The voice of science
This summer has seen nature visiting on man a series of catastrophes. To name just a few, we have the record-breaking rainfall in Britain in June, the Colorado wildfires and the 1,400,000 storm-struck households in the eastern US.
Inevitably, many wonder if this is connected to climate change as a result of mankind’s behaviours. Many now believe so.
But we have to stand on the rock of science.
So it was great to come across a recent article on Grist that led me to this organisation, Climate Communication. As they say on the About Us page,
Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the ClimateWorks Foundation. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change.
The article on Grist that had caught my eye was this one, Did climate change ’cause’ the Colorado wildfires? and within that article there was the link to Climate Communication, viz: That much we know with a high degree of confidence, as this excellent review of the latest science by Climate Communication makes clear.
That review on Climate Communication includes the following video,
Not convinced?
Then try this evidence from an interview with Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research shown on PBS Newshour,
Want more? Go for it!
The PBS video came from the British Guardian newspaper (link thanks to Naked Capitalism). The Guardian reported,
Is it now possible to blame extreme weather on global warming?
Wildfires, heatwaves and storms witnessed in the US are ‘what global warming looks like’, say climate scientists
Posted by Leo Hickman
Tuesday 3 July 2012Whenever an episode of extreme weather – heatwave, flood, drought, etc – hits the headlines, someone somewhere is sure to point the finger of blame at human-induced climate change.
Such claims are normally slapped down with the much-aired mantra: “You cannot blame a single episode of bad weather on global warming.” But with the on-going record high temperatures affecting large parts of the US, there seems to be a noticeable reduction in such caveats and notes of caution.
This week, scientists have been queuing up, it seems, to explain how the wildfires in Colorado, the heatwave across the eastern seaboard, and the “super derecho” are all indicative of “what global warming looks like“. Most pulled back, though, from directly blaming global warming for such weather events.
“In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we’ve seen that in the last few summers,” Derek Arndt of NOAA Climate Monitoring told the Associated Press.” The same report added: “At least 15 climate scientists told the Associated Press that this long hot US summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming.”
So, can we now say, or not, that specific extreme weather events are caused, or at least exacerbated, by global warming? Has anything changed in climate scientists’ understanding of the attribution – or “anthropogenic fingerprint” – of such events? Are they now more confident about making such links?
I put this question to a number of climate scientists ….
Leo Hickman then reports the assessments of eight leading scientists. Go and read their words here. If you can do it now!
The science is solid!
So as you watch these scientists talking about the meaning of climate extremes think what you can do today to reduce your own impact on this planet. Just as importantly, think how you can influence those around you and those that represent you that now is the time to wake up to the fact that nature is telling us to slow down!
As I said in a comment to a post on Tuesday,
The growth in awareness of what we are doing to the planet is astounding. There is hope, we have to promote hope and we have to acknowledge that hope is a powerful agent of change.
Learning from Dogs 
You have done a fantastic job here, Paul, in bringing together a variety of recent items – the combined message of which I would like to think would be difficult to refute. That photo of houses burning in Colorado is very powerful…
I say “would like to think” because, as you know, I have been troubled by a recent opinion poll suggesting that only 43% of the British adult population felt able to agree with the following statement:
“Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities”
It has been suggested to me that this question is carefully phrased to deter people from saying “yes” (i.e. they might agree that warming is occurring and/or that humans are the primary cause; but they might not agree that vehicles and factories are the primary source of emissions). However, this is ‘clutching at straws’ in my opinion; and leaves me wondering what percentage of the population would feel able to agree with this statement:
“The sunrise is a fact and is mostly caused by a near-spherical Earth rotating daily and orbiting the Sun yearly.”…?
I am so incensed by this highly-selective refusal to accept what scientists tell us that I have decided to re-ignite my Lindzengate campaign to bring to wider attention what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt by Richard Lindzen to misrepresent science to the great majority of the population.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/are-you-negligent-incompetent-or-complicit/
I would welcome anyone re-publishing this on the basis that I alone am responsible for any statements (of opinion) made therein.
LikeLike
Martin, thank you for your supportive comment. It really should be the other way around as you have consistently fought to show that the science is undeniable. I just happened to see the article on Grist and from there on it was very easy to follow the trail, so to speak.
Of course, as you say, constructing the question when seeking to poll opinions is 90% of the game. One can more or less ‘lead’ the answer if one is not adhering to the well-defined rules of market research. The BBC series shown in 2008, The Century of the Self, looked deeply into market research, focus groups and much more besides and showed how it could be used to ‘manipulate’ the audience.
Ergo, someone working so hard to deny the truth, as you claim Lindzen is doing, will have deep and compelling reasons for so doing. In the end, nature will show us all the way it is heading.
LikeLike
Thanks Paul. It would be nice to think that Lindzen believes what he says, but his refusal to admit that what he has done is meaningless suggests that he is deliberately seeking to mislead people.
LikeLike
Reasonable people would have trouble disagreeing with that!
LikeLike
Arctic ice depletion can be tracked at: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is now lower than the preceding lowest on July 5…
Ever since what Gibbon derisively called “Praetorian bands” took control of the Roman Principate, it is known that a good societal outcome means different things for different… bands.
Bad economy for some means excellent economy for others… Bad society for some, is good for others. What the plutocrats love is serfdom, and war, properly managed, help them that way.
Great climate disruption will bring ever more war, perhaps even nuking coal burning installations (yes, it sounds crazy, until the sea starts rising real fast, hence the interest in tracking the Arctic icepack!) Thus most plutocrats see in the climate catastrophe, a great opportunity.
“All men naturally hate each other.” said the very Christian Pascal, nearly 4 centuries ago (“Thoughts, # 210). He was exaggerating a bit. But it is something to remember when we put our fate, that of billions, in the hands of an oligarchy of a handful, of a demonstrably clueless, individuals.
That a few scientists make great noise supporting fossil fuel burning is not surprising they hate, and they love money, power, career… But this is a new age, where the commons can get the best information.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Patrice, one again a meaningful and profound comment. I appreciate you looking in on LfD and leaving your thoughts, thank you, Paul
LikeLike