Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNearly TEN PEOPLE Turn Out For Heartland Institute's Bullshit Report ("NIPCC") @ National Press Club
On Wednesday morning, in a small room at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the climate change skeptic Craig Idso pointed to a PowerPoint slide showing three young pea plants, each grown under varying levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The plant that experienced the lowest concentration of carbon dioxide looked shriveled and sickly; the most robust-looking plant grew under the highest test concentration. Now, Idso said, you could put on your Sigmund Freud hat, and you could ask yourself in a psychiatric manner, which plant would you rather be? Idso is one of the lead authors of a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a project of the right-wing think tank the Heartland Institute that essentially serves to rebut the United Nationssponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On Wednesday, NIPCC authors along with Heartland president Joseph Bast did their best to convince a room of less than ten people that scientific consensus on the human role in climate change does not exist, and that carbon emissions and rising global temperatures will have a net positive effect on the world. In other words, we are all pea shoots.
There were other absurdities at the press conference, including Idsos prophecies of vegetative prowess. There were repeated references to the scores of scientists who contributed to the report, when in fact the total number of authors, editors and reviewers amounts to thirty-seven. Many of the people behind the NIPCC, including Bast and Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, have built careers around undercutting scientific research that threatens corporate profits, most notably the tobacco industry. Unlike the hundreds of scientists who contribute to IPCC reports voluntarily, the independent authors and editors involved with the NIPCC are paid; how much and by whom Heartland refused to say, although a staffer cited three family foundations as the source of funds for the study.
The most interesting part of the event was that the scientists and Bast couldnt seem to decide whether man-made climate change is a hoax, or whether its something to embrace. Bast offered a painful display of rhetorical acrobatics when asked to clarify. He agreed there has been a gradual warming trend as well as a corresponding increase in carbon emissions. Bast declared, The human presence is responsible for rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, but then clarified that in regards to temperature, the human impact is very small, probably less than natural variability
the bigger impact is the increase in carbon dioxide, which Doctor Idso shows is positive, unambiguously positive. If the increase in carbon dioxide is the bigger impact and its due to the human presence, that seems to be tacit endorsement of the link between human activity and climate change.
This is what the climate movement is up againstplant analogies, thirty-seven scientists and an all-but-empty pressroom? (There was a similar briefing earlier in the morning, reportedly with comparable attendance.) The event only emphasized what a lonely occupation climate skepticism in the Heartland model has become, as even Exxon Mobil says the risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.
EDIT
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179286/sham-report-what-climate-movement-against