One might think we are living in medieval times when it comes to our attitude to global warming. So many variations of opinion are muddying current understanding that each view may be as bizarre as the next if one reads the background on the climate wars through the prism of each viewer. Nobel laureate scientists, environmentalists, climate deniers, geoengineerers are fighting either to close debate or are working under the radar to make changes for us.
Climate deniers say environmentalists are using scientists to instill fear about global warming in order to perpetuate political control. Environmentalists are blaming climate deniers for being lobbyists for big oil. And big money philanthropists, the ones least spoken about in the media, are making environment change with hocus pocus wizardry.
Climategate is the neologism for a politically motivated, special interest group that is making a concerted, organized campaign against the scientifically proven and very clearly exhibited warming of our planet that is caused by human activity. A third thinks that the solution is to manage the weather or look for another planet. Each points a finger of "crazy" at the other.
To look for yourself, see the three opposing viewpoints.
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Geoengineering
The first website considers the dangerous repercussions caused by over development and examines the scientific evidence of changing environment including warming, weather patterns, extreme weather, melting ice at the poles. The second emphasizes a magical thinking view that nature has its own means of self regulation and that over time there have been similar fluctuations in global temperature extremes. The site is a parody of the first at the outset, but the scientific (alchemist) examinations of CO2 emissions are written by scientists with dubious respectability in the field. The third uses science to make nature predictable and changeable.
Funders for the deniers are amongst the big oil philanthropic duo Koch Brothers and Microsoft's Bill Gates Corporation for geoengineering. The media spin on Gates' donations say that he offered computers to this endeavour. The reporter didn't corroborate or investigate the truth of that, but it is easily disproven.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.
Why GeoEngineering poses the most threat to global warming
The least covered aspect of science about climate change deals with geoengineering. Most opposition to climate manipulation comes from the countries most immediately affected, like Brazil and Africa. Brazil has the most resources and internet capacity to campaign against it.
An IceRocket search will provide adequate background for the pros and cons, an example follows. Note the page rank and number of references for its veracity.
... the following video compilation is an accurate depiction of what is happening, this is an important historical/scientific document relying on primary sources and hard data rather than selectively chosen scientific papers funded by the billion dollar foundations and organisations who funded geoengineering ...
How is Canada an important player in Geoengineering?
Our wide open spaces, tundra, arctic and controlled through suppression Aboriginal population (key opposition) make it possible. Another location is the atmosphere and the oceans. However, the secret document at the end of this post lists not the Canadian indigenous peoples but Madagascar as a group to be consulted. What follows are snippets from the 82 page document.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research(Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from
Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company
Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for
Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
The continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has profound implications for global and regional average temperatures, and also precipitation, ice-sheet dynamics, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and the frequency and magnitude of extreme events. Future climatic perturbations could be abrupt or irreversible, and potentially extend over millennial time scales; they will inevitably have major consequences for natural and human systems, severely affecting biodiversity and incurring very high socio-economic costs (Section 3.1). (from Canadian Natural Resources.)
Enhanced weathering on land however will have clear local impacts as it requires large mining areas and associated transport infrastructure. In addition, the mineral resources required will only be available in certain locations, therefore reducing the opportunity for choosing between alternative sites. Based on historical experience, large mining activities could have serious social implications. In addition, land space is needed for weathering to happen.
Second, the distribution of impacts of geo-engineering are not likely to be even or uniform as are the impacts of climate change itself. Regarding impacts on climate, this appears to be mainly an issue arising from SRM. Regarding other impacts, CDR could have local and possibly also regional impacts that could raise distributional issues. Such impacts are explored below in this chapter. Where distributional effects arise, this raises questions about how the uneven impacts can be addressed for instance through proper governance mechanisms.
Third, as with climate change, geo-engineering could also entail intergenerational issues. As a result of possible technological “lock in”, future generations might be faced with the need to maintain geo-engineering measures in general in order to avoid impacts of climate change. This mainly has been identified as an issue for SRM. However, it is also conceivable that CDR-techniques entail similar “lock in” effects depending on emission trajectories. Conversely, it could be argued that not pursuing further research on geo-engineering could limit future generations’ options for reducing climate risk.
How does one sort through the smog of climate reality?
Follow the money trail to see who is being secretive about their funding and documentation. Documents disclosing the strategies of climate deniers were sent anonymously to DeSmogBlog and can be read in full by following the links here.
These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.
How do you know if the media is showing bias?
You might be able to spot deniers or the effect of their propaganda in several ways. Media qualifying their remarks by such provisos as attributing a point of view to one organization like the Suzuki Foundation or Greenpeace, thereby branding it with the "wingnut" slander or "lefty" tar brush (wink understood).
Why is there so little science news?
Science is being muzzled by governments world wide in order to maintain a status quo. We never hear about the impact of oil and gas on the environment, toxics, climate, air, water, food supplies, from scientists in Canada unless the
information is filtered.
Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified “over 7,400″ journalists worldwide about Miller’s “Suffering Salmon” study. Science told Miller to “please feel free to speak with journalists.” It advised reporters to contact Diane Lake, a media officer with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, “to set up interviews with Dr. Miller.”
Obama has made attempts to restore science to its rightful place, while our government has completely reversed all our free speech on environment. We must agitate to have more news stories on environment and science in newspapers, more scientists in federal agencies. Why control science? visibility, media,
Advanced Science Serving Society will be holding a meeting in B.C. this week on the issue of why governments control science, its visibility and media gatekeeping. Let's see how it is covered and who addresses the story well.
