The First Anniversary of Climategate: A Year in Review

From the great geneticist JBS Haldane:

Four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;
iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;
iv) I always said so.
Journal of Genetics, vol. 58 (1963)

Or conversely, the 4 stages of denial
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/crude_ ... _060420082
Personally, I think the majority are still in denial, but this was written back in 2008, before the person realized that it would be much worse for much longer, but hidden because the government would step in and try to make everything that was crumbling look shiny and pretty. But he's got some good points so it's worth quoting.

It's not about having an open mind or not, it's about when the evidence is so overwhelming that no one can remain ignorant and apathetic any longer, and will that time come before the carbon being loaded into the system has surpassed what we can effectively mitigate or not; ie pass the tipping points, per se.

SS109, I'd be happy if we started with just ending the subsidies to the energy/oil companies first, without adding in costs of renewable energy on top of that - it'd cut our deficit too. The biggest effect we can make starting today is to improve our conservation and energy efficiency - no new technologies required, only modification of people's behaviors, which they will be motivated to do when energy prices reflect their true price.

Residenttroll wrote: I am still waiting for scientists to prove that if we cease the production of carbons...that they will save the world and that the earth will not keep heating up at a rate of 1/10th of degree every decade.

http://www.onlyzerocarbon.org/science.html
This is a pipe dream but it highlights why it's important to begin reducing emissions as much as possible starting sooner rather than later.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politi ... ge-deniers
Another Republican has harsh words for climate change deniers
The former chairman of the House Committee on Science says Republicans have lost their way.
Tue, Nov 23 2010

Another Republican is going on the record chastising members of his party for ignoring science. Former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) recently penned a criticism of fellow members of the G.O.P. and urged the new congress to, “Have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05451.html
Can the party of Reagan accept the science of climate change?
By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010
Frankly, I think he's being very kind to his fellow party members - it's less about misinformation and more about lobby influence, and Reagan certainly was NOT the champion that he thinks, but his voice matters.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politi ... sounds-off
A Republican with nothing to lose sounds off
Bob Inglis' committee meeting lecture on climate change is exactly what the lame duck session is supposed to be about.
Fri, Nov 19 2010

With his time limited in Washington, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) took a few shots (see video below) at his Republican counterparts during an environmental subcommittee meeting this week. The South Carolina Republican hit fellow conservatives with a one-two punch by attacking their denial of climate change and their economic hypocrisy.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/ ... 7762a.html
US midterm elections: A chilly season for climate crusaders
Published online 13 October 2010 | Nature 467, 762 (2010) | doi:10.1038/467762a

"Climate-science denial is a by-product of extreme partisanship and a kind of reactionary mode among conservatives, and I expect that this will wane," says Paul Bledsoe, a senior adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist think tank based in Washington DC. He says that most Republicans in the current Congress accept the science even if they disagree over what to do about it. "But if large parts of the Republican Party begin to deny consensus science," he adds, "then the climate community will have to confront them about it."

Get ready for this to happen if they decide to be stupid and subpoena scientists to appear before Congress - they are ready for the battle. Especially when this kind of idiot is leading the charge:
http://www.desmogblog.com/john-shimkus- ... ge-climate
Watch him backtrack (God promised to not destroy the earth, but wait, religion has nothing to do with the science of climatology... he thinks climate scientists want to "stop climate change" - no, moron, mitigate doesn't mean "stop") and avoid answering direct questions, it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pitiful that this man was elected as a leader in this country.

http://www.desmogblog.com/will-new-cong ... scientists
Will the New Congress Subpoena Climate Scientists?
22 November 10

Several top House Republicans have indicated that they may want to hold “Climategate” hearings (although more recently, there has been some apparent backing away from this idea).

The question now becomes whether incoming Republicans will follow through on such plans—or if it’s all just a head feint. If they’re serious, they can expect a powerful response from scientists, much like the strong mobilization against Cuccinelli organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Association of University Professors, and many others.Recently I got the chance to speak with Michael Mann—by far the most attacked climate researcher on the planet—and to ask what he was expecting from the next Congress, and how he might respond. Mann pulled no punches. “I think I speak for the entire scientific community,” he answered, “in saying that if scientists are subject to the sorts of McCarthyite witch hunts that took place during the 1950s, there will I suspect be a very fierce pushback by the scientific community, and by public interest groups that support science.” A congressional subpoena fight could get ugly—but for precisely that reason, it could also backfire for congressional Republicans.

Change is in the winds...

Peter H. Gleik of the Pacific Institute writes, ...there is an improved realization of how impossible it is to keep the climate science questions and debates separate from the political and ideological debates. And I hope we’ve learned the importance of communicating accurately and constantly. Being passive in the face of political repression, ideological misuse of science, and policy ignorance moves us in the wrong direction. I would like to think the community has learned that depending on the “honesty” and “impartiality” of journalism is not enough … that without strong input from climate scientists, the wrong stories get reported, with bad information, and ideological bias.

Consensus science was a bad choice of words on Bledsoe's part. The only reason that there is climate science denial is because the energy businesses stand to lose trillions of dollars and are fighting underhanded and dirty - countering with PR confusion from front groups like the Heritage Foundation and George C. Marshall Institute, delay tactics - stalling legislation with their lobbying, and adding only a few slivers of true credible questions to the overall science. The merging of climate science and politics is complete and will not be undone anytime soon, but it's time to stop bemoaning that fact and address the evidence as it stands, unshaken and continuing the strengthen with every paper published. Climate scientists are finally figuring out that sitting around passively, waiting for mainstream media to improve its reporting, is useless. http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scien ... m-launched

As well, hoping that Congress will wake up to reality and start tackling this problem rationally and actively, is going to take a more concerted effort - an effort that they are increasingly taking and can take without compromising their integrity or ethics. It is science's job to impart its knowledge to help guide policy decisions effectively. Journals such as Nature and Science have a perfect right to write a piece about something that affects science. If you notice, that article was in the news section, not the research section, and what they reported isn't anything shocking or new - indeed, Science has been reporting on political issues such as budgets and legislation that pertains to science for long before now (I assume Nature as well, but I don't read it on a regular basis - not enough time in my day).

What it's really going to take is a movement by The People. http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/
I urge you to become informed on this issue and send your letter once you are. Cap and trade is not the answer, but we must start addressing this problem soon or the cost, and damage, will be extensive and it will be our children and grandchildren who bear the burden.