Planet3.0 is a new attempt at sustainability journalism. An attempt to present the news that should be on the front page.

An attempt to remove the sense of helplessness for the future:

What will become of us?

There is a strange sense of inevitability these days, the idea that the world is careening along a trajectory not under human control.

…

As Sartre observed, “the future is not yet written”.

It is time for us to start writing it. We cannot do so if we limit the discussion by imposing the interests of any particular culture or interest or institution. We need to take the discussions that the cleverest of us occasionally manage to have over beer at midnight, and put them front and center, into the public sphere. A cold, hard look at the present and the future can be frightening, but it also can be exhilarating. It is time for us to be willing to say what mustn’t be said, and consider doing what mustn’t be done. This is no time for an excess of propriety. But the time for blame and recriminations is over. We can’t afford them anymore. Let’s move on.

Let’s look reality in the face and decide what needs to be done.

Indeed. Much talk these days (from very important people no less) is completely divorced from reality. We cannot expect solutions or a positive future to come out of this. We need to do better and Planet3.0 aims to at least be a part of that.

The future will be many things, but boring ain’t on the list

This blog and podcast will soon move over to the Planet3.0 hive mind, but I don’t expect to have any podcasts out until at least late January. Getting the Planet3.0 site feature complete, as well feeding it the occasional article, is still likely to monopolize most of my time… well that and the day job which still pays all the bills.

And while I have a good explanation, I can’t really tell you about it. All I can say is that I have not been idle this past while, I am working on something that has the potential to be big.

If all goes to plan expect an announcement in the near future.

A market system that fails to price the full cost of carbon is socialism -Dan Moutal

More Mitchell goodness here and here

And if you liked that, then you will love this.

But that hasn’t stopped the cosmic ray driven climate (and therefor not caused by GHG emissions) theory from getting more attention than it deserves. From every single study that doesn’t outright disprove the notion that cosmic rays influence the climate from getting undue attention.

And so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the latest study looking into these effects is being blow out of all proportions.

CERN, the people responsible for the ultra-cool (literally) Large Hadron Collider, the worlds most powerful particle accelerator, are conducting a series of experiments, conveniently titled CLOUD, to gather data on the effects cosmic rays have on cloud formation, and thus potentially the climate.

The basic theory goes something like this:

• Cosmic rays produce aerosol nuclei
• These aerosol nuclei seeds clouds
• Clouds have an effect on the climate

So far so good, even if based on very tentative evidence (so lets not go making any grand sweeping claims). In fact even the first part of this theory, that cosmic rays produce aerosol nucleation is tentative (again no grand sweeping claims).

Where people get into trouble is when they extrapolate this to say that cosmic rays control the climate and are responsible for the recent warming trend (aka make a grand sweeping claim).

But thanks to the blogger Things Break we know that the evidence simply doesn’t back this up:

• The current warming trend exhibits “fingerprints” consistent with GHG driven warming, not by cosmic rays.
• We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR [galactic cosmic ray] activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).
• We can examine the change in GCRs in response to solar variability over recent decades or the course of a solar cycle, and find there is no or little corresponding change in climate (Lockwood 2007, Lockwood 2008, Kulmala 2010).
• We can look at alleged correlations between GCRs and climate in the geologic past due to our sun passing through galactic spiral arms, and find that these “correlations” were based on an unrealistic, overly-simplified model of spiral structure and are not valid (Overholt 2009). Standard climatic processes (like CO2) more parsimoniously explained the climatic changes even before taking the flawed spiral model into account (Rahmstorf 2004).
• We can examine the specific mechanisms by which Svensmark and others have claimed GCRs influence climate via cloud behavior and show that alleged correlations between GCRs and clouds were incorrectly calculated or insufficiently large, proposed mechanisms (e.g. Forbush decreases) are too short lived, too small in magnitude, or otherwise incapable of altering cloud behavior on a large enough scale to drive significant climatic change (Sloan 2008, Erlykin 2009, Erlykin 2009a, Pierce 2009, Calogovic 2010, Snow-Kropla 2011, Erlykin 2011).

So where does that leave the CERN CLOUD project?

Well why not get the answer straight from the lead author of the study in question, Jasper Kirkby:

It is important to stress we are only looking, at the moment, at the production of nanometre sized embryonic particles. These are far too small to seed cloud droplets at this stage so at the moment it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic ray effect on clouds and therefore climate.

And if you want more detail there is always Real Climate.

Seems pretty clear to me.  This research says nothing about climate and nothing about clouds.

So what does it show? It mostly focused on the most basic part of the climate/cosmic ray theory: do cosmic rays produce aerosol nuclei? Even at this most basic level there is still significant uncertainty, but the CLOUD research does provide some evidence that yes, cosmic rays might produce some very small aerosol nucleii.

This is the first step in determining what, if any, effect cosmic rays might have on clouds and therefore climate, but on its own, like the lead author Jasper Kirkby, stated this says nothing about the climate.

The effects of aerosols and clouds on the climate represent significant uncertainties, and the CERN CLOUD (which is just getting started) will hopefully allow scientists to reduce some of these remaining uncertainties.

But anyone making grand sweeping claims can just be ignored as nothing but spin.

We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation… We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence…

The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject’s data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results.

Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above [in the report], this case is closed.

The NSF delivered two exonerations here. One to Michael Mann, and the other to the original investigators at Penn State, who were accused, by deniers, of having conducted a whitewash investigation because they got the ‘wrong answer’. Apparently for some people it was too much of a stretch to accept that perhaps the investigators found nothing nefarious, because nothing nefarious was done.

Hence why as soon as the Penn State investigation concluded deniers waved their arms in a distracting fashion and proclaimed that the National Science Foundation would have the final say on the matter:

But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State’s investigation was adequate…

[This] will be the first time that climate studies here will be scrutinized by an independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively.

So case closed. Right?  Fox News said this would be it. Finally! After more than half-a-dozen investigations that all found the same thing, (namely that regardless of how the climategate emails were spun by deniers, the scientists did nothing wrong, and climate science is as solid as ever), finally the case is closed. Right?

Well no, of course not. As the brilliantly satirical Inferno of Denial Depot puts it:

However climate deniers are not happy. They remain adamant that the real test of Dr Micheal Mann’s scientific integrity still remains. “What we do is point to the next investigation”, explained the blog scientist Inferno of DenialDepot. “All those previous investigations are all very well at the time we hype them up, but until we get the result we want the real test is always going to be the next one that hasn’t happened yet.“

Actually that isn’t satire. It is the Modus operandi of the denial movement. Every investigation is hyped up as proof that obviously something nefarious is happening, then immediately declaired a whitewash when the investigation inevitably concludes that climate change isn’t some massive conspiracy.

But now it seems the deniers have run out of official and independent investigations (even arch denialist Senator Inhofe’s investigation by the Department of Commerce Inspector General found nothing nefarious).

Sadly even this wont be the end of it. After all how can we be absolutely certain that the massive climate conspiracy hasn’t corrupted the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce Inspector General.

The model they’re using in that effort was transported whole cloth into the climate debate [from the Tobacco debate]. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bullshit! “It may be sun spots.” Bullshit! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bullshit!

There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.

First lets state the obvious. Gore is absolutely right. CO2 does trap heat. Saying otherwise is bullshit!. It isn’t volcanoes. Saying otherwise is bullshit! It isn’t sunpsots. Saying otherwise is bullshit! And the planet is still warming. Saying otherwise is bullshit.

So Gore was absolutely right to call this bullshit. And while one can nitpick and claim that the word bullshit is language unbecoming a former vice-president, that doesn’t make Gore wrong.

But Al Gore’s statement of the obvious is shocking to many. It is shocking because the ideas that Gore rightly calls bullshit are frequently portrayed as legitimate on TV and in Newspapers and magazines. These ideas that have been thoroughly debunked are presented as the other side in a debate that long ago was settled scientifically.

This is a large part of the reason why the public opinion of climate change differs so drastically from the scientific opinion.

In fact recently an independent review of the BBC, commissioned by the BBC, recommended:

…that the BBC takes a less rigid view of ‘due impartiality’ as it applies to science (in practice and not just in its guidelines) and takes into account the non‐contentious nature of some material and the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion…

For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves. Their ability so to do suggests that an over‐diligent search for due impartiality – or for a controversy – continue to hinder the objective reporting of a scientific story even when the internal statements of the BBC suggest that no controversy exists. There is a contrast between the clear demands for due impartiality in the BBC’s written guidelines and what sometimes emerges on air.

This is exactly the problem, far too often the media decides to give both sides of the story. One side from qualified experts who have devoted their professional lives to understanding the issue, and the other side from unqualified cranks.

Their views are given undue attention simply by including them as a legitimate other side. They are given legitimacy whenever they are not called what they truly are. Bullshit.

The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science – Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position… I can’t remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a – a party that – that was antithetical to science. I’m not sure that’s good for our future and it’s not a winning formula.

John Huntsman is the only Republican presidential candidate that seems to understand that if you pick a fight with reality you will loose, every time.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy. – Jon Huntsman, 2012 Republican presidential candidate

This is what real conservatism looks like. And we need more of it, lots more.

(h/t Joe Romm)

But despite this Scott Denning went to the Heartland conference and delivered an excellent talk. One that avoids alienating the mostly right-wing/libretarian crowd of the conference:

I think Denning makes two key points:

• It is the big picture that matters. People can quibble about the details all they want but from a policy perspective the those details are irrelevant. And the big picture is that under business as usual if we want to elevate people out of abject poverty we can expect a 400% increase in CO2 over the next 100 years. So far we have only seen a 30% increase. The effects of a 400% increase in CO2 cannot be small.
• This WILL result in policy. If the ring-wing/libretarian end of the political spectrum does not propose effective policy then someone else will. “Do you want Greenpeace to dictate policy?” He asked the crowd.

Since climate policy is inevitable (though the longer we wait the more costly and less effective at reducing suffering it will be), the right-wing needs to get busy proposing policy that works. Because if they do not, all we will have are left-wing policies. And anyone who thinks that the left-wing (or right-wing for that matter) has all the answers is misguided.  This should be utterly unacceptable to the people from the Heartland Institute or anyone who considers themselves to be on the right-wing. They should be terrified of having Greenpeace dictate policy.

What we need is for both the left and right to propose ways of dealing with the problem, for several different effective policies to be proposed and evaluated. This will increase our chances of finding the absolute best policy.

(h/t Bart Verheggen)

And part 3 

And for those who missed part 1 here it is.

The important question is why?

And unfortunately the answer is too much for any single blog post. Even one as long as this. One could blame the well organized and well funded denial machine. They certainly must share part of the blame.

One could equally blame the media, for being unable to separate fact from fiction, and consistently prioritizing unimportant stories ahead of stories about the deteriorating health of our planet’s life support systems. This too would be accurate. Once could also blame the public for being unable to separate fact from fiction, and consistently preferring unimportant stories instead of stories about the deteriorating health of our planet’s life support systems. Even this would be accurate.

All of these factors and many more play a role in why the green movement has failed to get its message across. But that isn’t what this post is about.

This post is about the green movement itself and how it has alienated the public. Because while the factors I listed above have absolutely played a role in the green movement’s failure to effect change, they don’t tell the whole story.

Part 1: Genetically modified food

Probably no clearer example of this alienation comes to us from Greenpeace in Australia. Recently a group of Greenpeace protesters broke into a research facility and destroyed a trial crop of genetically modified wheat. Amongst other things, this trial was attempting to determine the safety of this strain of genetically modified wheat.

Why did Greenpeace destroy the wheat? Because according to Greenpeace “Genetically modified food has never been proven safe to eat“.

Think about that for a second.

How are scientists supposed to determine if this genetically modified wheat is safe, Greenpeace destroys the trials that were designed to address that specific question? Greenpeace’s position here has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology.

But not only is Greenpeace’s action based on ideology, it was actively anti-science, and anti-scientist.

It is anti science because such research provides valuable information as Christopher Preston, an agricultural scientist at the University of Adelaide, explains:

These trials are not just about the development of genetically modified crops that may at some future time be developed commercially, but frequently provide spin-off information that is of use in our understanding of gene action in the environment. This important information is also lost.

Valuable data was destroyed. This will set back the development of new ideas, which will cost farmers money. Ideas that are needed as the world struggles to feed over 7 billion people.

Not only data was destroyed, but possibly careers were destroyed as Christopher Preston again explains:

All the research staff working in my program are on short-term contracts, which is the nature of scientific careers these days. They need to continually produce research to further these careers.

For them, the loss of a field trial could mean the difference between a new grant and leaving science.

For postgraduate students, the situation is even more difficult. Typically, current postgraduate students only get two field seasons to complete their research. The loss of a field trial can have an enormous impact on their ability to complete their degrees on time.

But being anti-science and scientist is only the least offensive aspect of Greenpeace’s action.

Most importantly Greenpeace’s actions are anti-human. The genetically modified wheat they destroyed was designed with a lower glycemic index and a higher fibre content. Both are features which could improve human health  and save lives in the developed and developing world. If human population continues to grow, then so does the pressure on our food production systems. Can we feed 7 billion people? What about 8, 9 or 10 billion? It is irresponsible to ignore the potential solutions that genetic modification provides.

Professor Mark Tester, a plant scientist at the University of Adelaide, sums up the situation:

[Genetic modification] technology is not a magic bullet but it does offer new opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of wheat. One cannot make any generalisations about [genetic modification] or any other technology – it all depends on how it is used… One cannot say that all [genetic modification] is good or that all [genetic modification] is bad but it is one of many tools in our toolbox to try and help protect the environment and feed people around the world.

Yet Greenpeace, blinded by ideology, was unable to comprehend this. They destroyed the field trial, and in doing so were anti-science, anti-scientist, and anti-human.

And they were even anti-Greenpeace, or rather anti-their-own-stated-goals. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose genetically modified food, things like patent law, and other policies are incredibly troubling (note this isn’t a scientific problem but a political one), but in recklessly attacking genetically modified food they draw attention away from these legitimate issues and focus it on the one area that is relatively free from controversy (the research designed to answer questions we all have, like is it safe?).

In it’s opposition to Genetically modified food Greenpeace is not alone. A large part of the green movement is also ideologically opposed to genetically modified food.

But, while this sad story highlights how Greenpeace and the green movement have alienated the public, it is not the only story.

Part 2: Nuclear Power

Take nuclear power for instance, At the same time Greenpeace states (correctly) that climate change threatens our very way of life, that unless something drastic is done many will die and everyone else will suffer greatly, and (incorrectly) that, no matter what, nuclear power must be opposed at all costs:

Greenpeace has always fought — and will continue to fight — vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

As discussed in episode 21 of Irregular Climate, it makes absolutely zero sense to adopt a policy of dismantling nuclear power plants. One needs only look at Germany, which is generally seen as an environmental leader, to see why such a policy is exactly the wrong thing to do.

After the Fukushima  disaster, Germany pledged to shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the year 2022. Currently nuclear power supplies about 25% of Germany’s electricity.  The best case scenario would be if Germany is able to replace all of this electricity with renewable sources. But even if Germany is able to accomplish this amazing feat, it would do nothing to reduce its GHG emissions. Germany would be replacing one form of carbon-free energy with another, and  all that massive investment and deployment of renewables won’t reduce Germany’s emissions, because Germany wont be replacing its dirty coal power plants and will still be burning massive amounts of coal.

And that is the best case scenario.  More likely Germany will not be able to replace all of its nuclear power with renewables and will fall back on burning more coal.

In fact the International Energy Agency estimates that even a slowdown of the expansion of nuclear power will increase global emissions by 30%. Were the world to follow Germany, and Greenpeace’s advice emissions would rise even more.

Greenpeace’s position on nuclear power is not unique in the green movement, it is the rule rather than the exception. It is almost like the mainstream green movement is more worried about the potential, but highly unlikely, threat that nuclear power poses, than the certain threat of climate change.

Or as George Monbiot recently put it:

Sometimes it seems to me that greens are putting renewables first, climate change second. We have no obligation to support the renewables industry – or any other industry – against its competitors. Our obligation is to persuade policy makers to bring down emissions and reduce other environmental impacts as quickly and effectively as possible. The moment we start saying we won’t accept one technology under any circumstances, or we must use another technology whether it’s appropriate or not is the moment at which we make that aim harder to achieve.

The position of Germany, Greenpeace and the green movement flies in the face of their stated aims of combating climate change and reducing GHG emissions.

Such contradictions, understandably, confuse and alienate the public.

Part 3: The bigger problem

The green movement is against two technologies that could provide answers to some of the myriad of problems we face as human populations continues to grow: genetically modified organisms and nuclear power. These examples might be the most prominent, but they are not the only ones, and they are a symptom of a larger problem, perhaps best described by Hans Rosling and his magic washing machine:

There is a general trend of opposing new technology within the green movement. This opposition, as Hans Rosling describes in the video above is predominantly directed at people who live in developing countries. They cannot have the washing machine! Or much of anything else, apparently.

To support this position many greens present a romanticised version of the third world, where people are freed from the burdens of a modern technological life. Of course these same greens seem unwilling to give up these supposed burdens themselves. Or as Hans Rosling states: “Even the hardcore in the green movement use the washing machine!”

Of course people living the the third-world, don’t see things the same way. As Hans Rsoling emphatically  says “If you have democracy people will vote for the washing machine!“ Inevitably this alienates people in the third world, and people who care about the third world.

This anti-technology position lends itself,  inevitably, to an anti-development position. Without access to technology little development is possible.

But this leads to what is perhaps the biggest problem with the green movement. It is perceived as being part of the radical left, of being anti-capitalism.

Often-times this perception is inaccurate, but sometimes it is explicit. As this article titled: No, Greens must not cosy up to capitalism. They must resist it by Patrick Curry in the Guardian makes clear:

 the principal driver of the accelerating eco-crisis – anthropogenic climate change, biodiversity crash, destruction and degradation of wild habitat, and a virtual holocaust of animal species – is precisely capitalism… Any green movement worth its name must therefore resist industrial capitalism, however hopeless that may appear, and the only serious questions concern how.

Of course this perception is not entirely the fault of the green movement. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that there is a concerted effort by some special interests to brand the green movement as a radical left-wing conspiracy. To brand greens as watermelons, green on the outside but red on the inside. A grand communist plot.

Yet as absurd that sounds there is a surprisingly large percentage of the public (generally on the right-wing) that believes this to be true. These people are automatically alienated, and worse, frequently they become actively hostile to the very notion that we should care and protect the environment we all live in; the environment that sustains us.

You would think then, that a major priority of the green movement would be to counteract this alienation and hostility. But that is not what has happened. Instead, as special interests have pulled the right-wing away from caring about the environment, the green movement has helped the special interests and pushed the right-wing away.

Green issues are now seen as almost entirely left-wing issues, particularly in North America. Anti-right-wing rants are now common among the green movement.  Unsurprisingly, there is a very large number of people who are alienated by this.

Part 4: The root of the problem and a solution

The green movement his failed. It has not inspired the public to care about the environment we all depend on, it has failed to make the public understand the gravity and scale of our current environmental problems, and it has failed to get politicians to do anything other than talk.

The root of the problem with green movement, lies in the failure of the green movement to understand the reality of the Anthropocene. That is to say they do not understand that humans are currently the dominant force shaping the planet.

There are over 7 billion people on the planet and our population is still increasing. Ideological rejections of new technologies; of potential solutions, will only lead to suffering. There are no more easy answers, no more perfect solutions. It is no longer a choice between a good option and a bad one.

Risk cannot be eliminated, that is simply not possible. But if we adopt the right polices we can minimize the risk.

This is what  the green movement fail to understand. They are incapable of risk management. The see nuclear power as risky so they oppose it. Yet compared with the enormous risk of climate change, the risk of a nuclear disaster is negligible, and the worst case scenario of a nuclear meltdown is infinitely more manageable than what scientists say is all but certain due to climate change if we continue on our current emissions path.

Nuclear power is far from perfect, but it can provide us with part of the answer to deal with climate change. The same is true with genetically modified food. It is far from perfect and there are many legitimate issues (more political that scientific) that should be addressed, but again, it can provide us with part of the answer of how to feed a growing human population.

The solution to the problems within the green movement are simple.

The green movement needs to drop its ideological positions. It needs to view the world as it actually exists and not as it wishes it existed.

This means embracing science. It means following the data wherever it leads, even if that means admitting you were wrong in the past. Because as we approach the limits of the planet, having a thorough understanding the natural systems that sustain us becomes critical.

It also means understanding the nature of risk, and that eliminating risk is not possible. We can only, if we adopt the correct polices, minimize the risk.

But equally as important, the green movement needs to expand along the political spectrum. It needs to grow beyond the left-wing of the political spectrum and into the right. There is, after all, no reason why the right-wing shouldn’t care about the environment, they are forced to live in it as well.

In short, we need a new green movement. One that is not bound by ideology, but is instead firmly rooted in reality.

These solutions might be simple but, none of them will be easy. However the current path the green movement has chosen will only lead to failure. And that is something we can no longer afford.

We’ve won the public opinion debate, and we’ve won the political debate as well, … But the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration. -Joe Bast, president and co-founder of the Heartland Institute

Both public opinion and political debates are frequently, affected by things other than reality. The scientific debate on the other hand isn’t.

And reality matters. In many ways it is the only thing that does.

In The Know: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit

Panelists debate whether the U.S. is doing enough to heed the warnings of coal industry scientists who say turbines could blow the Earth right into the sun.

Of course the same applies for coal. More-so actually because coal pollutes far more than gasoline.

The fact is that thanks to negative externalities the price of fossil fuels is artificially low. And that is the main reason why we use so many, and why clean energy has a hard time catching on.

But as the video above explains, despite the fact that the price at the pump for gas is artificially low, we all end up paying the true cost eventually. Which is precisely why some economists call this “the greatest market failure the world has seen”

And that is why I am such a strong proponent of a carbon tax. It is the simplest, most transparent way to internalize the costs of burning fossil fuels and force us to pay the true cost up front.

It allows the free market to function properly and avoid our current market failure.

Sceptical Science provides us with a nice graph that explains all of this in detail:

And Real Climate sums it up:

According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades… Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming).

It is clear that if a grand minimum were to happen it would be a tremendously exciting opportunity for solar physicists, however it is unlikely to be very exciting for anyone else.

Bottom line: Whatever the sun decides to do, planet earth will continue to warm.

The theme of the conference, Restoring the Scientific Method, acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on post-normal science, which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the Climategate scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.

For those of you who were lucky enough to have had your head in a vice, thus preventing it from exploding, take a look at the last sentence. The rest you you go clean up that mess.

Now tell me how the hell is economics going to improve our understanding of the planet’s climate? Do the ‘fine folks‘ at Heartland even know what economics is? Doesn’t look like it.

What about science? Do they know what that is? Well, obviously, the first thing needed to restore the scientific method is politicians! And of course Heartland knows how to attract politicians in these times of financial turmoil:

The event is open to the public. Federal and state elected officials can attend for free.

Well that will ensure that politics doesn’t interfere with science. Unless of course that is exactly what they want. Because science certainly hasn’t given them the ‘right’ answer.

But it gets worse. If you decide to sign up to the conference, as a non-politician who therefore must part ways with some money, you are greeted with this (better put your head back in the vice):

Warning: by forking over your $88 early registration fee, you are committing yourself to abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change. If you attend the conference and nonetheless continue to entertain even the possibility of man-made climate change, you will falsify our promotional materials and do irreparable harm to our credibility and reputation. We will consequently hold you liable and seek a declarative judgment in federal court enjoining you to pay one hundredth of a cent in compensation per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere in the United States through the burning of fossil fuels last year which by the way brings so much goodness to the world that it can’t possibly have any negative side effects. /satire

[UPDATE: It looks like I am a victim of Poe's law, which states that “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." It turns out that the "warning" paragraph above was a brilliant piece of satire written by John Nielsen-Gammon (whose blog you should all read), to make this clear I added a /satire tag at the end. Though everything else I quoted was written by the Heartland Institute.

The reason I thought the satire was real is because I really do have such a low opinion of the Heartland Institute. Their requirement of abandoning of man-made climate change, in order to restore the scientific method is a prime example of why. It reminds me of this:

Real science never starts with the conclusions

Like I said they need no help doing irreparable harm to their credibility and reputation.]

And that, my friends, is what the scientific method looks like… if you are an anti-science idealogue who must, at all costs, deny climate change. By attending this conference to restore the scientific method, you must forever abandon any such methods.

And what about those supposed “claims of scientific certainty“? Well Heartland is absolutely sure that the climate is NOT changing, and that the thousands of respectable scientists are all conspiring against your SUV!

Otherwise why would they threaten legal action for not being “committed to abandoning the theory of man-made climate change“. Don’t you dare keep an open mind! Not even a little. And ignore the overwhelming consensus of both experts and evidence pointing to the fact that yes, humans can and are changing the climate.

Certainty doesn’t get any stronger than that!

Real science on the other hand (like say the IPCC) is not certain, explicitly stating: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Also I doubt that the Heartland Institute needs any help doing “irreparable harm to [their] credibility and reputation“. They are doing more than fine in that regard on their own.

Actually there is a simple explanation for all of this comes courtesy of Wikipedia: “Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people.”

Of course this would all be hilarious if a) the stakes weren’t so astronomically large and b) important policy makers didn’t take Heartland’s nonsense seriously. So instead of a comedy we are all (yes even the people at Heartland) forced into a tragedy.

(h/t John Nielsen-Gammon and Michael Tobis because thankfully I am NOT on the Heartland mailing list.)

Buy the book!

John Cook, a regular contributor to the podcast and the mastermind behind SkepticalScience.com, along with Haydn Washington an environmental scientific have written the must read book: Climate Change Denial: Head in the sand:

The book examines the phenomenon of climate change denial. It looks at the many techniques of literal denial, where ‘skeptics’ deny the evidence for man-made global warming. It exposes denial within governments, who make a lot of noise about climate change but fail to back it up with action. And it examines the denial within most of us, when we let denial prosper. This book explains the climate science and the social science behind denial.

Climate change can be solved – but only when we cease to deny that it exists. This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis. It will engage scientists, university students, climate change activists as well as the general public seeking to roll back denial and act

As I mentioned on the podcast, Amazon.ca hasn’t shipped my copy of the book just yet. But if John’s past work is any guide, this book will be phenomenal. So go buy the book, though maybe not from Amazon.ca.