Bush bashed over vapid climate conference

Time Magazine reported on the White House organised Climate Change Conference. They were rather unflattering of Bush, and set him up as a foil for Clinton to do what he does best. Shine.

Look at the photos accompanying the article.



Clinton looks steely and resolved, Bush defensive ... hunched. Clinton's jaw is firmly set, in contrast to the slack-jawed look of Bush, which is unfortunately what can happen when one is photographed mid-sentence. He is looking down, Clinton is looking forwards. George is looking a mite wan against Bill's robust complexion.

If you think I am letting my biases get in the way of my judgement, you should read Time Magazine reporter and resident climate change geek, Jason Decrow.

Start with the headline — Climate Change: Filling the Bush Gap. Positioned above Bush's photo, the aforementioned gap seems to refer to the one between his hears. Very unfairly too.

Reporting on Bush:

You could Amtrak down to the White House and hear President George W. Bush tell the world's major economies that this global warming thing might actually be a problem and that we should maybe consider doing something about it eventually.

No hint of scorn for Clinton:

Of the three, it was the Clinton meeting that proved the best bet —

[...]

As part of his Clinton Climate Initiative, launched in August 2006, the former President has brought together business and philanthropy to generate locally focused efforts to reduce energy use and carbon emissions.

While President Bush offered mostly empty rhetoric, on Friday afternoon Clinton reeled off pledge after concrete pledge for his climate initiative: $150 million to harness geothermal energy in Africa, $5 million for the Alliance for Climate Protection in the U.S., $210 million for carbon offsetting in the developing world.

While UN action on climate change remains stalled by the deadlock between the developed and the developing world, Clinton has proved remarkably successful in fostering real engagement and investment on global warming across national lines. "Clinton just really gets it," says Ted Nordhaus, co-author of the new environmental politics book Break Through.

Good to see some balanced journalism, the type where you call a spade a spade.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Bill Clinton on peak oil, and his reading list

Question: Do you believe that the OPEC nations have exaggerated their oil reserves and if so, what are the implications?

Bill Clinton: Well first of all I’m not a petroleum geologist, but I can tell you this... :::[Carbonsink]

===

Update: Graph on U.S. Gov't Defense spending vs. their research on energy. No wonder the response to peak-oil musical chairs is most likely going to be a military one, than adaption.


Other blogs on: Global Warning Climate Change Peak Oil Bill Clinton

Clinton shows how real Presidents handle ambush

Chriss Wallace of Fox News invites Bill Clinton on his show to talk about his global warming Clinton Global Initiative, and at one point the conversation goes something like this:

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about?

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

WALLACE: But President Clinton?

CLINTON: ...

WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn?t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.

WALLACE: Sir that is not true...

CLINTON: ...and Richard Clarke...

WALLACE: That is not true...

CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony...

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this.

WALLACE: Alright.

See why Bill got so pissed-off, and then watch him inviscerate this Weasel Wallace character. You'll find out how refreshing it is to hear what a real US President sounds like again.



If you enjoyed that, then do the right thing and check out the Clinton Global Initiative ('cos this really is a blog about global warming). Raising $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different countries - that is something. Good on you, mate! Seven billion thank yous to all involved from all of us who are not yet involved.

Getting back to the interview - if we witnessed a natural leader leading we also witnessed a natural follower falling into line, the stag and the fawn - did you notice how this Weasel Wallace guy became so cringingly arse-puckered under fire that he inadvertantly called his guest, "President Clinton... "?

I bet no one makes that freudian slip with citizen Bush.

Other blogs on: global warming climate change clinton global initiative bin laden bill clinton

'Global warming' or 'climate change'?

Seth Godin, a marketing blogger, raises the interesting point that despite the real threat of global warming, no one is taking to the streets in protest. He suggests the reason the consequences have not breached the consciousness of the population is that the term, global warming, has implicit positive connotations:

The muted reaction to our impending disaster comes down to two things:

1. The name.

Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.

How can "global warming" be bad?

He suggests that a different framing like 'atmospheric cancer' or 'pollution death' would be more catchy. Those with a tendency to denial, which to some degree is all of us, may tend to dismiss concern based on the non-threatening name on first impression.

I use the term global warming because that is the dominant search term in the genre. That's what people type in when they are looking for information on the phenomena. While current global warming is the effect of man-made greenhouse gas build up in the atmosphere, its own consequence is rapid climate change. That's the term I would prefer to frame the discussion with. We would be be giving the problem more attention. People at large don't like change, and rapid climate change sounds very unsettling. But my logs show me that the search term climate change appears half the rate of global warming. Hence Global Warming Watch!

If the term global warming is like the long, slow, gradual, initial incline up to the top of a roller coaster then rapid climate change is the Oh-Jesus-stomach-in-the-mouth-drop, the loop-the-loop, and the dives, twists and jinks. We are still on the slow incline, and that is why global warming is more accurate and will be the preferred term for denialists and skeptics to frame the discussion around, but those interested in moving the discussion on should brand it rapid climate change. There is less room for doubt than with global warming, and less room for the public debate which has been undermined by a disinformation campaign mounted by vested interests in cheap fossil fuel energy.

The term has urgency, focuses the mind on averting outcomes and we should use it well before we get to the Oh-Jesus drop. Or we may get ourselves trapped on this rollercoaster ride. Permanently.

Other blogs on: global warming climate change rapid climate change blogging branding

CO2 counter commercial punches above weight

Chalk up a victory for the little guy (and the horse he rode in on). The Global Warming Watch counter-advertisement to the Exxon Mobil funded, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) produced campaign is listed #1 on Google when you type in the wonderfully generic search term "CO2 commercial".

At time of post, the CEI's own ad was listed at #3, behind YouTube's at #2. The CEI receives hundreds and thousands of dollars a year from fossil fuel companies to muddy the message about the science of global warming, so there is some poetic justice in cost-effectively placing ahead of their commercial with just a tvc script. The Google algorithm is based on the number of 'votes', or links, to the page being ranked so thank you to all who voted in the great big Google election and linked me. It a message that the public won't tolerate bad adverting, let alone bad science. For those who haven't read the script, please do, and if you like it, link it. The election is dynamic and you will be helping me maintain my Google ranking for :::[Carbon dioxide spot: They call it an ad, we call it a lie] ahead of CEI's :::[Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life] for 'co2 commercial' and improving my ranking for other terms such as 'carbon dioxide commercial', 'carbon dioxide ad' and 'co2 ad'.

Other blogs on: global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, CEI, skeptics, viral advertising, seo

Carbon dioxide spot: They call it an ad, we call it a lie.

An ExxonMobil funded lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is going on the attack to stake out the high ground in the public conversation on global warming that is likely to erupt around the opening of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Two 60 second tv ads produced by the institute will be played in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006. :::[Thinkprogress]

The CEI commercial
Carbon Dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life

I see that ExxonMobil are conserving their record profits wisely and not spending much on production values. Global Warming Watch felt it needed a rejoinder and dug deep into our treasury to fund the writing of the counter-ad (no production budget, sorry):

Video	Audio
Long shot opening on a shot of man standing in a large glass tank up to his ankles in water. Water is filling it fast, with the level rising as he speaks.
	Presenter: "Some oil and coal companies tell us that carbon dioxide is natural and shouldn't be classified as a pollutant by politicians wanting to legislate against rising emissions.
The level is at his waist and rising fast.
	Presenter: "They imply C02 can't be a pollutant because we expel it, and it is absorbed by plants for food."
The level is now at chest height and rising.
	Presenter: "That it provides us with transport and is it is harnessed to make energy and free us a life of back-breaking labour."
Level is starting to cover shoulders. Presenter stretches to full height. Tilting chin al
	Presenter: "That it supports all life."
Water level is at chin height.
	Presenter: "But you can also say the same thing about water." SFX: last few words spoken under water yet audible.
Camera pulls back to longer shot as the water continues to rise rapidly . Presenter starts to float off. Super: Carbon Dioxide: Too much is dangerous for all life.
	VO: Don't let big oil flood you with lies. The scientific consensus holds that the current rate of emissions increase, unchecked, IS going to change the climate. It's time to act.

It must be getting hard to maintain that global warming is not occurring.

The television commercials: :::[CEI]

Other bloggers commenting on CEI's advertisements:

• :::[But...But...Carbon Dioxide is So Natural!]
  Eloquent post by LitBrit of The Last Duchess blog
• Thank You For Exhaling
  
• Know thine enemy
• Who needs oxygen when we've got carbon dioxide?
  
• "they call it a spot. we call it a stain."

More: :::[Global Warming Watch]

Other blogs on: global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, CEI, skeptics

Global warming denial funded by ExxonMobil

Thank you Glitch for directing my attention to the UK Sunday Telegraph opinion piece, by Australian geologist, Bob Carter who asserts, "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998".

Skeptipundit accuses Carter of being narrowly selective in choosing the two time scales upon which to base his case. He says that Carter's short scale is too short, the last 8 years, to draw conclusions, and his longer paleoclimatic scale is not useful analysing the here and now human experience of climate change.

Skeptipundit: Global Warming Denial - Spinning the Scales

So Dr Bob Carter tells us global warming is over. Well, he is a geologist. They do look for coal and oil for a living. I entered his name in the ExxonSercets.org database to see if Greenpeace knew of him as an ExxonMobil funded climate change skeptic but didn't hold out hope. Bob Carter is an Aussie at the James Cook University and I believed the ExxonSecrets database to be US centric. But, bingo, there he was...

:: DOSSIER::BOB CARTER
DETAILS
Bob Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University

former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station

KEY QUOTES
"The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."
5 May, 2004
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter

"contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has many obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in general, and increased agricultural production in particular. And to maintain or slightly increase planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman and other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode."
5 May, 2004
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter

ORGANIZATIONS
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
http://www.techcentralstation.com
1133 21st St NW Suite M100c/o Ralph R BrownWashington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-546-4242
OVERVIEW
Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.
FURTHER DESCRIPTION
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.The Foundation commissioned a study by Charles River Associates alleging that the costs of the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 would be a minimum of $350 annually per household through 2010, rising to $530 per household by 2020, and could rise to as high as $1,300 per year per household. Related information: Tech Central Station was launched in 1999 as "a cross between a journal of Internet opinion and a cyber think tank open to the public" (TCS news release). According to Washington Monthly, TCS is published by the DCI Group, "a prominent Washington public affairs firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot." TCS shares office space, staff and ownership with DCI Group. ("Meet the Press" Washington Monthly, December 2003. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html) Corporate funders of Tech Central Station include AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm (Tech Central Station website).
FUNDING FROM EXXON
Total funding to Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station from Exxon corporations since 1998: $US 95,000

2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil FoundationClimate Change Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
KEY QUOTES
"The core issue underlying all climate policy debates is whether politicians and bureaucrats should have the power to regulate America into a condition of energy poverty. The Edison Electric Institute surely believes government should not have such power, which is why it opposes Kyoto and other carbon cap-and-trade schemes. Yet EEI, beguiled by the prospect of turning "voluntary" reductions into easy cash, is leading the charge for transferable credits -- a political force multiplier for the Kyoto agenda of climate alarmism and energy suppression. This is about as sensible as selling the rope by which one will be hanged. The nation's premier electric industry lobby can and should do better."
27 April, 2004
Source: "Et Tu, Edison?" TCS 4/27/04

"There is also enough scientific doubt about the nature and pace of climate change to avoid committing to blueprints like Kyoto that have little effect, except to reduce economic growth. The practicable approach to climate change is research and development of technologies which will contribute positively to reduction of greenhouse gases. They will not have the dramatic effect hoped for by the designers of the Kyoto blueprint. Just as well. But they will be more effective. Poor countries can't afford fancy research and development, but wealthier countries can. Making Asia prosperous is a surer bet."
29 April, 2004
Source: "Prosperity First," TCS 4/29/04

KEY DEEDS
Letter to Sen. McCain November 16, 2004 on Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment Press Release Source: Tech Central Station Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Tuesday November 16, 10:41 am ET
Recent Warming Trend is Unexceptional Compared to Natural Variability in Centuries PastWASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Today 11 climate experts sent a letter(please see below) to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is the Chairman of theSenate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee and is holding a full committee hearing this morning to hear testimony on the Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment (ACIA).In the letter, the climate experts respond to statements made in the ACIA that temperature changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of global warming. The signers of the letter point out that sediment and ice core samples show that the arctic has experienced past warming that can not be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. There is also a history o fstrong year-to-year variability of Arctic temperatures. The letter also calls for the need for advances in Arctic climate science in both models and measurements in order to assess a more complete picture of Arctic climate understanding.

It is enlightening to know whom you really are dealing with when reading climate change opinion piece. I like visiting ExxonSecrets.org for that. It is a wonderful tool for filtering out the ExxonMobil propaganda and has a groovy flash program where you can draw linkages between different oil lobby institutes, foundations and people. In the case of Bob Carter's opinion piece, where he trades on being a scientist, I don't think it was his real opinion or one very scientific.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Skeptic ExxonMobil Australia Bob Carter Energy