30346207
submission
Layzej writes:
"IF VIRGINIA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) needs examples of official waste and abuse as he runs for governor, he could cite the harassment that he conducted against climate scientist Michael E. Mann, a costly episode of government overreach that is finally over.
The state’s highest court wrote in an opinion that Cuccinelli lacked the authority to subpoena records — including e-mails, drafts and handwritten notes — from the University of Virginia involving well-known climate scientist Michael Mann’s research. Now that the Supreme Court has shut Mr. Cuccinelli down, what’s left is a range of consequences that can only hurt the commonwealth. The university had to raise nearly $600,000 for legal fees — money the cash-strapped university should have been able to use for something productive. On top of that are the public resources of the attorney general’s office that Mr. Cuccinelli wasted. Scientists in Virginia now have reason to wonder whether they will suffer similar pressure if they publish research government officials don’t like.
29734371
submission
Layzej writes:
Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), recently confessed at an 8000 member strong meeting that she is scared to death "we are sliding back into a dark era." She stated that she is "profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms." Her remarks are backed by a recently published Union of Concerned Scientists report, that chronicles the methods used by corporate businesses to harass individual scientists, ghost-write scientific articles to raise doubts about government research, and undermine the use of science to form government policy. Discover Magazine gives specific examples such as the Heartland Institute's recently revealed plan to subvert public science education, as well as the offer by the the American Enterprise Institute of $10,000 a pop to each scientists or economists who was willing to write op-eds or essays critiquing the IPCC climate report — before it was even published. The AAAS meeting was "set against a background of an entire intellectual discipline that realises that it, and its practitioners, are now under sustained attack."
29556289
submission
Layzej writes:
Scientist and journalist Peter Gleik has has admitted to leaking documents that reveal the internal strategies of the Heartland Institute.. In his statement he writes "At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues."
The Guardian writes "while acts of deception cannot be condoned, it is also important to note that the documents obtained by Gleick provide an insight into how some of those groups that are fundamentally opposed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases attempt to convey the impression that their arguments are founded on science rather than on ideology."
29466341
submission
Layzej writes:
Bloggers around the world have been commenting on recently leaked Heartland Institute documents that reveal their internal strategies to discredit climate science. These posters are now under threat of legal action. According to the Heartland Institute "the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages"
Are hundreds of slashdotters now at risk after having commented when the story was posted here?
27847320
submission
Layzej writes:
Despite being a La Nina year, 2011 was the world's 10th warmest year, and the warmest year with La Niña event According to preliminary results from the World Meteorological Organization. 2011 also saw Arctic sea ice volume minimum continue to plummet. Volume dropped to 4,300 km^3 after being relatively stable at about 14,000 km^3 in the eighties. In the US, heat records outnumbered cold by 2.8:1. For comparison, in 2010 the ration was 2.3:1, and the average for the 80's, 90's and 2000's were 1.14:1, 1.36:1, and 2.04:1 respectively
26178618
submission
Layzej writes:
A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009. The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday. In a statement, the University of East Anglia said "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported"
26024276
submission
Layzej writes:
Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become “increasingly marginal as places to live in", the report concludes. Critics of the report note that “Governments have in the past considerably weakened the language of IPCC summaries for policymakers,” and that the IPCC process tends to water down even the most obvious conclusions.
25417184
submission
Layzej writes:
The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme.
25114846
submission
Layzej writes:
Two new papers indicate that we are likely already seeing some of the predicted impacts of global warming, The first used Monte Carlo simulations to analyze how many new record events you expect to see in a time series with a trend. They applied the technique to the unprecedented Russian heat wave of July 2010, which killed 700 people and contributed to soaring wheat prices. According to the analysis, there’s an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible. The authors describe the methods and how they improved on previous studies here. The second studied Wintertime droughts in the Mediterranean region. They found that 'the magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone. This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region’s climate to normal.'
24661994
submission
Layzej writes:
Research from the Met Office has shed new light on a link between decadal solar variability and winter climate in the UK, northern Europe and parts of America. In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes — a pattern which then 'burrows' its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe. When solar UV output is higher than usual, the opposite occurs and there are strong westerlies which bring warm air and hence milder winters to Europe.
Sarah Ineson, who performed the experiments, said: "What we're seeing is UV levels affecting the distribution of air masses around the Atlantic basin. This causes a redistribution of heat — so while Europe and the US may be cooler, Canada and the Mediterranean will be warmer, and there is little direct impact on global temperatures."
24592664
submission
Layzej writes:
Routers examines how Michigan has used strategic policy to bounce back from "the decade from hell" by positioning itself as an energy technology and manufacturing hub. "The state lost more than 900,000 jobs in the last decade due largely to the bankrupt auto industry, fleeting manufacturers and the national economic downturn, the economists said. Today, however, Michigan ranks No. 1 in the nation for job creation improvement in a recent Gallup survey of state job markets. Michigan is beginning to have a 'cluster effect' among renewable energy and electric vehicle developers. Michigan is becoming a center for clean energy R&D, and that tends to feed itself. More development attracts more equipment manufacturers and so on."
24396642
submission
Layzej writes:
According to former Republican representative Bob Inglis, being conservative means dealing in facts. He suggests that energy and climate policy warrants a conservative approach based on science and accountability, rather than a populist approach based on denial and wishful thinking. He also proposes an intriguing free market solution to our energy and climate challenges.
24008204
submission
Layzej writes:
Federal biologist Charles Monnett was placed on administrative leave July 18 pending final results of an inspector general's investigation into integrity issues. The investigation originally focused on a 2006 note published in Polar Biology based on a unique observation of four dead polar bears. The investigators acknowledged that they had no formal training in science, but later demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of science, the peer review process, and at times basic math with questions like "seven of what number is 11 percent?" and concern expressed over the fact that the note was reviewed by Monnett's wife prior to submitting the paper for peer review. When nothing turned up, the investigation turned towards Monett's role in administering research contracts. But documents released by PEER , a watchdog and whistle-blower protection group, suggest even that investigation is off base. Monnett has since been reinstated, albeit in a different position. Now the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation following a PEER complaint that the IG is violating new Interior Department scientific integrity rules.
23582022
submission
Layzej writes:
Remote Sensing Editor in Chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned earlier today over a global warming study published in his journal that was said to cast doubt on global warming models but later found to be flawed. Wagner stated that the paper most likely contained fundamental methodological errors and false claims. He further expressed dismay over how "the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements." The auther of the paper, Dr Roy Spencer, responds to the resignation here.
23384398
submission
Layzej writes:
"For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols."
It is hypothesized that clouds might then build up around the droplets — possibly affecting the Earth's climate. "To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)."
"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."
