Anti-science Republican candidates silent on climate agreement #COP21 #science

There is a terrific editorial in the New York Times on the blaring silence from Republican presidential candidates following the historic Paris climate agreement. Turns out that science and 195 nations are hard to argue with… especially when you are arguing with lies, deceit, and fiction. Someone should tell Rep Lamar Smith and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to take note.

In the past, these Republican candidates have disparaged the idea of global warming. “We’re not going to make America a harder place to create jobs in order to pursue policies that will do absolutely nothing, nothing, to change our climate,” Marco Rubio said in a Republican debate in September.

Donald Trump uttered this marvel: “I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again.”

Ted Cruz, who seems enthralled with the idea of a climate-science conspiracy, said last week, “Climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific theory for a big-government politician who wants more power.” On Saturday, Mr. Cruz had nothing to say.

Let’s hope the candidates’ new silence suggests that they see that when 195 nations together recognize the need for immediate action, their arguments to do nothing seem more misguided than ever.

Advertisements

Dem candidates pass, GOP candidates flunk #climate #Science – #notsurprised

CLIMATE CANDIDATES

Graphic shows results of survey of scientists on candidates’ statements on climate change; 2c x 5 inches; 96.3 mm x 127 mm;

AP reports that while 2/3 Democratic candidates for President know climate science, GOP candidates for President flunk out on knowing general climate science. Can’t say I’m surprised at all, in fact, I could have told you that based on debates, comments, and the general views of the GOP. Check the full story for the names of the scientists giving the grades, as well as some hilarious quotes from the scientists about candidate comments.

When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are A students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates’ comments.

At the request of The Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists graded for scientific accuracy what a dozen top candidates said in debates, interviews and tweets, using a 0 to 100 scale.

To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates’ comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies.

The moral case on climate change! explained by Lawrence Torcello @US_Conversation #COP21

Making the moral case on climate change ahead of Paris summit

Lawrence Torcello, Rochester Institute of Technology

Much of the general public is well aware of scientists’ recommendations on climate change. In particular, climate scientists and other academics say society needs to keep global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius below preindustrial levels to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.

But now more academics are weighing in on climate change: philosophers, ethicists, and social scientists among others.

More than 2,100 academics, and counting, from over 80 nations and a diversity of disciplines have endorsed a moral and political statement addressed to global leaders ahead of December’s UN climate conference in Paris.

A few of the more widely recognizable signatories include philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky (MIT); cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol); climate scientist Michael E Mann (PSU); writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben (Middlebury College); historian of science Naomi Oreskes (Harvard); and moral philosopher Peter Singer (Princeton).

As one of the philosophers responsible for this open letter, along with my colleague Keith Horton (University of Wollongong, Australia), I wish to explain why we felt compelled to organize it and why the endorsement of many influential philosophers is important.

In addition to Chomsky and Singer, the list of prominent philosophers who have converged from various philosophical backgrounds and points of disagreement to endorse this letter include many of the most influential figures in contemporary moral and political philosophy.

Thinking about the real world

While it may be popular among certain politicians to malign academics as removed from the “real world,” the fact remains that academics by virtue of training and professional necessity are driven to distinguish valid argument and sound evidence from fallacy.

We are bound to reference current research, and to examine our data before making claims if we hope to be taken seriously by our peers. We have a pedagogical obligation to instill these same practices in our students. We also have a moral obligation to prepare them for responsible citizenship and careers.

Global warming is the most important moral issue of our time, and arguably the greatest existential threat that human beings, as a whole, have faced. So the response to climate change from philosophers should be no surprise.

Those most responsible for climate change are relatively few compared to the vast numbers of people who will be harmfully affected. Indeed, climate change will, in one way or another, impact all life on Earth.

If we fail to decisively address the problem now, warming may escalate in a relatively short time beyond the point which human beings can reasonably be expected to cope, given the nature of reinforcing feedback effects.

The moral implications are enormous, and this letter represents the closest we have to a consensus statement from the world’s preeminent professional ethicists on some of the moral obligations industrial nations, and their leaders, have to global communities, future generations, and fellow species. The letter begins:

Some issues are of such ethical magnitude that being on the correct side of history becomes a signifier of moral character for generations to come. Global warming is such an issue. Indigenous peoples and the developing world are least responsible for climate change, least able to adapt to it, and most vulnerable to its impacts. As the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris approaches, the leaders of the industrialized world shoulder a grave responsibility for the consequences of our current and past carbon emissions.

Importantly, the letter points out that even if current nonbinding pledges being offered by world leaders ahead of the conference are achieved, we remain on course to reach potentially catastrophic levels of warming by the end of this century. The letter continues:

This is profoundly shocking, given that any sacrifice involved in making those reductions is far overshadowed by the catastrophes we are likely to face if we do not: more extinctions of species and loss of ecosystems; increasing vulnerability to storm surges; more heatwaves; more intense precipitation; more climate related deaths and disease; more climate refugees; slower poverty reduction; less food security; and more conflicts worsened by these factors. Given such high stakes, our leaders ought to be mustering planet-wide mobilization, at all societal levels, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degree Celsius.

It is increasingly obvious as we head to Paris that both industrialized and developing nations must make serious efforts to limit their greenhouse gas emissions beyond their current pledges. This is a requirement of physics.

It is unrealistic to expect most developing nations to meaningfully limit greenhouse gas emissions without binding pledges from industrialized nations to do so, as well as significant commitments to provide financial and technological assistance to poorer nations facing developmental challenges. This is a practical necessity and a requirement of ethics.

Ethical thinking

At its most fundamental level, thinking ethically means taking the interests of others seriously enough to recognize when our actions and omissions must be justified to them.

As individuals, our instincts too often drive us toward self-interest. Consequently, acting ethically beyond the circle of our immediate relations – that is, those we perceive most capable of reciprocating both harms and benefits – is difficult.

Still, the history of our species teaches that humanity as a whole benefits most when we are able to put narrow self-interest aside, and make an ethical turn in our thinking and behavior.

Now, faced with climate change the next great ethical turn in our thinking and behavior can’t come soon enough. We will make progress in addressing climate change when, and if, we begin taking the lessons of morality seriously.

The Conversation

Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

TODAY -#24HoursOfReality!! Be a part of Climate History #WhyImWatching #ActOnClimate #COP21

Watch 24 Hours of Reality here!!!! Or tune in anytime in the next 24 hours for a healthy dose of climate reality courtesy of the Climate Reality Project!

[tweet https://twitter.com/ClimateReality/status/665228382850965504]

2 days until #24HoursOfReality!!! AND history of how we got here #COP21 #WhyImWatching

[tweet https://twitter.com/SamChampion/status/664503936666181633]

Check out the awesome lineup!!

[tweet https://twitter.com/ClimateReality/status/664367963789742080]

And here is a great history lesson to refresh your climate knowledge before the Paris Summit!!

[tweet https://twitter.com/ClimateReality/status/664529235055366144]

CO2 global average crosses symbolic 400 ppm mark – #climate #redcups #realredproblems #COP21

After posting my red cup meme image yesterday, I saw the new report below, so why not make another image showing an actual red problem that should be getting attention and controversy instead of festive cups??
redmeme2 edit

A new report from the World Meteorological Organization shows that the global average concentration of carbon dioxide crossed above 400 parts per million for the first time in spring 2015. In spring 2014, carbon dioxide concentrations in the northern hemisphere crossed the symbolic 400 ppm level, but this is the first time it has been recorded as a GLOBAL AVERAGE.

“We will soon be living with globally averaged CO2 levels above 400 parts per million as a permanent reality,” Said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud

“We can’t see CO2. It is an invisible threat, but a very real one. It means hotter global temperatures, more extreme weather events like heatwaves and floods, melting ice, rising sea levels and increased acidity of the oceans. This is happening now and we are moving into uncharted territory at a frightening speed,” he said.

The New York Times also reported on the new WMO greenhouse gas bulletin that covers the 2014 data.

“This evidence shows us that the concentrations are increasing, and they are increasing with increasing rates,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the W.M.O.’s Atmospheric Environment Research Division. “This calls for urgent and very strong actions to limit the emission of those greenhouse gasses.”

But Dr. Tarasova noted that exceeding the 400 mark does not denote an immediate catastrophe.

“There is nothing magic about 400, it’s nothing better than 399 or 401,” she said. “This is like our obligation to ourselves, we’d like to not go over 400. It’s symbolic.” She said that surpassing the threshold “only shows that our commitments are not there.”

Image above includes the controversial red cup from Starbucks and a graph of carbon dioxide recording from NOAA showing  CO2 going above 400 ppm. Based on my post from yesterday. I couldn’t find an updated graph showing global average above 400, this shows a northern hemisphere recording to Nov 2015 – and I think it gets the point across.

RED MUG controversy?? What about a red warming earth? #COP21 #ActOnClimate #AreYouSerious? #realproblems

redmemeedit

Unless you live under a rock and somehow completely ignore social media, you will have seen the RED STARBUCKS CUP controversy. Apparently a group of people are upset about the Starbucks red cup that lacks any other festive markings. WAR ON CHRISTMAS etc etc etc … nonsense.

Controversy is coming to town. Starbucks’ festive red cups, which mark the upcoming holiday season annually, are being tainted this year by scandal. The tipping point of the scandal began after an American evangelist, Joshua Feuerstein, aired his grievances about the cup in a now-viral Facebook post.

Red cups are now an issue? After years celebrating red solo cups? Is this actually part of our national discourse? When there are major problems that are actually plaguing our world? Like… for instance… unprecedented climate change!?!? As you can tell, I’m an embarrassed American. So I made the image above to draw attention to an actual problem and the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris. Obviously the red cup is the current seasonal Starbucks to-go cup. The earth graphic shows average global temperatures (from NOAA and NASA), with red being warmer than average – previous posts here and here.

In fact, climate change is often depicted in RED!!

For more info on how to show your support for action on climate change, check out 24 Hours of Reality, or the Climate Reality Project website. Or tweet using #COP21, #Actonclimate, #24hoursofreality, #WhyImWatching

[tweet https://twitter.com/ClimateReality/status/663808575890935808]

UPDATE: I edited the image (new above, old below) after a wise friend pointed out that the original implied that there was a problem with the red cup, which is obviously laughable. Indeed, only one of the red objects is a problem for people living in reality.

redmeme