Articles by Joseph Romm

Glacier National Park to go glacier-free a decade early

[I welcome your ideas for a new name for the park. See the pictures of Grinnell Glacier circa 1940 and 2004.]

National Geographic News reports the oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030 is being revised:

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."

Yet another climate impact occurring faster than the models had projected.

As noted in my November post Himalayan glaciers "decapitated," glaciers all over the world are melting faster than previously expected, such as the Naimona'nyi Glacier in the Himalaya (Tibet):

If Naimona'nyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, alpine glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people.

Significantly, the U.K.'s Guardian reports, "China plans 59 reservoirs to collect meltwater from its shrinking glaciers" (see here). The article warns, however, "It is unclear, however, how long the water can be stored without replenishment."

For more on what is happening around the world, see "World's Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year" here and "AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003" here. For some amazing pictures, see here.

The Glacier National Park story notes:

He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT

I will examine here the February 24 New York Times article by Andy Revkin to show that Al Gore is not "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements," as he was accused.

Part 1 detailed how Roger Pielke, Jr. started all this by repeatedly misstating what Gore had said in his AAAS talk (video here). These indefensible charges would have died on the gossip grapevine of the blogosphere, had they not been picked up by Revkin.

I have written multiple emails to Andy in an effort to get him to clear Gore's name in print, and he refuses. If he won't, I feel that someone must for the record and the search engines. If I could clear Gore's name without criticizing Andy, I would. But I can't.

My reason for writing this post is simple. Having your reputation stained in print in the New York Times is a very big deal for anyone because:

• That story is reprinted and excerpted around the planet. It lives on forever.
• The NYT is the "paper of record," and thus considered highly credible (though it shouldn't be).

Let's look at exactly what Revkin wrote in "In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall" (see here, original links, emphasis added):

In the effort to shape the public's views on global climate change, hyperbole is an ever-present temptation on all sides of the debate ...

Mr. Gore, addressing a hall filled with scientists in Chicago, showed a slide that illustrated a sharp spike in fires, floods and other calamities around the world and warned the audience that global warming "is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented."

...

Both men, experts said afterward, were guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements.

Mr. Gore removed the slide from his presentation after the Belgian research group that assembled the disaster data said he had misrepresented what was driving the upward trend. The group said a host of factors contributed to the trend, with climate change possibly being one of them. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gore said he planned to switch to using data on disasters compiled by insurance companies.

Do you see what Revkin did here?

The NYT's false 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' charge began with false charge by Pielke

In all the hubbub about George Will's falsehood-filled columns and Andy Revkin's equation of Al Gore with George Will in the New York Times, one simple fact has been a largely overlooked:

Contrary to Revkin's assertions, Former Vice President Al Gore is not guilty of "exaggeration," let alone "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements."

Having communicated at length with Gore's staff and Revkin, I will show that not only did Gore do nothing worthy of the NYT's criticism, but in fact he acted honorably and in the highest traditions of science journalism. Contrary to the impression left by Revkin in his February 24, "News Analysis" piece (see here), Gore and his team work overtime to accurately represent the data and the science.

Gore is very careful in his use of language, more careful than the NYT -- and far more careful than the man who initiated the indefensible charge, Roger Pielke, Jr. As Dylan Otto Krider wrote at Examiner.com:

It was Pielke who provided Revkin with his Gore infraction to "balance out" his article on Will to allow Revkin to say "both sides do it" ...

As we will see in this two-parter, Revkin's case is so weak, so nonexistent, that it rests almost entirely on his interpretation -- on his indefensible overinterpretation -- of one word by Gore, a word that Revkin didn't even include in his article for reasons that will soon be obvious to all.

Part 1 focuses on how Pielke started all this by fabricating a bunch of baseless charges against Gore and smeared the good name of thousands of scientists.

On climate, how should progressives respond to the conservative strategy of 'obstruct and delay'

When I first read the E&E News PM story ($ub. req'd), "Boxer eyeing bold move to thwart GOP filibuster on emissions bill," I was skeptical of the strategy described:

The chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is considering a bold budget move aimed at passing global warming legislation in the Senate without having to deal with an expected Republican filibuster.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that she is researching the use of the budget reconciliation process as an avenue for passing cap-and-trade legislation now considered a key agenda item for President Obama.

"We're certainly exploring it as a possibility," Boxer said of budget reconciliation, a bill that cannot be filibustered and therefore does not require meeting the 60-vote threshold that has consistently been a key hurdle to passage of global warming legislation.

After all, the climate bill will be among the consequential pieces of legislation ever considered by Congress given that failure to solve the climate problem will grievously harm the health and well-being the next 50 generations of Americans (see here). Shouldn't that issue be debated extensively?

But then I read William Kristol's Thusday op-ed, which argued Republicans need to "find reasons to obstruct and delay" (see here) Obama's agenda. I guess that's why they I call it the conservative movement stagnation.

Conservatives have no strategy for averting catastrophe. Indeed, they have chosen to tie the fate of their entire movement stagnation to humanity's self-destruction (see here). It is now taken for granted that one must get 60 votes for every piece of legislation because it is taken for granted that conservatives will filibuster anything Democrats tried to do, including trying to pass legislation aimed at preventing the unimaginable horror of 5.5° to 7°C warming and 850 ppm.

I still think Obama and his team must actively work to explain to the public the urgent need for action and the availability of myriad affordable solutions (see here). But I think Boxer's strategy may be worth considering. Here are more details: