ipcc 2 bak
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">11/18 <b>rename 2 819</b></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2210<b>2015</b>/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">as he wrapped up nine years as the federal government's chief scientist for global warming research, Michael MacCracken lashed out at ExxonMobil for opposing the advance of climate science.</font></div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">His own great-grandfather, he told the Exxon board, had been John D. Rockefeller's legal counsel a century earlier. </span>"<b>What I rather imagine he would say is that you are on the wrong side of history, and you need to find a way to change your position</b>," he wrote.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Addressed to chairman </span><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/lee-raymond" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: inherit;">Lee Raymond</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> on the letterhead of the United States Global Change Research Program, </span><b><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/MacCracken%20Letter%20to%20Exxon%20%282002%29.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">his</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> September 2002 letter</span></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> was not just forceful, but unusually personal.</span></b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">No wonder: in the opening days of the oil-friendly Bush-Cheney administration, Exxon's chief lobbyist had written the new head of the White House environmental council demanding that <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/mike-maccracken" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">MacCracken</a> be fired for "political and scientific bias."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Exxon was also attacking other officials in the U.S. government and at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),</b> MacCracken wrote, interfering with their work behind the scenes and distorting it in public.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exxon wanted scientists who disputed the mainstream science on <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/climate-change" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit;">climate change</a> to oversee Washington's work with the IPCC, the authoritative body that defines the scientific consensus on global warming, documents written by an Exxon lobbyist and one of its scientists show<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. The company persuaded the White House to block the reappointment of the IPCC chairman,[ROBERT ----] a World Bank scientist. Exxon's top climate researcher, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/brian-flannery" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">Brian Flannery</a>, was pushing the White House for a wholesale revision of federal climate science. The company wanted a new strategy to focus on the uncertainties.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">MacCracken had a long history of collaboration with Exxon researchers. He knew that during the 1970s and 1980s, well before the general public understood the risks of global warming, the company's researchers had worked at the cutting edge of climate change science.<b> </b></span><b>He had edited and even co-authored some of their reports. So he found it galling that Exxon was now leading a concerted effort to sow confusion </b>about fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">."To call ExxonMobil's position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement," MacCracken wrote. "To be in opposition to the key scientific findings is rather appalling for such an established and scientific organization</span>."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Exxon had turned a colleague into its enemy.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">It was a vivid example of Exxon's undermining of mainstream science and embrace of <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/climate-denial" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">denial</a> and misinformation, which became most pronounced after President George W. Bush took office. The campaign climaxed when <b>Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001</b><b>. </b>Taking the U.S. out of the international climate change treaty was Exxon's key goal, and the reason for its persistent emphasis on the uncertainty of climate science.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">This <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">in-depth series by InsideClimate New</a>s has explored Exxon's early engagement with climate research more than 35 years ago </span>– and its subsequent use of scientific uncertainty as a shield against forceful action on global warming. The series is based on Exxon documents, interviews, and other evidence from an eight-month investigation.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"What happened was an incredible disconnect in people trained in physical science and engineering," recalled <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/martin-hoffert" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit;">Martin Hoffert</a>, a New York University professor who collaborated with Exxon's team as its early computer modeling confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming. "<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It's an untold story of how we got to the point where climate change has become a threat to the world."</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Uncertainty Agenda</font></strong></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the Bush-Cheney administration arrived in the White House in 2001, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) now had partners for a climate uncertainty strategy.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Just weeks after Bush was sworn in, Exxon's top lobbyist </span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Randy Randol </span><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Lobbyist%27s%20Memo%20to%20the%20White%20House%20%282001%29.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: inherit;">sent the White House a memo</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> complaining that "Clinton/Gore carry-overs with aggressive </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">agendas</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> were still playing a role at the IPCC as it prepared its next assessment of the climate science consensus.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>MacCracken and three colleagues should be replaced, or at least kept out of "any decisional activities," he wrote. Meanwhile, U.S. input to the IPCC should be delayed.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; font-size: small; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Further, two scientists highly critical of the prevailing consensus should be enlisted: John Christy of the University of Alabama should take the science lead and </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Richard Lindzen of MIT should review U.S. submissions to the IPCC.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">desmog/mat hope climate investigations (see GCC):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Influencing the UN’s Panel of Climate Scientists</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The GCC took a particular interest in the operations of the UN’s official scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">, which produces the international climate assessments that form the basis for global climate policy and negotiations.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">GCC representatives regularly met with IPCC scientists to lobby the panel to accept industry language in its reports, the documents show. Tax returns show <b>hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an “IPCC Tracker Fund” to monitor and lobby the IPCC’s meetings.</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In one instance detailed in the documents, the GCC boasted its suggested language was “accepted almost in its entirety” after intensive lobbying by its representatives and after “assistance from several countries.”</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The GCC also publicly questioned the validity of the IPCC’s peer-review process and launched public attacks on its scientists, while simultaneously using the IPCC’s status as a respected scientific body to promote the credentials of its own climate science denial research</span>.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The GCC went beyond targeting climate science. In 1995, Exxon gave a presentation to the GCC on how to counter the evidence linking climate change to human health impacts.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>In 1997, the GCC wanted to expand its reach with a network of state and local committees </b>that would educate the public about their views on climate change and serve as liaisons to other business and public interest groups with similar views.<b> This plan was implemented, the documents show, with the help of Koch Industries</b>, the U.S.’s largest private energy company, which is an infamous funder of climate science denial across the globe.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Collapse of the GCC</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">By the mid-1990s, however, the GCC’s aggressive tactics and continuing effort to cast doubt on accepted climate science had started to become a problem for some of its members. Nine corporations left the GCC from 1996 to 2000: two automakers, one chemical manufacturer, one utility, and five oil companies.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>BP was the first major oil company to leave in 1997</b>, stating that “the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.”</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Additional Takeaways: Infiltrating UN Climate Negotiations, Embracing Climate Deniers Publicly But Not Privately</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The documents published Thursday on the Climate Investigation Center’s Climate Files archive, also show:</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The GCC stacked UN meetings with its members.</b> Some attended meetings transparently, registering as GCC members, while others registered with other NGOs. Often GCC members outnumbered delegates from developing nations at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The GCC coordinated to monitor IPCC meetings.</b> After IPCC meetings, GCC notes reveal attendees met to discuss strategies for exploiting scientific uncertainties in IPCC climate models and amplifying scientific differences of opinion. On at least one occasion, a contractor for the Electric Power Research Institute planned to keep tabs on IPCC proceedings. </font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The GCC internally refuted climate deniers, yet continued to publicly cite their work</span>: Exxon scientist Lenny Bernstein, who co-chaired the GCC’s committee on science and technology assessment,<b> called the work of climate deniers Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels “not convincing” in a draft document in 1995</b>. The final copy of that document included no mention of Bernstein’s comments and the GCC continued to cite the two — as well as other known deniers — through at least 1998.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The GCC aggressively attempted to control media coverage of climate change</b>: Press releases were sent to reporters praising media coverage featuring climate deniers and correcting those that did not. One document encouraged reporters to contact the GCC for <b>“balance</b> in the global climate change debate.”</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UN report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26112019/unep-emissions-gap-report-paris-climate-greenhouse-gas-peak-2030" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" height="%2213%22" width="%2213%22" version="%221.1%22" cg="Cg" transform="%22translate%28-36.467808%2C-258.39005%29%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" d="%22m40.55%2C263.9c0-0.6213%2C0.6213-0.6213%2C0.6213-0.6213%2C1.864%2C0.6213%2C3.107%2C1.864%2C3.728%2C3.728%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0.6213-0.6213%2C0.6213-1.243-1.864-1.864-2.485-3.728-3.728z%22/%3E" c="C" g="g" e="E" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-size="font-size" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:cc="%22http://creativecommons.org/ns%23%22" xmlns:data="data" xmlns:dc="%22http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/%22%3E" xmlns:rdf="%22http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns%23%22">World’s Emissions Gap Is Growing, with No Sign of Peaking Soon, UN Warns</a> 11/19.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h5 class="article-title" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-weight="font-weight" normal="normal" line-height="line-height" rem="rem" font-size="font-size" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20112019/fossil-fuel-production-climate-change-goals-subsidies-policies-un-report" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">World’s Current Fossil Fuel Plans Will Shatter Paris Climate Limits, UN Warns</font></a></h5><div class="meta" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(125, 125, 125); text-transform: uppercase; line-height: 1rem;"><p class="byline" style="margin: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BY NICHOLAS KUSNETZ</font></p></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27112019/climate-tipping-points-permafrost-forests-ice-antarctica-greenland-amazon-nature" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27112019/climate-tipping-points-permafrost-forests-ice-antarctica-greenland-amazon-nature</font></a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Humans are playing Russian roulette with Earth's climate by ignoring the growing risk of tipping points that, if passed, could jolt the climate system into "a new, less habitable 'hothouse' climate state,</b>" scientists are warning ahead of the annual <a href="https://unfccc.int/cop25" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit;">UN climate summit</a>.</font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ff 75% ghg land use 25% DN</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-land-use-food-production-key-to-climate-crisis-leaked-report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">guk no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robin McKie</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sun 4 Aug 2019 04.00 EDT First published on Sat 3 Aug 2019 08.00 EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Hereford beef cattle. The IPCC report says meat consumption should be cut to reduce methane emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Hereford beef cattle. The IPCC report says meat consumption should be cut to reduce methane emissions. Photograph: Australian Scenics/Getty Images</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attempts to solve the climate crisis by cutting carbon emissions from only cars, factories and power plants are doomed to failure, scientists will warn this week.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A leaked draft of a report on climate change and land use, which is now being debated in Geneva by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states that it will be impossible to keep global temperatures at safe levels unless there is also a transformation in the way the world produces food and manages land.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Humans now exploit 72% of the planet’s ice-free surface to feed, clothe and support Earth’s growing population, the report warns. At the same time, agriculture, forestry and other land use produces almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Read more</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, about half of all emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, come from cattle and rice fields, while deforestation and the removal of peat lands cause further significant levels of carbon emissions. The impact of intensive agriculture – which has helped the world’s population soar from 1.9 billion a century ago to 7.7 billion – has also increased soil erosion and reduced amounts of organic material in the ground.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In future these problems are likely to get worse. “Climate change exacerbates land degradation through increases in rainfall intensity, flooding, drought frequency and severity, heat stress, wind, sea-level rise and wave action,” the report states.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is a bleak analysis of the dangers ahead and comes when rising greenhouse gas emissions have made news after triggering a range of severe meteorological events. These include news that:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Arctic sea-ice coverage reached near record lows for July;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• The heatwaves that hit Europe last month were between 1.5C and 3C higher because of climate change;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">• Global temperatures for July were 1.2C above pre-industrial levels for the month.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This last figure is particularly alarming, as the IPCC has warned that rises greater than 1.5C risk triggering climatic destabilisation while those higher than 2C make such events even more likely. “We are now getting very close to some dangerous tipping points in the behaviour of the climate – but as this latest leaked report of the IPCC’s work reveals, it is going to be very difficult to achieve the cuts we need to make to prevent that happening,” said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The new IPCC report emphasises that land will have to be managed more sustainably so that it releases much less carbon than at present. Peat lands will need to be restored by halting drainage schemes; meat consumption will have to be cut to reduce methane production; while food waste will have to be reduced.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among the measures put forward by the report is the proposal of a major shift towards vegetarian and vegan diets. “The consumption of healthy and sustainable diets, such as those based on coarse grains, pulses and vegetables, and nuts and seeds … presents major opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” the report states.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There also needs to be a big change in how land is used, it adds. Policies need to include “improved access to markets, empowering women farmers, expanding access to agricultural services and strengthening land tenure security”, it states. “Early warning systems for weather, crop yields, and seasonal climate events are also critical.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The chances of politicians and scientists achieving these goals are uncertain, however. Nations are scheduled to meet in late 2020, probably in the UK, at a key conference where delegates will plant how to achieve effective zero-carbon emission policies over the next few decades.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The US, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will have just had its presidential elections. A new Democrat incumbent would likely be sympathetic to moves to control global heating. Re-election of Donald Trump, who has called climate change “a hoax”, would put a very different, far gloomier perspective on hopes of achieving a consensus.</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div class="field-label" style="text-transform: uppercase; display: inline; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TAGS: </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div class="field-items" style="display: inline; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2126" style="">global climate coalition</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/tags/national-association-of-manufacturers" style="">national association of manufacturers</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/15236" style="">ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/19238" style="">George W. Bush Administration</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/728" style="">kyoto protocol</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/676" style="">IPCC</a></div></div></div><div><div class="field-items" style="display: inline; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div></div><div><div class="field-items" style="display: inline; font-family: " open="open" sans="sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new retrospective desmog 619</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">...</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omg tracked!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>a fossil fuel–backed industry group was able to influence the process behind the United Nations climate assessments for decades, using lobbyists and industry-funded scientists to manipulate international negotiations, a cache of recently discovered documents reveals.</b></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The documents include hundreds of briefings, meeting minutes, notes, and correspondence from the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-climate-coalition" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Global Climate Coalition (<span class="caps">GCC</span>)</a>. They were <a href="https://climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-documents" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">released Thursday by the Climate Investigations Center</a> in collaboration with DeSmog and Climate Liability News. The documents date from 1989 and continue through 2002, when the lobbying group disbanded as its fossil fuel industry backers succumbed to public pressure to disavow its tacti</span>cs.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The documents show how the <span class="caps">GCC</span> influenced international negotiations, manipulated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>) process, and undertook a disinformation campaign designed to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> was initially part of the </span><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/02/26/national-association-manufacturers-oil-climate-liability/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">National Association of Manufacturers</a> (<span class="caps">NAM</span>), before becoming its own <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5798254-GCC-IRS-1023.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">entity</a> in 1995. <span class="caps">NAM </span><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/02/26/national-association-manufacturers-oil-climate-liability/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">has a long history</a> of defending portions of its membership, including tobacco companies that were facing an onslaught of liability litigation, with aggressive tactics that include discrediting science, attacking scientists, and misleading the public.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5674022-1989-GcC-Membership.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Founding members</a></span> of the <span class="caps">GCC</span> were mainly fossil fuel producers and utilities, including oil majors <a href="https://climateinvestigations.org/shell-oil-climate-documents/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Shell</a>, Texaco (now <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/THE-CHEVRON-TEXACO-MERGER-An-oil-giant-2870161.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a part of Chevron</a>), and Amoco (now <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoco" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">part of <span class="caps">BP</span></a>); oil refiner and retailers <span class="caps">ARCO</span> (now a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCO" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum</a>) and Phillips Petroleum; coal miners <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKzBsAE7_lw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="caps">BHP</span>-Utah International</a> and <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabody-coal-bankruptcy-reveals-extensive-funding-climate-denial-network" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Peabody</a>; and utilities <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aep-names-mcmanus-senior-vice-president-environmental-services-300619593.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">American Electric Power</a> and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PG%26E" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Pacific Gas and Electric</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">Other companies, including Exxon, joined later — and the international oil giant would go on to be </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/08/usnews.climatechange" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a key player</a> in the group.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">Revealed in the documents is a decades-long campaign that continued until 2002, intended to protect its members’ interests by denying and casting doubt on climate science. Internally, the group acknowledged the dangers of climate change and the scientific consensus that it is overwhelmingly driven by the burning of fossil fuels </span><a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/global-climate-coalition-draft-primer/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">as early as 1995</a>.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The campaign reached the highest levels of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> government, with the <b>State Department giving the <span class="caps">GCC</span> credit for leading President George W. Bush to reject the landmark Kyoto Protocol in 2001. An internal <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4407192-Global-Climate-Coalition-Meeting-2001.html#document/p3/a420404" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">State Department briefing</a>, prepared for a meeting with the <span class="caps">GCC</span> later that year and included in the documents published Thursday, shows officials were instructed to tell coalition representatives that Bush’s decision was “in part, based on input from you.”</b></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in 1997, was the first large-scale international agreement to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The <span class="caps">U.S.</span> was one of only three <span class="caps">UN</span> members that did not ratify the treaty (Canada later withdrew).</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Influencing the <span class="caps">UN</span>’s Panel of Climate Scientists</font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> took a particular interest in the operations of the <span class="caps">UN</span>’s official scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>), which produces the international climate assessments that form the basis for global climate policy and negotiations.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><span class="caps">GCC</span> representatives </span><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631463-AIAM-051494.html#document/p91/a494375" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">regularly met with <span class="caps">IPCC</span> scientists</a> to lobby the panel to accept industry language in its reports, the documents show.<b> Tax returns show hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5689215-AIAM-052205.html#document/p6/a477832" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">an “<span class="caps">IPCC</span> Tracker Fund”</a> to monitor and lobby the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s meetings.</b></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">In one instance detailed in the documents, the <span class="caps">GCC</span> boasted its suggested language was </span><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631463-AIAM-051494.html#document/p85/a475758" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“accepted almost in its entirety”</a>after intensive lobbying by its representatives and after “assistance from several countries.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> also publicly </span><a href="http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/ipcc_controversy.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">questioned the validity</a> of the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s peer-review process and launched public attacks on its scientists, while simultaneously using the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s status as a respected scientific body to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5025898-AIAM-Scientific-Uncertainties-IPCC-Part-2.html#document/p26/a464201" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">promote the credentials</a> of its own climate science denial research.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> went beyond targeting climate science. In 1995, Exxon gave a presentation to the <span class="caps">GCC</span> on</span><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3215116-Purported-Impact-of-Climate-Change-on-Human-Health.html#document/p1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> how to counter the evidence </a>linking climate change to human health impacts.</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">In 1997, the <span class="caps">GCC</span> wanted to </span><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453334-1996-11-25-GCC-Board-of-Directors-Strategy-Memo.html#document/p5/a477438" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">expand its reach with a network of state and local committees</a> that would educate the public about their views on climate change and serve as liaisons to other business and public interest groups with similar views<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. <b>This plan was implemented, the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453388-1997-GCC-Coordinating-Council-Participants-and.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">documents show</a>, with the help of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-inc" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Koch Industries</a>, t</b>he U.S.’s largest private energy company, which is an infamous <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">funder of climate science denial </a>across the globe.</span></font></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Collapse of the <span class="caps">GCC</span></font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the mid-1990s, however, the <span class="caps">GCC</span>’s aggressive tactics and continuing effort to cast doubt on accepted climate science had started to become a problem for some of its members. Nine corporations left the <span class="caps">GCC</span> from 1996 to 2000: two automakers, one chemical manufacturer, one utility, and five oil companies.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><span class="caps">BP</span> was the first major oil company to leave in 1997, </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=PKweBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">stating that</a> “the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in <span class="caps">BP</span> have reached that point.”</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[pix]</font></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additional Takeaways: Infiltrating <span class="caps">UN</span> Climate Negotiations, Embracing Climate Deniers Publicly But Not Privately</font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The documents published Thursday on the <a href="http://climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-documents" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Climate Investigation Center’s Climate Files archive</a>, also show:</font></span></p><ul style="margin: 1.5em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"><li dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> stacked <span class="caps">UN</span> meetings with its members.</span> Some attended meetings transparently, registering as <span class="caps">GCC</span> members, while others registered with other <span class="caps">NGO</span>s. Often <span class="caps">GCC</span> members<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5754078-July-1996-COP-2-NGOs.html#document/p7/a492504" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> outnumbered</a> delegates from developing nations at the annual Conference of the Parties (<span class="caps">COP</span>) meetings.</font></p></li><li dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> coordinated to monitor <span class="caps">IPCC</span> meetings. </span>After <span class="caps">IPCC</span> meetings, <span class="caps">GCC</span> notes reveal attendees met to discuss strategies for exploiting scientific uncertainties in <span class="caps">IPCC</span> climate models and amplifying scientific differences of opinion. On at least one occasion, a<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5689215-AIAM-052205.html#document/p6/a477832" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> contractor</a> for the Electric Power Research Institute planned to keep tabs on <span class="caps">IPCC</span>proceedings. </font></p></li><li dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> internally refuted climate deniers, yet continued to publicly cite their work: </span>Exxon scientist Lenny Bernstein, who co-chaired the <span class="caps">GCC</span>’s committee on science and technology assessment, called the work of climate deniers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Richard Lindzen</a> and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Patrick Michaels</a> “not convincing” in a draft document in 1995. The final copy of that document included no mention of Bernstein’s comments and the <span class="caps">GCC</span> continued to cite the two — as well as other known deniers — through at least 1998.</font></p></li><li dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8e6eb606-7fff-6a92-9a7d-08080644ec54">The <span class="caps">GCC</span> aggressively attempted to control media coverage of climate change:</span> Press releases were sent to reporters praising media coverage featuring climate deniers and correcting those that did not. One<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628174-To-Tell-the-Whole-Story-on-Global-Climate-Change.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> document</a> encouraged reporters to contact the <span class="caps">GCC</span> for “balance in the global climate change debate.”</font></p></li></ul></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> 2018, the United States was <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=so8vUTtiGdkTwUPLMHpcfC9pchxxFi7xrTel-geU_Pqs8VWGskVglycI1IDCSpnfi2uCr78dnDO2Ibm4fDef5rLxeE6EZfj8KiN9VOAPOM89DLu0sS_EIDEld0dZP8vjp7B47qzyrbN6V-N-FLi1X1_IztH3jNBIp1REXz92JiyYEwNigkPWpDJSDmnofNOO&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=24&v=1464" style="">clobbered</a> by <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=zveC7zroragI2qrXZZ9NaiFmUXH8BPNsVHE0O3dSiC8CChTcPYIcLAWCoDLyAP9pbUim_KgyFKrK6UOZps7apw&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=25&v=1464" style="">extreme</a> <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=FECXgvVBAH18GBWRCy8D9STfn5_obmJT_ymll8hPaHICDvk-9f9kihrlwRcJ6fiAmUlT8i2I0vVA8_e2nPmo0CM_eAqyamJcrDYjBrreAeyhZRVIVcnrOB1ndF1oqRHn&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=26&v=1464" style="">weather events</a>, and climate scientists are telling us that <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=GjwzQmjoNJNKZ7-eUAZR_FOtYnRF9gRXI5hpHxulyFMPfNvnLSK12ycwwe0VNLGvJiPgbiAAawDvqb6RTg-WAdxpoa4Dg6sMcUTl_J8bKO17oUFQvpEkzYw45RygU49D9Kb7g-ex3L62rr683rS1Zz0cR1biYQLWRy_bfROCR7P1-Rl6PvzGM96npYE-8uTDPIB25rZOL-3-O3WRyqkThE_vIkzKMASvkgkMbanTg9yszFykyqF_g9FhGnwl-GlTbSuZKs29qq2eABjBeGbzQ&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=27&v=1464" style="">climate change is the core reason</a>. But the issue was not mentioned nearly enough in key Senate and gubernatorial debates this election season.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><em>Media Matters</em> analyzed 78 tightly contested races in 2018 and found only 23 in which a moderator or panelist asked a question about climate change -- <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=3YhLhUxTGfXV40jjcf0E7zQgA_lKgFY2qUmWqav0z4QeTrCJZVkUyLmF1NPfChZUwuTsTlCLnhm8HvNvK9ZBQbSEuBkhd71asUH-Ch-U36k-XBHW0xmRPhdx5vI6jSoSCkZ9FTDzLHcJtl9VD08WAfZm_wzeDyFeGum6GKAp0S5_uCigi4sixakDkU9e8lla&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=28&v=1464" style="">just 29 percent</a>.</b> This year’s results were a modest improvement over 2016, when <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=3YhLhUxTGfXV40jjcf0E7yy59MgC7EjzwANs3PfcdLkAXQkwVSEJLytWZgOJa79g8rcedvlxVTrl8MK9iyhuDr49PQ6KoKRlsSkGcS5uzwsoa5ItrwGpIP5RPNsFBpu1qPW30JAGh51_ZN9fJF2vrDHM5nSDlwWRaIBS7nydEwcrfSOr60xkYWoDqsSsY8xg&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=29&v=1464" style="">only 22 percent</a> of key debates we monitored included a question about climate change.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In light of an <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=GjwzQmjoNJNKZ7-eUAZR_ClCr5RMh_9qgosRV6q8OPBfFtCihh_q6cYjX0IpKLoKQ2u4_Rhg2OgPOrQ18_zlNKlOFs-jxcNOIc0qpa6fQn1lgyUbjWCdP4qTFtl45wH6w5TPfFnE-SXI1z5JVqvOKTO-FiK5dgBN6BjGWRNK1YZuzUoODEgBUGrWwB9qB-1i6JelldMysXxh_jUhxWC8ZA&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=30&v=1464" style="">alarming report</a> from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that stressed the urgency of fighting climate change, it’s crucial that voters are equipped with accurate information regarding their candidates’ positions on energy and environmental issues.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As <em>Media Matters’</em> Lisa Hymas and Evlondo Cooper <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://mediamatters.nationbuilder.com/r?u=3YhLhUxTGfXV40jjcf0E7zQgA_lKgFY2qUmWqav0z4SaeZe6JBg_TDg-tlv2Jkuu60gtQG9Tw6jYxNfDGV0hsDKyi6T4t3XpRFD3z6-g40I7WF9TAX5m42wUxQPKRW4x4ESc8kIaSgk0nmK7BqHfttZbau5KAzrH4LKsY1FafepPdBwWK9l4JFai9GoEkD8z&e=2fd18ded548fce9ef66e074aaf01da3d5df1923b&utm_source=mediamatters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1111weekly&n=31&v=1464" style="">explain</a>, “With the 2018 election season coming to a close, we need journalists to further ramp up the focus on climate change. As new governors and members of Congress take their seats, they will have to make critical decisions about a rapidly changing electricity system, transportation networks, agriculture and land-use practices, and ways to make our communities more resilient in the face of disasters. Reporters should ask elected officials how climate change will factor into those decisions. And when the 2020 campaign season gets rolling, journalists and media outlets will have a crucial role to play in making sure that climate change is discussed in races from the local level all the way up to the presidency. As the recent IPCC report warned us, there's no more time to waste.”</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/12/ipcc-accused-ignoring-research-fossil-fuel-funded-misinformation-campaign"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/12/ipcc-accused-ignoring-research-fossil-fuel-funded-misinformation-campaign</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ipcc1118</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> 2018, the United States was clobbered by extreme weather events, and climate scientists are telling us that climate change is the core reason. But the issue was not mentioned nearly enough in key Senate and gubernatorial debates this election season.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Matters analyzed 78 tightly contested races in 2018 and found only 23 in which a moderator or panelist asked a question about climate change -- just 29 percent. This year’s results were a modest improvement over 2016, when only 22 percent of key debates we monitored included a question about climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In light of an alarming report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that stressed the urgency of fighting climate change, it’s crucial that voters are equipped with accurate information regarding their candidates’ positions on energy and environmental issues.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Media Matters’ Lisa Hymas and Evlondo Cooper explain, “With the 2018 election season coming to a close, we need journalists to further ramp up the focus on climate change. As new governors and members of Congress take their seats, they will have to make critical decisions about a rapidly changing electricity system, transportation networks, agriculture and land-use practices, and ways to make our communities more resilient in the face of disasters. Reporters should ask elected officials how climate change will factor into those decisions. And when the 2020 campaign season gets rolling, journalists and media outlets will have a crucial role to play in making sure that climate change is discussed in races from the local level all the way up to the presidency. As the recent IPCC report warned us, there's no more time to waste.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.desmog.co.uk/<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">2018/10</span>/11/climate-science-deniers-respond-ipcc-report-anger-fear-and-distortion</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mike s</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b> big UN report arrived on Monday, saying in no uncertain terms that the world has up to two decades to massively cut emissions by transforming the global economy if we want to avoid terrible climate impacts.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given the implications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) findings — government intervention, progressive social policies, more international aid — it’s perhaps not surprising that those who deny climate change is real or a problem pushed back. It took a few days, but the climate science deniers’ response to the IPCC report is now in full flow.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What we see is three distinct layers of climate science denial at play here:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s the ‘this isn’t happening’ sun-spot brigade. There’s the ‘this is happening but it’s all a Communist ruse’ zealots. And then there’s the team who reluctantly admit they’ve lost the debate but shoehorn in a number of caveats and excuses to justify why nothing should happen.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘This isn’t happening’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over at Steve Bannon's alt-right hate machine Breibart, James Delingpole calls the IPCC report: “wailing hysteria and worryingly eco-fascistic policy prescriptions”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Quoting Benny Peiser of the oft-debunked Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), he claims that the climate breakdown “hasn’t been supported by real-world evidence”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Delingpole </b>draws on an old friend, author Rupert Darwall, to claim that “science” is really just a pretext, devised by “ideological Euro Greenies, to destroy the fossil fuel hegemony of countries like the U.S. and to impose on them a new, eurocentric, renewable energy global tyranny.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now in full flow, Delingpole mocks reporting (such as ours) that points to the egregious media coverage in the UK, which favoured Strictly Come Dancing over ecological crisis. He asks, could it be that within the media universe “a few vestiges of the old standards still prevail? That maybe some editors still recognise a complete non-story when they see one?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The BBC's editors decided it was a story, but had a slightly odd approach to covering it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As DeSmog UK pointed out, Newsnight chose to invite on US climate science denier Myron Ebell.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ebell is the former head of President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team and a Director of the libertarian US think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His appearance has been heavily slated. Environmental writer Mark Lynas described the interview as “utterly pointless and embarrassing. Car-crash television, and a waste of time that could have been used addressing the real questions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“If you want political analysis, ask a policy analyst. If you want propaganda, ask Myron Ebell,” said Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at University College London.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not to be denied their place in the sun, LBC radio got in on the action, giving a platform to GWPF-founder Lord Nigel Lawson to spout his stock in trade — that all this talk of climate action is just “PC claptrap”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not content with giving Nigel Lawson a platform, LBC doubled up by bringing Piers Corbyn on to deny not just climate breakdown — “I'll challenge the IPCC and the professor just speaking, there is no scientific paper in existence that shows that increases of carbon dioxide worldwide drive world temperature rises” — but that coral reefs were under threat.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IPCC's report compiled evidence from more than 6,000 papers. It said 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs would be lost with 1.5C of warming, and almost all with 2C of warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘It’s all a ruse’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over at Conservative Woman — which regularly runs pieces by Conservative non-woman and GWPF researcher Harry Wilkinson — a headline runs “Top scientist shoots the climate-change alarmists down in flames”. In that article, Wilkinson quotes American climate science denier Richard Lindzen, who the GWPF contrived to give its annual lecture on the day the IPCC report was released.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an extraordinary talk, Lindzen equates the climate consensus with “the suicide of industrial society”. His talk is a homage to oil and coal arguing: “the power these people desperately seek includes the power to roll back the status and welfare that the ordinary person has acquired and continues to acquire through the fossil fuel generated industrial revolution and return them to their presumably more appropriate status as serfs.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lindzen has form. Back in 2017 writing at Merion West, Lindzen argued that believing climate change is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide is “pretty close to believing in magic.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015 The Daily Mail reported Lindzen compared people believing in global warming to religious fanatics: “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Spectator would seem to agree. Its beleaguered editor Fraser Nelson tweeted a sneering comment in support of Ross Clark’s article, in which he states:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It isn’t hard to spot the problem with issuing frightening-sounding deadlines. If the deadlines come and go, without us managing to lower emissions and yet still life goes on, it makes the people setting the deadlines look rather foolish.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is also somewhat counter-productive. Given the failure of the world to come to an end, it is tempting to say, just as we do when religious cults and other fantasists make doom-laden predictions which fail to come to pass: well, the whole thing must be a hoax. What is the point of listening any further?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clark has a long history of climate denial. Back in 2015 he wrote in the Express the sort of paean to fossil fuel capitalism that Richard Lindzen would have been proud of:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Climate change is not the greatest risk to the world: the biggest danger we face is the economic decline which would result from the loss of the cheap energy which has improved lives beyond all recognition over the past two centuries.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You name it: better food, better transport, better medical care. Ultimately, all the fantastic improvements in our lives since 1800 have been down to one thing: our ability to harness energy from fossil fuels.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In summary: Everything’s getting better forever and ever. Except the IPCC report tells us that's very much not the case, unless we take radical action.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Which is perhaps why, in a second Breitbart article, Delingpole took aim at the organisations charged with implementing this ‘green tyranny’ that would see a move away from fossil fuels — specifically the Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) Chief Executive, Chris Stark.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He’s a man full of “revolutionary fervour” for cutting the UK’s emissions and helping the world avoid terrible climate impacts, Delingpole (sort of) writes. “If this doesn’t chill you to the marrow, it should”, apparently.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He’s not the only one that’s scared the CCC might now become empowered. Nick Timothy, a former SPAD for Theresa May who is credited with getting the UK’s Department of Climate Change shut down, urges Telegraph readers to “take back control” from “unaccountable entities” such as the CCC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And entities such as the Nobel committee, perhaps.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Bjorn Lomborg </b>over at the Wall St Journal took the opportunity to distort the work of just-announced Nobel Prize winner, climate economist, William Nordhaus. Lomborg claims Nordhaus said that “proposed cost of CO2 cuts aren't worth it”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans points out on Twitter, Nordhaus literally wrote in one of his many, many papers on the economic rationale for climate action:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The future is uncertain so we should have more climate policy, not less.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Evans points out, the entire framing used by Lomborg is just wrong: [twits]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In one sense the new ideological discomfort of the shrinking climate denial network is understandable. As the IPCC reports outlines, mass systemic change is required - a systemic change that is incompatible with the economic system the climate science deniers revere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘It’s happening, but…’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Daily Mail - a bastion of climate science denial under former editor Paul Dacre - started uncharacteristically promisingly with Peter Oborne’s excellent report from Bangladesh, which seems to be based on actual facts and actual reporting and firmly grounded in reality.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But then on Wednesday they had Stephen Glover veer from acknowledging the level of crisis, to arguing that it’s all just too expensive so nothing should be done. He writes:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This week’s IPCC report judged that global warming must be kept to a maximum of 1.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels, rather than the 2C ceiling previously envisaged. How can scientists be so sure that the lower figure should become the new goal?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I ask because it carries enormous extra costs. The IPCC estimates that new energy infrastructure — wind, solar and electricity storage — as well as technologies that can capture CO2 from the atmosphere, could cost a jaw dropping £1,800 billion.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This will be paid for by the likes of you and me.” He’s not the only one that acknowledges climate change is a problem but isn’t really willing to countenance the solutions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rod Liddle in The Sun takes aim first at vegetarians, then at windfarms.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of the IPCC’s suggestion that we’re going to have to eat a lot less meat, he says: “Climate change is a fact. But when they conflate two issues for reasons of fashion, I begin to smell a rat”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So Rod isn’t going veggie. But what of another IPCC finding, that the world is going to need a heck of a lot more windfarms? No. He doesn’t fancy that either:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Wind turbines are a blight on our landscape”, he says, “causing misery wherever they are”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That's all pretty normal messaging for newspapers known for objecting to climate policy. But what’s new about the latest spate of climate science denial is its politics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Having overwhelmingly lost the scientific debate, these groups are now pivoting to a new position which is centred around two ideas: first that the new is too apocalyptic and second that it’s too expensive.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given what is required is systemic change, they are swiftly changing positions to defend the indefensible — an economic system based on extraction and exploitation of natural resources and mass consumerism that the IPCC tells us must be in its end-phase.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But it’s not all bad…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amongst the torrent of climate science denial from the usual suspects, there are also a few shoots of refreshing reality appearing. For instance, the normally obstinate Times runs an editorial that breaks with their own columnist Matt Ridley’s vehement do-nothingery and points to the IPCC report to make his stance look absurd:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The IPCC report’s authors warn that cutting emissions fast enough to keep the planet sufficiently cool could mean a $2.5 trillion hit to global GDP. Others estimate that switching to electric cars will create new industries worth $7 trillion a year in the US alone. It is true that a revolution will be necessary, but it should be bloodless and it will be good for us. So bring it on.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/12/ipcc-accused-ignoring-research-fossil-fuel-funded-misinformation-campaign</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> United Nations (UN) climate science panel is being accused of ignoring research into fossil fuel-funded misinformation campaigns that have been key to holding back action on global warming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — an assessment of more than 6,000 research papers — found global warming caused largely by fossil fuel burning would have severe impacts even if limited to 1.5°C (2.7°F).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Described by the IPCC as “one of the most important climate change reports ever published,” the report is designed to inform policy makers and the public around the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">But several researchers are angry the report did not take account of academic research into the “decades-long misinformation campaign” funded and promoted by fossil fuel interests and so-called “free market” conservative think tanks that has been a major brake on progress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Several researchers say the lack of consideration of academic research into misinformation campaigns was a vital but missed opportunity to educate the public and policy makers</b>. The groups that have colluded with the fossil fuel industry have been credited with pushing President Donald Trump to pledge to pull the U.S. from the UN's Paris Agreement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A Vast Blind Spot</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“This is an important barrier to climate action, but it is never addressed,” said Professor Robert Brulle of Drexel University, who has published research on the funding and influence of climate science denial efforts. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>“A large existing literature on this was ignored by the IPCC,” he added.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The IPCC special report showed that keeping global warming to 1.5°C would require a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel use between now and the middle of the century.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As well as assessing the impacts of global warming at 1.5°C compared to 2°C (3.4°F) on people and the environment, the report’s chapter four detailed factors that influence policy makers and the public’s response to climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. Timmons Roberts of Brown University in Rhode Island was one of more than 50 contributors to the chapter.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said the “highly organized misinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry” was a “main factor driving inaction,” yet he said this was described as a “vast blind spot” in the report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It leaves readers and policy makers without tools to address the problem in the real world,” added Roberts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Justin Farrell of Yale University has published a detailed analysis of the work of a network of more than 150 organizations that form a “climate counter movement.” Farrell found those groups had been key to polarizing the public on climate change. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said: “We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand about the real reasons why climate change science is ignored and solutions are continually subverted.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said social science research had revealed “how and why climate science continues to be purposefully undermined at large scales by powerful industry and political actors.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Farrell added: “The public — and the planet — deserve to hear this evidence and know the truth, and any report on climate change can and should integrate these well-researched facts.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Funders of groups that have pushed misinformation on climate science and the impacts of policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions include petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, energy companies including ExxonMobil and hedge fund billionaire and Donald Trump backer Robert Mercer. Many millions more have flowed through so-called “dark money”routes, including Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ignore at our Peril</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr. John Cook of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication said it was “impossible to understand and change public attitudes” on climate change without considering misinformation campaigns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said: “Social science research tells us that efforts to communicate the reality of human-caused global warming can be undone by misinformation — so we ignore climate science denial at our own peril.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol said it was crucial the public was aware about such campaigns “so they can dismiss the noise generated by contrarians for the propaganda that it is.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some research on the tendency for conservative white males to deny human-caused climate change, work led by Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University, was cited in the IPCC report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Dunlap said there was a “large body of social science research” that had documented the misinformation campaign and its tactics and impacts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said: “The IPCC should take this accumulated body of knowledge into account and publicize it, thereby helping to pull back the curtain on the 'denial machine' so that the public can see through the misinformation it spreads.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Difficult Circumstances</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report does reference some research into ways that action to cut emissions could be stymied. The report says “industry group lobbying, further contributed to reducing space for maneuver of some major emitting nations.” People with a “free market ideology” also tended to have “weaker climate change beliefs,” the report says. People who perceived themselves to be “protected by god” were less prone to take measures to adapt to climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">People with “particular political views and those who emphasize individual autonomy” were prone to rejecting climate science or believing there was “widespread scientific disagreement about climate change.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Matthew Hornsey of the University of Queensland in Australia has also researched climate science denial and said he did not want to be critical of IPCC authors who were “doing a great job in difficult circumstances.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But he said the report was “relatively silent on the role of political elites in supporting organized campaigns of misinformation about climate change.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said: “This is something that most neutral observers would agree is a big factor in stopping progress on climate change, particularly in Australia and the U.S.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“But I can also understand why the authors might want to steer clear of making any explosive statements around this. One of the great triumphs of the skeptic movement is that they’ve made it feel ‘political’ or ‘biased’ to talk frankly about political interference in Australia and the U.S.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DeSmog contacted the two coordinating lead authors of chapter four of the IPCC report, but had not received a response at time of publishing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">= </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2500 sci from 130 countries see also UN (possibly conferences) and sci academies bush2 got US guy out, replaced by pauchuri, India 10'1812 years, 1.5 2.7 FUN Climate Panel: Emissions Must Fall Rapidly by 2030 to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions— perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required. But such a move would be almost politically impossible in the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China. Lawmakers around the world, including in China, the European Union and California, have enacted carbon pricing programs.Written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies, this report was done at the request of small island nations who worry about warming changes that are short of those predicted as part of the Paris agreements.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ipcc report 10/8/18 check coverage 12 yrs new report issued by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this week warned that if immediate and unprecedented action is not taken, the dire consequences of global warming will start to take effect within the next 20 years.The landmark report dominated the environmental news beat this week, but its impact was not reflected in mainstream media coverage.Unsurprisingly, Fox News did not cover the report until late Monday afternoon, when Shep Smith spent a few minutes on the topic, saying, “climate change is real, the situation is urgent, and time is running out. That's the new warning from a landmark United Nations report." Smith’s reporting was quickly watered down with correspondent Trace Gallagher describing the goals laid out in the U.N. report as “really unreasonable” and “draconian.”While most TV networks are notoriously terrible when it comes to covering the real-life causes and impacts of climate change, Fox News stands out among the worst offenders. The network has spent years telling its viewers that global warming is a hoax. They have devoted coverage to undermining climate science across its platforms -- in 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 93% of Fox News' representations of climate science were misleading.Fox was not alone in ignoring the climate report: 28 of the top 50 U.S. newspapers made no mention of it on their homepages, including 10 that serve cities listed among the "25 U.S. Cities Most Affected by Climate Change."The predictions offered in the report would likely affect every American, but the media is largely unwilling or unable to dedicate substantive coverage to climate change and related environmental news. While there is clearly a hunger for climate change reporting--particularly on the responses and solutions to this global crisis--coverage is lacking, if not downright misleading, across every network.Watch this: Fox News has spent years telling viewers that climate change is not real. We juxtaposed those lies with the dire warnings from the new climate report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mexican politician and current executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Patricia Espinosa made significant progress on shifting the dialogue surrounding climate action in 2017. In February, she said getting fossil fuel companies "on board" is a critical factor in combating climate change. She also used her position to direct the climate conversation away from technology and toward security, arguing that security officials "understand that our current crisis pales in comparison to what is coming if climate change is left unchecked." She also spoke about women's involvement at COP23 and introduced the Gender Action Plan to promote meaningful participation by women in the climate movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference Contents [hide] 11995: COP 1, Germany21996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland31997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change41998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina51999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany62000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands72001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany82001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco92002: COP 8, New Delhi, India102003: COP 9, Milan, Italy112004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina122005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada132006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya142007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia152008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznan, Poland162009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark172010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico182011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa192012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar202013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland212014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru222015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France232016: COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1, Marrakech, Morocco242017: COP 23/CMP 13/CMA 2, Bonn, Germany252018: COP 24/CMP 14/CMA 3262019: COP 25/CMP 15/CMA 4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">COP http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6383.php</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference wiikipedia, the free encyclopedia The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are yearly conferences held in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conferences of the Parties) (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.[1] From 2005 the Conferences have also served as the "Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol" (CMP);[2]also parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers. The first UN Climate Change Conference was held in 1995 in Berlin.Contents [hide] 1 1995: COP 1, The Berlin Mandate2 1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland3 1997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change4 1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina5 1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany6 2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands7 2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany8 2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco9 2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India10 2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy11 2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina12 2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada13 2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya14 2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia15 2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznan, Poland16 2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark17 2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico18 2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa19 2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland21 2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru22 2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France23 References</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_ChangeThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.[4] The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change.[5][6] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system".[5] IPCC reports cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."[6]The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change,[10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[11] Contents [hide] 1 Aims2 Organization3 Assessment reports3.1 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scope and preparation of the reports3.2 Authors3.3 First assessment report3.4 Supplementary report of 19923.5 Second assessment report3.6 Third assessment report3.6.1 Comments on the TAR3.7 Fourth assessment report3.7.1 Response to AR43.8 Fifth assessment report3.8.1 Representative Concentration Pathways4 Special reports4.1 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)4.1.1 Comments on the SRES4.2 Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation (SRREN)4.3 Special Report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX)4.4 Methodology reports4.4.1 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4.4.2 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories5 Activities6 Nobel Peace Prize7 Responses7.1 Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers7.1.1 Watson criticism7.2 Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph7.3 Conservative nature of IPCC reports7.4 IPCC processes7.5 Outdatedness of reports7.6 Burden on participating scientists7.7 Proposed organizational overhaul8 InterAcademy Council review9 Endorsements of the IPCC10 See also11 Notes12 References13 Further reading14 External linksAims[edit]The principles that the IPCC operates under[12] are set out in the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions, as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:[6]Human-induced climate change,The impacts of human-induced climate change,Options for adaptation and mitigation.Organization[edit]The chair of the IPCC is presently vacant, but the acting chair is Ismail El Gizouli. The previous chairs were Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; Robert Watson in 1997; and Bert Bolin. The chair is assisted by an elected bureau including vice-chairs, working group co-chairs and a secretariat.The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.[13] Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held.[14]The meeting report[15] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.[15]There are several major groups:</font></div></div>