what the story itself said
In that update, Anthony also included another link, writing:
It gets curiouser, searching on The Independent website using their search engine for the phrase “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” yields only one result for that exact string – a story lambasting the original article that contained the phrase.
He didn't include any quotes from that article that he found, but I will:
...The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how "snow is starting to disappear from our lives", which the it stated clearly.

A more accurate headline would be something like: "Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn't necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever." Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long....

...So a headline saying that "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" is not a scientific prediction or statement. It is a newspaper headline, and should be treated as an invitation to read the entire story, which in this case clearly pointed out that snowfalls are becoming less frequent in Britain. This is still the case even with the experience of having two snowy winters on the run.


blog.hotwhopper.com