…when it comes time to make decisions about science, it seems to me that people have lost the ability…to judge…what is true, and what is not. What is reliable, what is not reliable. What should you believe, what should you not believe.
When you have people who don’t know much about science, standing in denial of it, and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy.
We can’t be sued because we deliberately lie engage in hyperbole. That’s Greenpeace’s new story, and they’re sticking to it. As cited by Watts Up With That, we get this from the Financial Post. The proximate subject is Greenpeace’s accusations against Resolute Forest Products Inc, a Canadian forest-products company that’s suing Greenpeace over those, which Resolute holds are false claims and defamatory about the company’s forestry operations.
But now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolute’s logging practices as literal truth.
Watts Up With Thatis reporting a Mail on Sunday piece wherein a NOAA whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a leading scientist with NOAA at the time, has given MoAirrefutable evidence that the “Pausebuster” paper that NOAA rushed to print with lots of publicity just ahead of the 2009 Paris climate agreement was based on misleading, “unverified” data. The purpose of the rush was to influence those present, including ex-President Barack Obama (D), and con them into believing that not only did the pause in global warming that’s still ongoing, not only never existed, the warming is continuing at a faster pace than thought.
The rising income gap and growing rifts in Western societies that led to the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote are the main global risks, according to a report by the World Economic Forum ahead of its annual forum in Davos next week.
Climate change and technological disruption were also listed as important risks in a survey of 750 law makers, business leaders and academics carried out by the WEF….
Dr Tim Ball has an excellent piece on Watts Up With That about the politicization of climate change pseudo-science (my characterization, not his). This excerpt is centered on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it illustrates the general, broad, and sole politicization of climate change pseudo-science [emphasis added].
US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.
Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.
“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address.
The People’s Republic of China is…wary…of dealing with a President Trump, and they’re expressing that wariness in the milieu of the Paris climate accord. Xie Zhenhua, the PRC’s climate negotiator, is being cited byThe Guardian as saying, in response to Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s commitment to walk away from the accord, that
The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth….
I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends.
And Trump should continue the meekness of President Barack Obama’s (D) following along leading from behind. The PRC is much more comfortable that way.
Looks to me like positive growth has vastly outstripped negative growth. Indeed, here’s Anthony Watt’s take on the matter [emphasis in the original]:
Since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate. Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years. Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987.