Blog Archive

Showing posts with label Peter Gleick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Gleick. Show all posts

Friday, February 26, 2016

Arctic warming: Rapidly increasing temperatures are 'possibly catastrophic' for planet, climate scientist Peter Gleick warns

Dr Peter Gleick said there is a growing body of 'pretty scary' evidence that higher temperatures are driving the creation of dangerous storms in parts of the Northern Hemisphere


web-arctic-warming-get.jpg

The area covered by sea ice has been noticeably below any of the last 30 years Getty

by Ian Johnston, The Independent, February 25, 2016


The rapidly warming Arctic could have a “catastrophic” effect on the planet’s climate, a leading scientist has warned.
Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in California, said there was a growing body of “pretty scary” evidence that higher temperatures in the Arctic were driving the creation of dangerous storms in parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
According to a graph on the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre’s website, there were 14.2 million km squared of sea ice on 24 February 2016. On an average year over the last three decades, it would take until about 29 April for there to be as little sea ice as temperatures warm in the spring.
Since about 10 February, the area covered by sea ice has been noticeably below any of the last 30 years as the Arctic has experienced record-breaking temperatures of about 4C higher than the 1951-1980 average for the region.
Dr Gleick posted the sea ice graph on Twitter with the message: “What is happening in the Arctic now is unprecedented and possibly catastrophic.”
And, in emails to The Independent, he explained: “The current trend is below any previous year. What is alarming is how far below any previous ice extent the current data are [and] how early it is for there to be this little ice.
“It is certainly possible that the ice extent will track back up if cold enough weather returns, for long enough. It is just very unlikely.”
While such changes will have a harmful effect on polar bears, walruses and other elements of the Arctic ecosystem, Dr Gleick said the potential for catastrophe was from “the global implications of those changes.”
“The evidence is very clear that rapid and unprecedented changes are happening in the Arctic,” he wrote.
“What is much less clear is the complex consequences. We are, effectively, conducting a global experiment on the only planet we have. The interconnections with weather patterns, sea-level, and more are real.
“And while there remains uncertainty about the ultimate consequences, there is a good and growing body of research that is pretty scary, and pretty much no evidence that the possible impacts will be good, unless you are a global shipping company hoping to save some money by opening up routes in the Arctic or an oil/gas company hoping to find new cheap fossil fuels.”
Among the “scary” possibly consequences is that the warming Arctic is altering weather systems for much of the Northern Hemisphere – and not in a good way.
“Changes in ice extent and volume may all be reflected in weather patterns in mid-latitudes. In 2015, a phenomenon called the polar vortex and unusual patterns of jet stream flow brought record-breaking hot and cold weather to different parts of the US,” Dr Gleick wrote.
“Massive storms, sometimes called ‘bomb cyclones’, are created when warm air from the Atlantic and cold air from the Arctic combine. Just this season, massive flooding associated with one of these storms struck the United Kingdom producing record rainfall.
“There may be connections between out-of-season strong tornadoes in the central US and these new storm patterns. The central US was hit by unusual numbers of tornadoes in December 2015 causing billions in damage and many deaths.
“Part of the science on this suggests that as the Arctic warms faster, the difference in temperature between the mid-latitudes and the Arctic region decreases. This, in turn, affects storm tracks and the location and strength of the jet stream.”
The reduced amount of white ice also means less energy from the Sun is reflected back into space. Water, which is darker than ice, absorbs more energy and increases the rate of warming.
Dr Gleick said one of the reasons he was interested in Arctic sea ice was the ongoing drought in California.
“We've had four years of severe drought and hoped that the current El Nino [weather system], the strongest on record, would bring relief in the form of strong precipitation,” he wrote.
“It hasn't so far, and there are only about six to eight more weeks in our rainy season. One reason appears to be that storm tracks have gone far to the north because, possibly, of these very changes in the Arctic and atmospheric circulation patterns.
“I'm afraid we're in for a fifth year of drought.”

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Peter Gleick, OpEd, LA Times: California must capture water, not waste it

Rain garden

by Peter Gleick, The Los Angeles Times, November 17, 2015

We don't know for sure whether the El Niño we face this winter will be a drought buster or a bust. But we had better prepare for a lot of rain and the potential flooding, landslides and disruptions we know especially heavy winter storms can bring to California. At the same time, we need to look past the coming El Niño at the long-term changes in our weather patterns, as climate change poses new challenges to water managers, planners, utilities and, indeed, all of us.

For the last century, California has had two key strategies for dealing with its winter wet season: Build big reservoirs on the rivers draining the Sierra Nevada to capture and store seasonal runoff and floodwater, and rely on mountain snowpack to build up in the winter and melt slowly over the spring and early summer. That approach brought great benefits to us and helped tame California's naturally variable weather.
ut the era of big dams is over. We've built on all the decent dam sites (and some not-so-decent ones), federal money for Western water projects has dried up and the environmental damage caused by dams is now better known. As a result, it is unlikely that more than one or two new big dams will be built in California, and they would do little to expand the amount of water we can actually use.
As for the snowpack, despite El Niño's potential to drop a lot of snow in the Sierra, as the climate warms, future snowpack will be smaller and it will melt faster, putting more strain on our water supply.
California's water problems require a multitude of responses. We must reduce inefficiency and waste, and we must find new sources of water. One important approach is to improve our ability to capture, treat and use urban storm water, especially in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas.
As we have paved our cities, covering the land with impervious concrete and asphalt, less and less rain is recharging urban groundwater; it's running off all those hard surfaces into storm sewers and out to the ocean. Every year, hundreds of billions of gallons of storm water wash into Santa Monica Bay, Long Beach Harbor and the San Francisco Bay. Even one inch of rain in Los Angeles can generate more than 10 billion gallons of runoff.
It's possible to capture quite a bit of that water. We will have to repave streets and parking lots with porous materials so that rain can percolate into the ground and recharge aquifers. Parks, open spaces and urban watersheds must be reconfigured with the same goal in mind. And homeowners need incentives to capture rainfall too, for use on their gardens and landscapes.
Such strategies have benefits beyond increasing local water supplies. They can reduce urban flooding, restore the health of local waterways such as the Los Angeles River and reduce pollution flowing into our oceans and onto our beaches. They can also be adapted for use in agricultural areas. Letting winter storms temporarily flood farmland adjacent to rivers would accelerate the recharge of seriously overpumped groundwater basins in the Central Valley.
The Water Replenishment District of Southern California, which manages groundwater in Los Angeles County, has identified thousands of acres where capturing storm water for groundwater recharge is possible. This could provide tens of thousands of acre-feet of "new" water for the L.A. Basin, reducing the region's dependence on increasingly scarce and unreliable imported water.
There are specific projects that cities everywhere are undertaking to better manage storm water. In Chicago's Green Alley program, porous concrete allows storm water to drain into the ground, reducing sewer overflows and minimizing local flooding. Philadelphia businesses have installed roof gardens that absorb as much as half the rain that falls on them; the businesses get a tax credit that helps cover part of the cost.
Locally, the L.A. County Flood Control District, the Department of Water and Power, the nonprofit group TreePeople and the Bureau of Sanitation have launched a pilot program that will retrofit 10 homes with rain-capturing roofs, water storage cisterns and specially designed rain gardens to take full advantage of whatever precipitation falls.
A 2014 study by the Pacific Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that storm water capture in urbanized Southern California and the San Francisco Bay region could increase California's water supplies overall by 420,000 to 630,000 acre-feet per year — as much water as is used annually by the city of Los Angeles — while also reducing pollution flowing into the oceans.
There is no single solution to California's water challenges. In the face of unavoidable climate changes and growing competition for limited water, the best strategies will be those that improve the state's water resilience on many fronts. More emphasis on local efforts that capture water through permeable hardscape, new local ordinances, homeowner incentives and smart infrastructure can help us take advantage of the times when it rains and when it pours.
Peter H. Gleick is president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1117-gleick-groundwater-strategies-20151117-story.html

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The Climate Question That Should Be Asked in the Upcoming Presidential Debates

by Peter H. Gleick, Huffington Post, July 28, 2015

HURRICANE SPACE
Getty Images


Given the seriousness of the global climate change threat, the tremendously strong scientific consensus about it, and the critical role that the United States must play in any international agreements about national and global responses, it is vital to know how the next President would address this issue.









As a result, it is important to understand the position on climate change held by all presidential candidates. Accordingly, here are some variants on questions they should be asked -- and they should answer -- at public debates, including the upcoming Republican debate. First is the preferred question, followed by a few weasel-word alternatives.
Preferred climate question
Accepting as a given the overwhelming scientific agreement that humans are changing the climate of the planet, what policies or strategies, if any, would you support to address this issue?
Weasel-word climate question #1
Do you understand that there is overwhelming scientific agreement that humans are changing the climate? If not, why not? It's not as though every national academy of sciences on the planet, every professional geophysical scientific society, and more than 97 percent of the world's climate scientists haven't been saying this over and over and over for decades.
Weasel-word climate question #2
If you insist on answering "I am not a scientist," do you know how to find a real one to talk to? Because we have lists.
Weasel-word climate question #3
Please spell "climate change."
Weasel-word climate question #4
Batman or Superman? Kirk or Picard?
(Dr. Peter Gleick is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, which has issued report after report on climate science; belongs to several scientific societies, all of which have formal statements endorsing the science of climate change; and is part of the 97%+ consensus of climate scientists.)

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Peter Gleick: The answer on human-caused climate change is in

by Peter Gleick, Sacramento Bee, December 20, 2014



Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article4703142.html#storylink=cpy


As our planet warms, scientists and the general public are increasingly asking if human-caused climate change influences the extreme weather events we see all around us. Until recently, the answer was always “we don’t know yet.” Today, the answer is increasingly “yes.”

Earth is in a remarkable transition from a world in which human influence on climate has been negligible to one in which our influence is increasingly dominant. One of the most active research areas in the climate sciences is the field of detection and attribution: the effort to see and identify the fingerprint of climate change in our extremes of weather.

This is tough because the day-to-day fluctuations in weather are naturally large or “noisy.” But scientists have long known that as climate change worsens, we would eventually reach the point when the signal of human influence would rise above and become distinguishable from the noise of natural variability. The California drought is a case in point.

For the past three years, California has been experiencing a bad drought, most simply defined as the mismatch between the amounts of water nature provides and the amounts of water that humans and the environment demand. The state, like any other region of the world, experiences extreme hydrologic events naturally, including floods and droughts. 

Reconstructions of ancient climates from tree rings, ice cores, pollen records and other paleoclimatic assessments reveal extensive and persistent droughts in the past.

But the current California drought isn’t bad just because of a severe shortage of rain and snow – previous droughts have seen less precipitation. It’s so bad because the past three years also have been by far the hottest in the 119-year instrumental record. An analysis recently released by researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute concluded these factors make the current drought the most severe in 1,200 years.

Is this a signal of climate change? Recently, there has been a growing debate about the links between climate change and the drought. The debate stems from confusion over two very different questions:

▪  Is California’s severe drought caused by climate change?
▪  Is California’s drought, no matter the cause, influenced or affected by climate change?

These questions are not the same thing. Yet the media, the public and even some scientists have mixed them up. A popular analogy is that we cannot know whether any particular home run hit by a baseball player pumped up on steroids was caused by the drugs. 

Ballplayers hit home runs naturally. But we know that these drugs influence and distort the average performance of the ballplayer over time.

The influence of climate change on extreme events works the same way: Science cannot at the moment tell us much about whether climate changes have caused any particular extreme event. But scientists from many different fields now see parallel lines of evidence from a combination of basic climate science, models and real-world observations that human-caused climate change is already influencing and worsening the risks of extremes such as heat waves, droughts and floods.

For the California drought, this evidence includes the fingerprints of higher temperatures and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns in a climate pumped up by greenhouse gases emitted by human activities. These higher temperatures have led to extra drying of soils, greater agricultural water demand, earlier and faster snowmelt, and higher evaporative losses in reservoirs.

California is not alone in experiencing the growing consequences of climate change. 

Evidence that climate change is influencing extreme events all over the world is now pouring in, including heat waves in Europe, coastal damage in the Eastern U.S. during extreme tides and storms, flooding in the United Kingdom from more intense precipitation events, drastic loss of Arctic ice, and droughts in Australia and the southwestern U.S.

The rainy season in California has started again, ironically with another set of extreme events in the form of intense storms. Many of us hope that the state will see an average or even a wet year to refill dangerously overpumped aquifers and depleted reservoirs. But if there is any lesson to be learned from the past few years, it is that California and the rest of the world must prepare for a future where the influence of human-induced climate change is ever more apparent. And costly.
Peter H. Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an environmental policy group based in Oakland.


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opi
nion/op-ed/soapbox/article4703142.html#storylink=cpy

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Judith Curry Advocates Against Action on Climate Change

by Michael Mann, Huffington Post, October 17, 2014

Georgia Tech's Judith Curry has authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that "there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now" than in the past. This could not be further from the truth.
She ties her argument to a new study she has co-authored, as well as the global warming speed bump (or faux pause). Neither offers a compelling reason to avoid reducing emissions. Her study looks at recent temperatures and uses them to try and determine how much the atmosphere will warm from our CO2 emissions.
The result is a figure low enough for contrarians to trumpet, but still not really that far from the official figures provided by the UN's IPCC, the gold standard of climate science. This is why the new study (and the others very similar to it) have elicited only a collective yawn from serious academia.
So the piece repeats the same tired claims about lowered sensitivity, using the "pause" meme and her own study as justification for delaying action. According to her (and of course the contrarians) a limited set of studies using a single incomplete methodology are reason enough to put off getting serious about climate change. One of us (Dr. Mann) addressed this misguided claim about climate sensitivity to CO2 earlier this year in a detailed piece in Scientific American.
To summarize the article, it turns out that even if one assumes these recent studies are correct, this buys us only a decade of extra time before crossing the internationally agreed-upon limit of 2 °C of warming. This means that even if Curry's correct, it may just be the difference between bad and terrible consequences of our inability to get emissions under control.
This understanding is shared by all the mainstream climate scientists who have examined the breadth of the scientific literature. For example, Oxford University professor and IPCC author Dr. Myles Allen told Carbon Brief that a reduction in climate sensitivity as presented by Curry and others "is hardly a game-changer" because it "would mean the changes we expect between now and 2050 might take until the early 2060s instead."
In a response from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Peter Frumhoff describes it even more eloquently, saying that Curry's call for delay "is like refusing to treat a patient because you can't tell if their fever is 103 or 104 degrees."
Esoteric and academic arguments about the response of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 may be interesting for those steeped in the peer-reviewed literature, but for the public and policy makers the important and unfortunate fact is that climate change is continuing unabated. This was the hottest September on record, after the hottest August on record (yielding the hottest summer on record), and the oceans continue to warm rapidly. In fact, some parts of the ocean have been shown to be warming even more rapidly than we thought.
In the end, Curry's claims fly in the face of what we know. Quite literally, according to the largest scientific organization in the world and publisher of the journal Science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released this year a report titled "What We Know" that shows that taking action now reduces both the cost and the risks associated with our warmed world.
Regardless of whether Curry is right about the climate being slightly less sensitive to CO2 (something that hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate records suggest is false) the fact remains that the sooner we reduce emissions, the less damage we will endure. And interestingly, Curry admits that the only substantial worry is from a high emissions scenario. But if we listen to her argument for inaction, that high emissions scenario is exactly what we'll get.
Ultimately, we all wish that Curry is right, and climate change won't be as costly as the mountain of evidence suggests. Unfortunately, the science so far shows that if anything, we've been underestimating the scale of the impacts. The Wall Street Journal does its audience a disservice by portraying a ten-year reprieve (at best) as though it was a full pardon.
Signed,
Professor John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Dr. Peter Gleick, MacArthur Fellow, hydro climatologist
Professor Scott Mandia, Suffolk County Community College
Professor Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University
Professor Richard C.J. Somerville, University of California, San Diego

Sunday, August 31, 2014

xkcd's latest book "What If?" reviewed by Peter Gleick

'What If? - A Review of Randall Munroe's New Book


by Peter H. Gleick, Huffington Post, August 31, 2014

One night, years ago, when I was complaining (again) at dinner about having to spend so much time on the inter-tubes responding to trolls disputing the science of climate change, one of my sons wordlessly got up from the table, walked out of the room, and a couple of minutes later returned with a piece of paper with a cartoon on it. That cartoon was my introduction to xkcd and the work of Randall Munroe.It was taped to my office door the next morning and I've been a fan ever since.2

Munroe self-describes as a former NASA roboticist with a degree in physics. His regular cartoons are brilliant, insightful, enlightening, funny, and tackle subjects that range from "omg" to "I won't even attempt to describe it." A couple of years ago, Munroe began a parallel effort called his "What if?" blog, providing "serious scientific answers" (accompanied by his trademark stick figures drawings) to "absurd hypothetical questions" posed by his readers. Many of these questions and his answers have now been compiled in a brand new book from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, New York, due for release September 2nd. Here is a picture I took of him, since the one on the book's dust jacket is no good (it's just a head shot):
2014-08-31-RandallMunroebyPG.PNG
For some reason, his publisher thought I was worthy enough to receive an advanced copy.3 I've just finished reading it, cover to cover, and it has solved my annual birthday-present and holiday-gift dilemmas for a large group of people.
I say the questions Munroe tackles are bizarre, but actually most of them are pretty cool:
  • If everyone on the planet stayed away from each other for a couple of weeks, wouldn't the common cold be wiped out?
  • What would happen if everyone on Earth stood as close to each other as they could and jumped, everyone landing on the ground at the same instant?
  • How much physical space does the Internet take up?
  • What if everyone who took the SAT guessed on every multiple-choice question? How many perfect scores would there be?4
  • What would happen if you were to gather a mole (unit of measurement) of moles (the small furry critter) in one place?
  • What is the farthest one human being has ever been from every other living person? Were they lonely?
  • What if a glass of water was, all of sudden, literally half empty?
  • Assuming a zero-gravity environment with an atmosphere identical to Earth's, how long would it take the friction of air to stop an arrow fired from a bow? Would it eventually come to a standstill and hover in midair?
Munroe must get thousands of questions submitted by readers. He answers a modest subset of those that not only pique his interest but are amusing and offer the potential to use real science to explore concepts, the world around us, and day-to-day mysteries of life and the universe.
What makes Munroe's work so fantastic is a combination of two elements: his commitment to trying to answer even the weirdest question with solid science, and his undeniable sense of humor.
I love back-of-the-envelope calculations; they were a major (and most important) part of my undergraduate and graduate science education. Anyone can pull an equation out of a textbook to solve a basic physics or engineering question, but most of the world's (and literally out-of-this-world) interesting questions can't be answered just with textbook equations. They require guesstimates, simplifying assumptions, and cross-disciplinary science skills (from physics to biology to chemistry to engineering). Munroe combines all of these with the ability to explore different paths to answers that enlighten, amuse, and inform, all together.
He also obviously gets piles of questions that he can't or won't answer. These fall into his category of "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox" -- a selection of which he includes in the book along with hysterically funny comments in the form of his stick figures.5
So, here's a "What If?" from me: If everyone on the planet simultaneously bought a copy of this book, stopped what they were doing and read it cover to cover, would modern civilization and our global economy collapse? It's worth trying the experiment.6
Peter Gleick7
Footnotes
1. It was also an early introduction into the fact that my children had somehow become wiser and more internet savvy than I would ever be. "Digital natives" my (also wiser) wife calls them, as opposed to "digital immigrants."
2. Just to admit how old I am, that cartoon is taped on my door next to The New Yorker cartoon by Robert Mankoff  "No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?" And I cut that one out of the magazine myself.
3. Making me feel pretty special, though perhaps they published 7 billion of them and sent one to everyone on the planet. If so, I don't want to know.
4. Admit it, you wondered about this right around the time the proctor said "Begin now." 
5. Interestingly, all of the creepiest were all submitted by the same person: someone named Anonymous.
6. No disclaimer from me. But read the disclaimer in the book right before his Introduction.
7. And yes, read every one of his footnotes, too.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

I CRASHED A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL CONFERENCE IN LAS VEGAS

by Brendan Montague, VICE, July 22, 2014

Alex Epstein, author of forthcoming The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, sports his I Heart Fossil Fuels T-Shirt
I’ve been researching the climate denial industry for almost three years and the best way to gather information about this incredibly small yet influential clique is to hang out with them. I attended their 2012 conference of the Heartland Institute, an oil and tobacco funded free market think tank that spends a lot of time and effort trying to call bullshit on what is clearly not bullshit – the science of climate change. My presence was clearly unwelcome – but I guess they forgot to scrub me from their email invitation list, because I got invited again this year, to their 9th International Conference on Climate Change in the deep heat of the Nevada desert amid the chaos of Las Vegas casinos.
The choice of Vegas by Heartland seemed brilliantly provocative. A celebration of high-stakes capitalism in the very gambling dens where $92 billion is lost each year in pursuit of the American dream. The dazzling lights, the grotesquely oversized hotels, the free drinks.
Perhaps nowhere on earth is more profligate and wasteful of increasingly scarce natural resources than this twisted utopia. The Republican Party reportedly blackballed Vegas for its 2016 convention fearing its Christian supporters would be repelled by this den of iniquity – and that its legislators would be lured into its brothels and casinos. Scientists have explicitly stated we are “loading the dice” by raising temperatures so that extreme weather and deadly catastrophes will become more frequent – gambling with our future, basically. Joseph Bast, the president of Heartland, was surely thumbing his nose at his detractors.
Heartland has had a torrid two years. Dr Peter Gleick, a hydro-climatologist and author, took the unusual step of posing as a board member and tricking Heartland staff into sending him a trove of highly secret internal documents. The papers revealed that Heartland was working with a coal industry consultant in order to enter American schools and attack climate science.
Two months later, and just ahead of their 2012 conference in hometown Chicago, Heartland made the bizarre decision to erect a huge advertising billboard attacking climate science on the basis that the terrorist Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, had apparently been concerned about global warming. This gave their archenemies Greenpeace US and Forecast the Facts the ammunition they needed to successfully lobby funders to withdraw.
The Vegas conference was going a good opportunity to enter this strange world again. But did I really want to spend a week in the middle of dustbowl America with three hundred climate cranks who would crowd around trying to tell me how wrong I am about everything if they knew the first thing about me?
24 hours later and I touched down at the Vegas airport in the dead of night, bathed in light. The Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, a gold-plated monument to excess, appeared to be next to the runway. Still it took 20 minutes and $20 dollars for a cab driver to get me there.
This sub-prime feeling hotel was the perfect setting for Heartland. The deregulated casinos glared as they took people’s money and the acrid smell of tobacco was pervasive. The hotel was brash, huge, and run down. All fur coat and moth eaten. There were loud renovations taking place when I arrived. The front desk had double booked my room, so when I finally got there I was confronted by a stout, hairy American wearing tight black underpants. Mercifully I was relocated.
The morning after my arrival I met Christopher Monckton, who had agreed to have breakfast with me. Within minutes I found myself almost entirely lost in confusing nonsense. Monckton repeated his claim to be a member of the House of Lords, which has been denied by the House of Lords, and having been the scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s when she first championed climate science, which has also been debunked.
The aristocrat, a classically trained architect and one-time journalist, told me he had produced a very simple climate model that proved actual scientists had exaggerated the threat of climate science and that there was no evidence that heating the atmosphere was dangerous.
Monckton has worked closely with the ominous sounding neoliberal think tank, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). They even hired a plane so he could parachute uninvited into the Durban climate conference. CFACT has enjoyed significant funding from ExxonMobil and other oil and car industrialists. So I asked Monckton if he had benefited from ExMo’s largesse. “The cheque has not yet arrived in the post,” he joked, before asking if I was “left wing.”
Monckton then told me he attended climate conferences because it was better than sitting at home on his sofa and he cared for the future of society. He had refused his $1,000 Heartland fee. I asked him how this chimed with his belief in the free market, that rested on the idea that people only respond to financial incentives. He grinned.
After I had paid for his breakfast he said something that really surprised me. We were walking past the slot machines when I asked him what he thought of Vegas. He said he believed gambling to be immoral. The casinos were profiting from people’s lack of a good education and fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics. He said Heartland had, in fact, chosen Vegas to make the point that climate scientists had failed to understand risk.
Dr Willie Soon. He claims Albert Einstein would have been a sceptic and accused the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “gangter science” during his presentation.
Bearded Joseph Bast opened the conference that evening. He said, “Speaking of funding and for the record, except for $150 from the Illinois Coal Association and another $150 from Liberty Coin Service, a great little coin shop in Lansing, Michigan, owned by my old friend Pat Heller, no corporate money was raised for this conference. And no, not a nickel from the Koch brothers" – owners of Koch Industries, the largest privately held firm in the United States and a major player in the oil refinery industry. The humorously small donations were meant to prove that Big Oil was not behind this jamboree.
The remarks came seconds after he thanked his co-sponsors, who included the Media Research Center, Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, CFACT, and the George C. Marshall Institute – many of which have been funded by oil corporations and some by Charles Koch foundations.
The fact checking website Media Matters for America put out a blog post about some of thespeakers’ various links to oil. But their website was blocked in the hotel and the Heartland delegates, all doughty defenders of free speech, were left in the dark.
Then the shadow-side of this comic dishonesty and hypocrisy became almost too much to bear. Dr S Fred Singer, a folk hero around here, was presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award. He in turn presented the Frederick Seitz Award. If one man can take credit for inventing climate denial it is Singer. The old man once claimed, rather brilliantly, that, “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” Exxon had given Singer $10,000 in funding just a few years earlier.
The late Dr Seitz had many achievements in his lifetime. But the one I will remember him for was contributing indirectly to the deaths of millions of Americans. He sat on the medical research committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and oversaw $45 million in medical funding which his critics claimed “served the tobacco industry’s purposes.” Much of my close family has been wiped out by smoking related diseases, so this one sticks out for me.
The Heartland conference was now in full swing and my brain began to melt. There was the usual monotony of badly put together Powerpoint slides, rambling speeches and desperate attempts to resurrect climate science controversies buried by actual scientists almost three decades ago. The speakers were being paid around $1,000 to attend, plus flights and large hotel suites.
The hundreds of sceptics around me not once questioned the bizarre, the illogical, the poorly constructed claims that swirled in front of our eyes. This parody of science was a deadly hybrid of 1970s Open University programmes and sub-Cirque du Soleil.
In the intervals I managed to speak to some of the key deniers. Dr Patrick Michaels has been vilified by Greenpeace and was one of the early generation of scientists to take money from coal companies to argue against mainstream climate science. He once admitted on national television that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.
He told me how as a young scientist he challenged what he thought of as a monolithic orthodoxy of climate change only to see his government research grants dwindle. Believing himself to be among the most brilliant he was insulted that he was in fact one of the worst paid in his profession. Thankfully, car companies were willing to secretly pay him to help them fight environmental legal battles.
Later I spoke to Dr Willie Soon, one of the few professional scientists in the room. He was once funded by Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and one way or another by Charles Koch. Greenpeace used Freedom of Information laws to expose his financial support from oil barons through his university. Soon told me Exxon broke off his funding, without so much as a kiss goodbye. Soon was another sad sack who seemed convinced of his own brilliance and dumbfounded at the lack of recognition. At Heartland he was given a glass trophy and a round of applause.
I was then witness to a suited Greenpeace activist dressing down Anthony Watts, the one-time weatherman who blogs at Watts Up With That?, in a hallway. Watts broke the story of Climategate, when thousands of private emails between climate scientists were hacked and published online. The emails were presented as evidence of a lurid and global conspiracy to fool the public into fearing global warming. They weren't.
Then I ran into James Delingpole, the one-time Telegraph Online journalist who spewed vitriol at climate scientists and their defenders. I was about to undergo the kind of nasty, bitter confrontation I wanted to avoid.
Delingpole went to Oxford University with the British Prime Minister David Cameron but his novels didn’t do brilliantly and he was never invited into London Society. Delingpole’s other claim to fame was being made to look a complete fool when Sir Paul Nurse, filming for the BBC, asked if he had read the abstract of any scientific papers (the short introduction which sets out the significance of the study). Delingpole, who claims to have found a remarkable global conspiracy to fake climate research, admitted he hadn’t. So I just asked James if he had read any abstracts since. “No.” I couldn’t quite believe it.
Delingpole has written off one of the most influential climate studies as “ludicrous, comedy” and claimed its author, Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University, has “little discernible talent.” But during our confrontation he confirmed he had never interviewed Mann, never read his book and never read any of his scientific papers. I was dumbfounded.
Delingpole was furious. He raged and spat and accused me of being a troll. He attacked my journalism, having not read any, and attacked my opinions, having not heard any. All of this was being filmed by two French filmmakers. I was shaking. More in anger than in sorrow. “Can I give you some friendly advice,” I said.
“I don’t want your friendly advice, Mr Montague,” he said.
“Why don’t you read the abstracts to three scientific papers. Then you won’t look like such a fool next time someone asks that question. It doesn’t take long.”
The argument fizzled out and we both went our separate ways, huffing. And then I felt sad for Delingpole. Why was he even at this conference? He could be at home with his family, playing Scrabble. It seems he is driven by ambition, but had made it no further than the basement conference hall of a faded hotel in Vegas.
The Heartland exhibition
After three days locked into this air-conditioned hell Wednesday was upon us and the conference finally drew to a close. And I remembered we were in Vegas. I buttonholed Joseph Bast and asked whether he had indeed chosen Vegas as a brilliantly daring provocation to his critics. The spin of the roulette wheel reminded me at least of the madness of sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps that plunged millions of Americans into penury. Was it social commentary? “No,” he said. “The rooms were cheap.”
It would almost be possible to dismiss this whole crowd as a bunch of sad cranks. Somewhere between 9/11 Truthers and homeopathic doctors. Not just snake oil salesmen but snake oil customers at the same time. Immune to the accumulating evidence that free market economics is not only responsible for the economic crash of 2008, but also the ever-closer ecological catastrophe.
They would just be sad sacks if they were not also influential. Among the delegates swarm the sharks just as surely as they do in the Mandalay Bay Hotel aquarium. Myron Ebell of CEI who once conspired with a White House insider to downplay climate in a seminal government report. Senator James Inhofe who, by video call, told the troops to ready themselves to take Congress in November. They also influence lower level officials.
During one dinner I sat next to Rod Wright, a brilliantly funny and apparently savvy Democrat state senator from the environmentalist hotbed California. Rod, one of only two black people I saw out of a claimed 600 attendees, told me how he became suspicious of renewable energy, and then climate science more generally.
These suspicions were confirmed by the avalanche of literature he received from the Heartland Institute. His colleagues deserted him but he was steeled by the support of the free market think tank. “You have to sift information through your own filter”, he told me. “Their funding does not devalue their information. Everybody got money from somebody. Jesus said, ‘Let he without sin cast the first stone.’ ” He smiles, before adding, “I have looked at some of their work on insurance and I think they’re full of shit.” (I read later that Wright has been convicted of voter fraud.)
They are full of shit. But they are having a real influence on American politics. They are just one of the hundreds of Koch and Exxon funded think tanks and fake grassroots campaigns that have frustrated and blocked Obama’s administration at every turn. As I leave the conference I find it hard to reconcile what I have learned. These people are just cranks but they are perverting American politics. I did learn in Vegas that attacks from these people are not going to hurt me.
In the casino the tragedy of the American Dream continues. Hardworking Americans sit emotionless pouring their salaries into slot machines. Believing the dream. But investing every last dime in a desperate and, for the overwhelming majority, simply hopeless attempt to escape. I watch a guy burn $2,500 in 20 minutes during a spiral of roulette stupidity.
When you see the homelessness in Vegas, and the drug addiction, and you know there is no real welfare state over here, no safety net. These Heartland folk are just a few pay cheques from freefall. They're not going to get headhunted by Stanford University any time soon. They believe themselves too educated to survive McJobs. They are clinging on. They’re hustling. That’s what you do in Vegas.
Brendan Montague is a London-based investigative journalist who has published in The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and The Guardian. He is founder of the Request Initiative, which boasts Greenpeace UK among its NGO clients.