Marc Morano's imploding cabal of delusionals.

“NY Post: ‘The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent’” reads the headline on Morano’s latest installment at his ClimateDepot.com

climatedepot.com/2016/07/01/ny-post-the-imploding-cabal-to-criminalize-climate-dissent

Morano begins:

“These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on climate change and what to do about it. 

_________________

Mr. Morano,

There certainly is a fundamental consensus on the basics of what climate science can tell us about our planet and the impact of humanity’s centuries long burning of ever more stupendous amounts of fossil fuels which release CO2 and other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and oceans.  

It’s not that complicated, we live on a geophysical planet which behaves according to understandable dynamics.  Determined people aren’t that stupid.  Given resources there’s not much they can’t figure out, as the past centuries of progress make plain.  

Air Force scientists of the post WWII years certainly received the resources to study our atmosphere and how energy moves through it.  It wasn’t just the US either.  Working independently were Australian and Russian Air Force scientists along with other lesser players.  All in the interest of developing better weapons and communication.  Succeed they certainly did and by the seventies the fundamentals were resolved (Independently even! It’s not like the USSR or USA was sharing information back then) and it remains solid. 

As proof of that solidity we have an assortment of modern marvels that are absolutely dependent on a superb level of understanding of the radiative properties of our atmosphere.  It’s paranoid and thoughtless to believe it’s still up for debate.  That can only be done by remaining rigidly ensconced within one’s own echo-chamber.

“CO2 Science dependent modern marvels, For your consideration”

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/06/co2-science-dependent-modern-marvels.html

“Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab”

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

We know how much fossil fuels humanity has been burning!

We know the physics of greenhouse gases and infrared radiation!

We know that because of this fundamental unavoidable physics that greenhouse gases act as atmospheric insulation, slowing down the escape of heat to outer space.  Scientists observe and measure this phenomena.

#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life

I have a three year old post over at my CC site, "Jerry Mitrovica: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change... the video" and in the past few days it's received a half dozen comments from one ncdave4life, who disputes Dr. Mitrovica's conclusions with echo-chamber science.  Ncdave's comments are tricky-dick affairs loaded with coding that blossoms when approved and posted.  Since I'm not into those sorts of devious games, and WUWTW is not a billboard for contrarian lies I've kept the rest of his onslaught in moderation until I have the time to review them.  Since today is an unexpected day off I'm going to look at his first comment.

To me his work seems another excellent example of devious rhetoric intent on dumbing down readers, that goes beyond the realm of healthy constructive dialogue and "free speech' and into the realm of malicious mischief that ought to be legally actionable.  I believe this ncdave4life has provided me with excellent examples of "criminal negligent" in action, as argued by Professor Lawrence Torcello' and written about at "Is misinformation about climate science criminally negligent?" - I want to be clear - though I often bring up Professor Torcello's work, this is my independent reading and my arguing his case is totally unaffiliated with the professor's own work.

Among ncdave's dishonest tricks in this first comment, are dismissing AGW's hand in damaging and threatening global agricultural productivity with a chart of six US states and their agricultural productivity that ends at 2004.  As if the past dozen years can be ignored, or that six US states are a proxy for the global situation.

Furthermore, he fantasizes a struggle going on between plants and animals for available oxygen and CO2 and that society increasing atmospheric CO2 level is a good thing.  Conveniently ignoring the heat issue; and the resultant biosphere disruption; and ocean acidification damaging and disrupting our ocean's food web.  That's the short version, now on to DB's own words:
__________________________________________________                                                          

ncdave4life said…

Your complaint that I “don’t allow for comments” on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica’s video. The reason you can’t see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won’t let you. If the NAS hadn’t “ghosted” my comments on Prof. Mitrovica’s video, you could have responded there. But they don’t allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site.

________________________________

… which does not allow critical comments either.  

Why do I already sense you are an adept at the art rationalizing?

_____________________________________________________

ncdave:  My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn’t run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there’s no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them. (highlight added)

________________________________

I'm finding all sorts of mistakes, we'll see if DB's word is worth anything.

Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses!

So reports John Abraham (Professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas, Minn) in a recent UK Guardian story about this important milestone.  It's no great shock to anyone who's spent any time examining the claims of these Godfather's of 'science by echo-chamber, slander and misrepresentation'. 

To me it represents a small victory in the struggle to expose the fundamentally dishonest nature of these central luminaries of the Republican/libertarian PR machine.  The one dedicated to confusing the public and leaders about serious climate science among other important issues.

Lately, real life has kept me too busy for serious blogging, but this news is worth sharing.  Particularly after the past week and my depression caused by realizing that Mr. Trump actually will become the GOP standard bearer.  It was a nice reminder that some rationality still exists out there.  

Though that rationality seems tougher and tougher to find, watching supposedly "principled" Republican Party leaders eat all their grand principled words as they scurry to fall in line under Herrn Trump.  Principled Right-wing, indeed.  You aren't kidding us.

Following are quotes from Dr. Abraham's story, that I hope encourage you to link to the full story.  There you'll find all sorts of further links to various related stories and information.

Following that I tag on a report from Greenpeace: Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding (It's no wonder the Republican crowd hate Greenpeace, but someone has to get the facts and evidence out there.).  Take a look at what drives this Dr. Happer.  

I wonder how my Republican pals would compare Happer's misdeeds with Dr. Mann's?  Then explain to me why Happer isn't being dragged out to be tarred and feathered, like they used to do in them good ol' days.

Update: also see John Mashey's detailed documentation: 

"Peabody's Outlier Gang Couldn't Shoot Straight In Minnesota Carbon Case, Judge Rebuffs Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Mendelsohn, Bezdek"  

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight

Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case

Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case

John Abraham | May 2, 2016

In Minnesota, an administrative hearing resulted in a judicial recommendation that will have impacts across the country. It was a case argued mainly between environmental groups (such as Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and their clients Fresh Energy and the Sierra Club) and energy producers (such as the now-bankrupt coal company Peabody Energy) regarding what a reasonable social cost of carbon should be.

I was called as an expert witness in the case along with respected climate scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler. We were opposed by the well-known contrarians Drs. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and William Happer (who has recently received attention related to his charged fees in the case). (bold added) In full disclosure, Dr. Dessler and I were not paid for our work in the case. I recently wrote about the testimony and provided links to the testimonies submitted for the case. The judge’s recommendations and how they will impact energy decisions in the USA were the keys to this trial.

... A summary of the ruling can be found here and the full report is available here.

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment

The internet is abuzz with that headline as the Republican/libertarian anti-science echo-chamber is busy creating a new enemy du jour.  Interestingly, "punishment" doesn't appear once in the text of the story, or in anything Dr. Kraft said (I suspect their aggravation is an indication of denialista's guilty conscience more than anything). 

The word was embedded in the headline, written by an editor seeking to sell copy.  Yet, yet, just like the Dr. Viner "no snow lie", these politically motivated folks couldn't give a damned about facts, or honestly, or learning, instead they are off and running with yet another maliciously misleading headline intend on slandering a respected productive scientist, while ignoring the substance of the article itself.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
By Michael E. Kraft
Posted Apr. 11, 2016 

… However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available. 

Dismissal of well-established climate science has parallels to decades of debate over tobacco use and its effects on health. Tobacco companies long denied any causal relation ...
Similarly, some fossil fuel companies for decades publicly rejected established climate science and the role of burning fossil fuels in anthropogenic climate change while their internal studies confirmed both.
... 

This is what a scientist sounds like, Mike MacCracken PhD

It makes for a refreshing change.  Please note the difference between how this man goes about explaining his business compared to the likes of Mr. Steele and our good 1000frolly.  Here is Dr. MacCracken's statement submitted as a "Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs".  It offers a concise summation of our situation.
{I've added highlight and some paragraph - no changes to the wording}
__________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN 
In Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
Oral Argument: February 17, 2016, 2:00 p.m.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 44 Filed 01/06/16 - 15 Pages

I, MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, hereby declare as follows:


1. I am a scientist who has devoted forty-five years to studying the causes and impacts of global climate change. After twenty-five years focused on climate modeling studies at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, I served from 1993 to 2002 as senior scientist on global change with the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), where I also served as the Office’s first executive director from 1993-97 and as executive director for the National Assessment Coordination Office that facilitated the first national assessment of climate change impacts on the US from 1997-2001. 

In these capacities I helped coordinate research on climate change and its impacts across a dozen federal agencies and participated preparation of official U.S. reports on climate change and its impacts. Over the past twenty-five years, I have also served in various capacities in preparation of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I have been a member of various other scientific committees and teams that prepared reports on the causes and impacts of climate change.1

2. Continuing the current rate of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, much less allowing them to continue to increase, will result in increasingly severe environmental and societal consequences over expanding areas of the nation and the world over coming decades; only cutting emissions to near zero can eventually halt this trend. Building upon twenty-five years of international scientific assessments on the causes, effects, and impacts of climate change, a strong international consensus has developed that the changes in climate, sea level, and ocean chemistry caused by human-induced emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases pose an increasing threat to environmental systems around the world that will affect human health and well-being and the stability of local, national, and international economies and societies. 

Efforts must begin during the next few years by all nations, but particularly by the United States, to get on a path that will lead to substantial cutbacks in CO2 emissions over the next few decades to limit the risk of triggering catastrophic and irreversible impacts of climate change and ocean acidification. With the United States being the largest historic emitter and still second in the world in total CO2 emissions, delay in establishing an aggressive effort to reduce emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases, and soot will not only contribute to very disruptive further changes in climate, but also send an unfortunate signal to other nations that they can also delay reducing emissions, creating a global “tragedy of the commons” outcome where all experience severe consequences by thinking that they are a special case that need not act as all must act collectively.

3. The federal agencies named as Defendants in this action already influence, control and/or have the power to regulate a large share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) sets energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, lighting products, electronic devices, furnaces, air conditioners, and a multitude of other residential, and commercial, and industrial products; they are particularly important for efficiency improvements are widely recognized to be a very cost effective type of action to be taking. DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy has various authorities over the import and export of natural gas, the interstate commerce of fossil fuels, and along with the Department of State, over new and existing international pipelines. 

The Department of Interior has authority and control over the leasing of substantial federal lands, both onshore and offshore, for the extraction of fossil fuels. The Department of Agriculture, in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, also controls the leasing of substantial additional federal lands for the extraction of fossil fuels. The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to set fuel economy and emissions standards for motor vehicles and other modes of transportation. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate and set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, methane emissions from pipelines and fossil fuel processing facilities, and greenhouse gas emissions from other point sources (e.g., waste disposal and sewage treatment facilities). While by no means an exhaustive list, these are a few examples of the areas where the federal government exercises and can exercise control over greenhouse gas emissions.

4. The United States is responsible for approximately 27% of total global emissions of CO2 since 1850;2 no other nation has contributed a larger share. As of 2012, an analysis of emissions by nations around the world recorded that annual U.S. CO2 emissions totaled approximately 5.5 billion tons per year, or just over 16% of annual global emissions,3 while the U.S. population constituted only about 4.5% of global population. Since 1990, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 5.9%.4

Using a metric that focuses on the long-term warming influence of CO2, CO2 emissions account for approximately 82% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.5 Emissions of methane contributed most of the rest of the total. Warming contributions by air pollution and soot are not counted in traditional inventories, but their influences must also be cut back.

5. The EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks6 provides a breakdown of U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion by end-use sector. The agencies named as Defendants in this action control and regulate emissions from these various sectors. For 2013, the EPA national emissions inventory listed U.S. fossil fuel emissions of CO2 alone as follows:   __ IMAGE __

6. The transportation and electricity generation sectors combined, areas where the Federal Defendants have regulated extensively and have control over emissions, accounted for ~3760 million metric tons of CO2 in 2013. This total represents ~72.8% of U.S. CO2 emissions and ~10.6% of global CO2 emissions; indeed, total emissions from these two sectors alone are larger than the emissions of all of the world’s nations except China and more than 75% larger than the emissions of India, which is the third largest emitter of CO2 even though India had a population in 2014 that was about four times that of the U.S.

7. On a per capita basis U.S. CO2 emissions are approximately 16 metric tons/year, while the average for the rest of the people in the world is just over 4 metric tons/year. The range among countries is large, with countries in Europe being about twice the non-U.S. global average and dropping, countries undergoing industrial development such as China approaching twice the average for the rest of the world’s people and rising, and countries such as India that are just starting to develop being less than half the average for the non-U.S. population and increasing. 

Clearly, on a per capita basis, citizens of U.S. are contributing a much larger per capita share of emissions than citizens of other nations (and these numbers do not account for emissions occurring in one country producing products for those in other countries, which would further exacerbate the U.S. disparity). 

For there to be any possibility of slowing climate change and as the largest economy in the world, the U.S. needs to show exceptional leadership and demonstrate how a modern economy can prosper with low CO2 emissions, creating an example for other nations. Authoritative analyses have outlined how, if reasonable, equitable, and economically viable government actions are taken, much greater reductions in emissions can be achieved than are provided by existing government policies and regulations.8

8. Approximately 25% of all fossil fuels extracted in the United States come from federal public lands, controlled by the Defendants named in this action. Despite this, the U.S. government has been continuing to offer leases to continue and even expand extraction of coal, petroleum, and natural gas from these lands. 

These lands have been set aside in the public interest and for the benefit of future generations, yet the ongoing extraction of fossil fuels is going directly against the public interest in limiting climate change and passing along the heritage of these lands to future generations. CO2-induced climate change is altering the very conditions that are essential for the natural flora and fauna of these lands, shifting the conditions that define the favorable zones for virtually all species. 

Thus, the ranges of terrestrial species are shifting poleward in extent and upward in altitude, the rivers and streams with conditions viable for key fish species are changing, the areas vital to the seasonal migrations of waterfowl and marine mammals are changing in ways that are disrupting the timing, routes, and layover locations for migration. Climate is indeed changing so much that lands scraped aside for coal extraction can no longer be returned to their former vegetation cover. Landscapes are changing so much that extirpation of species is occurring in various regions as a prelude over future decades to increased rates of extinction.

9. Because all emissions of greenhouse gases is important, the emissions at issue in this case greatly exceeds the amount at stake in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), for which I submitted an expert declaration to the district court. 

In considering the points made in that declaration,9 the majority opinion of Justice Stevens in the Supreme Court’s decision found that, for example, sea level rise due to human- induced climate change is indeed causing concrete harm by inundating coastal lands, in that case citing specific taking of lands from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Such inundation and thus taking of land is occurring not only in Massachusetts, but also in virtually all coastal states,10 and affecting land held by governments, organizations and individuals. In that case, just that one specific harm out of the many disruptive impacts being caused by climate change was sufficient to grant standing.

10. Because the United States is the world’s largest economy and plays a leading role in all manner of global affairs, U.S. participation and leadership are essential to galvanizing and sustaining global efforts to curb CO2 emissions. 

If the U.S. takes steps to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, options become available for other countries to take similar actions regarding their own greenhouse gas emissions using technology developed in the U.S.,11 thereby multiplying the total emission reduction benefit of U.S. actions. 

Substantial further reductions in emissions can be achieved and will be required to discernibly and significantly reduce and delay the increasing disruption of the weather and climate and the ongoing acidification of ocean waters. 

The more that is done now to reduce emissions and slow the pace of climate change, the greater will be the time available for additional development and use of even better technologies in the future. 

With enhanced efforts to reduce emissions through available efficiency improvements, accompanied by progress in limiting other emissions by switching to other technical approaches, the more likely it will be that the most catastrophic and irreversible consequences of climate change and ocean acidification can be avoided.

11. The first report on the likelihood and onset of human-induced climate change was delivered to President Johnson and the Congress by the President’s Scientific Advisory Council in 1965—more than fifty years ago. 

Since the first international scientific assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, their four subsequent comprehensive assessments have made clear again and again that human-caused climate change and the associated impacts that will result (including shifting of climatic and landscape zones, intensification of extreme precipitation and weather, a greatly increased rate of sea level rise and coastal inundation, ocean acidification, and more are place the world on a path that will lead to significant, irreversible disruption and alteration of Earth’s climate and environment. 

The induced changes are very likely to force relocations of peoples out of many arid and coastal regions, reallocation of economic resources from increasing overall well-being to adjusting to environmental change and recovering from increasingly disruptive extreme weather, and dealing with increased stresses on and even failures of communities, peoples and institutions.

12.  Scientific and other expert analyses make clear that urgent action in limiting emissions will reduce the overall impacts of climate change and that delays in emissions will lock in further long-term climate change and make preventing the worst effects of climate disruption more difficult, if not impossible, as thresholds of nonlinear and irreversible consequences are exceeded.  Decades of scientific research and economic analyses make clear that continued delays in acting at the fastest pace possible to limit emissions ignores the increasing pace of impacts that climate change is already imposing on society and the environment12 and sets a disappointing precedent for rational decision-making based on scientific understanding.  

As Nobel Laureate Professor Sherwood commented: "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around wait for them to come true?"13 

I certify under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland, and to the best of my knowledge, that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2016 at Bethesda, Maryland.
Michael C. MacCracken 

{footnotes are listed at the end of this post}

_______________________________________________________________________

http://erascience.org/michael_c_maccracken

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_MacCracken

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.climate.org/about/maccracken-bio.html

Michael MacCracken has been Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC since 2002; he was also elected to its Board of Directors in 2006. Both of these positions are held on a volunteer basis.

Dr. MacCracken received his B.S. in Engineering degree from Princeton University in 1964 and his Ph.D. degree in Applied Science from the University of California Davis/Livermore in 1968. His dissertation used a 2-D climate model to evaluate the plausibility of several hypotheses of the causes of ice ages. Following his graduate work, he joined the Physics Department of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as an atmospheric physicist. 

His research in the ensuing 25 years included numerical modeling of various causes of climate change (including study of the potential climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, land-cover change, and nuclear war) and of factors affecting air quality (including photochemical pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area and sulfate air pollution in the northeastern United States). At LLNL, he also served as division leader for atmospheric and geophysical sciences from 1987-1993 and as deputy division leader from 1974-1987.

From 1993-2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment as senior global change scientist to the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in Washington D.C., also serving as its first executive director from 1993-1997. 

From 1997-2001, he served as executive director of the USGCRP's National Assessment Coordination Office, which coordinated the efforts of 20 regional assessment teams, 5 sectoral teams, and the National Assessment Synthesis Team (which was constituted as a federal advisory committee) that prepared the national climate impacts assessment report that was forwarded to the President and on to the Congress in late 2000. During this period with the Office of the USGCRP, Dr. MacCracken also coordinated the official U.S. Government reviews of several of the assessment reports prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was a co-author/contributing author for various chapters in the IPCC assessment reports.

When Dr. MacCracken's assignment with the Office of the USGCRP concluded on September 30, 2002, he simultaneously retired from LLNL. In addition to his activities with the Climate Institute, he served on the integration team for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment from 2002-2004. Dr. MacCracken is also near completing a 4-year term (2003-2007) as president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS), members of which are the national academies of science or their equivalent in about 50 nations. As president of IAMAS, Dr. MacCracken also serves on the executive committees of International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR). 

From 2004 to 2005, he served on a panel of the Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment that prepared a report on what is known about the likelihood and consequences of an asteroid or comet impact, and from 2004-2007 on a scientific expert group convened by Sigma Xi and the UN Foundation at the request of the UN's Commission on Sustainable Development to suggest the best measures for mitigating and adapting to global climate change.

Dr. MacCracken is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and a member of the American Meteorological Society, the Oceanography Society, and the American Geophysical Union, among other organizations. His affidavit relating global climate change and impacts on particular regions was recently cited favorably by Justice Stevens in his opinion in the recent decision in Massachusetts et al. versus EPA.

Essays & Other Writings:

Climate Science in Six Well-Documented Findings

On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change impacts (Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) 045107)

Moderating Climate Change by Limiting Emissions of Both Short- and Long-Lived Greenhouse Gases (PDF)

The Science of Global Climate Change, Yale University , March 25,2004 (PDF, 1.3 MB)

Global Climate Change & Its Effects (PDF)

Uncertainties: How Little Do We Really Understand? (PDF)

National Assessment of the Consequences of Climate Variability & Change for the United States (PDF)

A letter to Representatives Dingell and Boucher, March 17, 2007. RE: Dealing with Transportation Emissions in Climate Change Legislation (PDF)

Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable, a report prepared for the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (Dr. MacCracken was one of the lead authors). (PDF)

Beyond Mitigation: Potential Options for Counter-Balancing the Climatic and Environmental Consequences of the Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases (PDF). Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, prepared for the World Bank by Dr. MacCracken

Articles, Statements and Presentations

 Dr. MacCracken's comments on EPA Power Plant Rules → Role in Mass v. EPA

What We (also) Need to Know is How the Weather is Changing (PDF).  Presented at the Fall 2010 Meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Michael MacCracken and Frances Moore Propose 'Lifetime Leveraging - An approach to reconciling the responsibilities of the developed and developing nations for reducing their emissions'

Michael MacCracken Proposes Aggressive and Equitable Framework for Reciprocal North-South Action to Phase Out Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2100

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation, recorded on January 8, 2010 in the United States House of Representatives Canon House Office Building.

The Science of Climate Change Feb 3, 2010. Dr. MacCracken's presentation at the Center for American Progress with Christopher Field.  Also see How We Know Humans Are Changing the Climate, an interview by Joe Romm.

Climate Change: A Challenge We Must Address (PDF) March 27, 2009. Presentation to Washington Area Model United Nations Conference

Climate Change: The Evidence Mounts Up (by Dr. MacCracken)

Arctic Region Noticeably Changing (by Dr. MacCracken)

Prepared statement of Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D. before the U. S. House of Representatives

Power Point Presentation: The Changing Climate: Our Responsibility (PPT, 12.7MB)

Michael MacCracken chosen to lead Climate Institute's Climate Science and Impacts programs

Presentation at EESI briefing: A Changing Climate: The Latest in Science, Policy, and International Negotiations [ PDF ]

Photo Slideshow of presentation at Hofstra University: The Increasing Pace of Climate Change and Its Impacts

_______________
Footnotes to Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 44 Filed 01/06/16 MacCracken's statement:

1 For a more detailed description of my qualifications and experience, see Exhibit 1 to my Declaration.
2 Mengpin Ge et al., World Res. Inst., 6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters (Nov. 25, 2014), http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10- emitters.
3 International Energy Statistics, U.S. Energy Information Admin., https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm? (accessed November 24, 2015). 
4 See U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013, EPA 430-R-15-004, ES-4 (2015), available at http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015- Main-Text.pdf.
5 Id. at ES-8.
6 Id. at ES-11-12.
7 Slight differences in column totals are a result of rounding.
8 For example see: (a) The Labor Network for Sustainability & Synapse Energy, The Clean Energy Future: Protecting the Climate, Creating Jobs, Saving Money (2015), available at http://www.labor4sustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cleanenergy _10212015_main.pdf; (b) Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era, Chelsea Green Publishing (2014), available at http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Fire-Business-Solutions- Energy/dp/1603583718/.
9 See Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 515-24.
10 In a few coastal areas, rebounding of the land from the depression experienced during the last glacial period and/or uplift due to earthquakes are still slightly in excess of the rate of sea level rise; as the rate of sea level increases with further warming, this will no longer be the case.
11 As an example, the U.S., led by the Department of Energy, has greatly increased efficiency in the lighting sector, and the products of these efforts are being adopted around the world. Sponsorship of research, support for development, and regulatory actions by DOE have all played a role in this, leading to very large reductions in the demand for electricity and in CO2 emissions because much of the electricity was being generated by combustion of fossil fuels.
12 Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Thomas Stever, RISKY BUSINESS: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States (2014), available at http://riskybusiness.org/site/assets/uploads/2015/09/RiskyBusiness_Report_WEB_09_08_14.pdf
13 See Paul Brodeur, Annals of Chemistry: In the Face of Doubt, The New Yorker 70 (june 9, 1986).

Our Children's Trust vs. Big Oil - Federal Lawsuit

I tend to distance myself from the news, it gets too distracting, and I'd get nothing done, so I'm often playing catch up regarding the latest happenings.  But, dealing with frolly's video is so depressing that I've been drifting.  Then I came upon this story that's impressive and worth sharing.  Why?  Because this is what I'm talking about.  Stand up and say enough is enough, be it oil company lawyers, government inaction, or lying about what scientists are actually telling us.

I wasn't able to find any news post-hearing, but soon as I do I'll share.

_________________________________________

Our Children's Trust 2015 Federal Lawsuit

On Wednesday, March 9 at 10 am, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin will hear oral arguments for motions to dismiss in the landmark constitutional climate change case brought by 21 young people from Oregon and around the Nation.

http://ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit

21 young people from across the United States have filed a landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Also acting as a Plaintiff is world-renowned climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, serving as guardian for future generations and his granddaughter. The Complaint asserts that, in causing climate change, the federal government has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.

The Complaint alleges the Federal Government is violating the youth’s constitutional rights by promoting the development and use of fossil fuels. 

These young Plaintiffs are challenging the federal government’s national fossil fuel programs, as well as the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in Coos Bay, OR. Plaintiffs seek to hold President Obama and various federal agencies responsible for continued fossil fuel exploitation. The Federal Government has known for decades that fossil fuels are destroying the climate system. No less important than in the Civil Rights cases, Plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the President to immediately implement a national plan to decrease atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) to a safe level: 350 ppm by the year 2100.

Meet the Youth Plaintiffs!

Click here for a summary of the complaint.

Click here for major pleadings and court orders in the case.

Accepting the Challenge: What's so special about today's AGW

There's a new commenter at CFI (Center for Inquiry) forum who tossed down a challenge that I took up this morning.  Since putting together my response required plenty of time and effort I'm going to add it to my WUWTW's 'considering debate' collection.  

I haven't changed his words though my response is a bit more detailed than over there and as usual I share many authoritative links to support and explain the claims and arguments I make.  

I figure it's an interesting case study others may find helpful.  

_______________________________________________________

Dude writes:  Nice evidence and empirically referenced discussion so far. 

Here are my questions regarding this vital topic. It is only vital due to the implications of mass destruction of our planet. Otherwise, who GAF (give a *&#$%$F word)

1. What is the evidence that warming of the surface of the planet is happening today?

_________________

Your phrasing is telling.  Why do you single out "surface of the planet"?  

Don't you appreciate that the oceans are an integral part of what's happens to surface temperatures?

For starters there are copious thermometer records that are recording a warming surface.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us

https://www.wmo.int/media/content/wmo-2015-likely-be-warmest-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period

There is also plenty of real down to Earth physical evidence, among the most obvious,

A)  Cryosphere is melting throughout the world

B)  Hydrologic Cycle has intensified

C)  Lakes and river temperatures are increasing

D)  Sea level rise
E)  Ocean warming