Quote of the Day — 31 January 2011

” … Perhaps earth scientists of the future will name this new post-Holocene era for its causative element — for us. We are entering an age that might someday be referred to as, say, the Anthrocene. After all, it is a geological age of our own making. The challenge now is to find a way to act that will make geologists of the future look upon this age as a remarkable time, a time in which a species began to take into account the long-term impact of its actions. The alternative may be to leave a legacy of irresponsibility and neglect of the biosphere that could eventually manifest itself in the fossil record as just one more mass extinction — like the record of bones and footprints left behind by the dinosaurs. * …”

— Andrew Revkin
— Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, 1992
— “Earth is Us“
— Dot Earth
— New York Times

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/earth-is-us
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com

Quote of the Day — 30 January 2011

” Experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation as the greatest threats to humankind.
As a result, the group has moved the minute hand on its famous “Doomsday Clock” two minutes closer to midnight…

… “Whether it’s a threat of the same magnitude or slightly less or greater is beside the point,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist from Princeton University, US.

“The important point is that this organisation, which for 60 years has been monitoring and warning us about the nuclear threat, now recognises climate change as a threat that deserves the same level of attention,” he said. …”

— Molly Bentley
— Climate resets ‘Doomsday Clock’
— BBC News

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6270871.stm
news.bbc.co.uk

Quote of the Day — 29 January 2011

” … The bitter irony is, Republicans — unlike the Innovationeers — understand this perfectly well. They know that if climate change is real and widely understood, the case for substantial government action will be undeniable. That’s why they politicized it in the first place. (If you think this dispute is really about science, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.) Now that they’ve succeeded in making it “divisive,” the Obama administration is running from it, hoping to back their way into ambitious policy with happy talk about innovation.

It’s not going to work. We won’t act with the scope, scale, and speed necessary unless the threat of climate change is widely understood to be real and urgent. Admittedly, nobody yet knows how to make that happen — climate change is a devil of an issue for creatures with our cognitive machinery. It’s going to be a long struggle. But giving up is not the way to win that struggle. …

… it’s vital, for the long game, to keep climate on the table. People take their cues from their leaders. If Obama drops it, it sends a signal to Republicans that they can force him to back down. It sends a signal to Democrats that it’s safe to dodge this fight. It sends a signal to the public that it’s not a real problem.

If you think there’s an existential danger facing the country, you say so. That’s part of what it means to be a leader. ”

— David Roberts
— “For the last time: no, clean energy is not a substitute for climate change“
— Grist

www.grist.org/article/2011-01-28-clean-energy-not-substitute-for-climate-change
www.grist.org

Quote of the Day — 28 January 2011

Self-proclaimed “skeptics” will pounce upon any mistake made by climate scientists with the zeal of sharks smelling blood in the water. Yet mistakes by a fellow skeptic like Dr. Lindzen are passed over in silence, and his erroneous conclusions are promoted and propagated.

Skepticism, in its true sense, means examining all evidence with an equally critical eye. A true skeptic should also look for mistakes made by those on his side; and if he encounters them, he should acknowledge and correct them.

— Dana Nuccitelli
— “A case study in climate science integrity“
— guardian.co.uk

Quote of the Day — 27 January 2011

I say it’s time to give the skeptics a taste of their own medicine. Borrowing a term first tweeted by Andy Revkin of the New York Times, let’s officially call this “Skepticgate” – a new synonym for the cynical, profit-motivated efforts of the Kochs and Exxons of the world to keep the public disinformed about the real and present dangers of unabated fossil fuel consumption.

— Kelly Rigg
— “Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are“
— The Huffington Post

www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/skepticgate-revealing-cli_b_814013.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg
www.huffingtonpost.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc

Quote of the Day — 25 January 2011

Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy, will leave the administration shortly, officials confirmed Monday night. Her departure signals at least a temporary slowing of the ambitious environmental goals of President Obama’s first two years in the face of new Republican strength in Congress….

…Ms. Browner is known as a savvy navigator of the bureaucracy and a strong voice for environmental protection in a White House that was focused more on health care and the economy. Her departure leaves the administration’s other major environmental and energy policy makers without a strong advocate at the White House.

But in the face of Republican skepticism about climate change and strong opposition to environmental regulation, the administration will be spending more time defending the modest policy gains of the past two years than advancing new proposals.

Scott Segal, an energy expert at Bracewell & Giuliani, a law and lobbying firm in Washington, said Ms. Browner’s leaving might be a sign that the administration would be more sensitive to the concerns of business.

— John M. Broder
— “Director of Policy on Climate Will Leave, Her Goal Unmet“
— The New York Times

www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25browner.html
www.nytimes.com

Climate Science in a Nutshell #9: How Bad Could it Get? from Planet Nutshell on Vimeo.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5cXjc9G9ow

Quote of the Day – 19 January 2010

“… All scientists are, by definition, skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world’s oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: “Take nobody’s word.” Skeptics and good scientists question and change their minds when presented with competing and convincing evidence. Indeed, scientific reputations are made by identifying flaws in current thinking, developing and testing new hypotheses, and by being right, not wrong. And while all scientists (and all people) make mistakes, good ones acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and refine our knowledge. Bad ones dig in their heels, defending a faulty paradigm to the bitter end.

While a huge amount of effort is put into debunking the bad science promoted by climate deniers, scientists work to correct errors in understanding about climate on all sides. … “

— Peter Gleick
— “A Brief Lesson in the Integrity of Science: Climate Scientists Challenge Bad Science, No Matter the Source“
— The Huffington Post

www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick
www.huffingtonpost.com/