Honey, I broke the graph

Well, I did it.

NOAA released their global temperature data for September, so I thought it was time for an update. But I was trying to update the NOAA temperature data graph in a way that would really tell the story. So first I graphed the yearly average global temperature up to last year, but left out this-year-so-far. Then, I figured I’d add an extra point, marked as an asterisk, in red, to emphasize this year’s value (so far). Problem is — it broke the graph:

Dang that pesky global warming.

Miami — Why Worry?

Harvey Ruvin, Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts, has asked for a superfund to deal with the problem of sea level rise in the Miami area. And it’s all because sea level rise threatens $6 trillion worth of property. And the water supply, as saltwater continues to intrude into the groundwater. And the lives of millions of South Floridians.

Use and Abuse

As the Rabett points out, there’s a fascinating temperature graph from Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Here ’tis:

Anti-Vaxxer Approach to Climate Science

The whole autism-vaccine thing started with the publication of a paper in a highly respected medical journal, The Lancet, by Andrew Wakefield, claiming that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine was associated with colitis and autism spectrum disorders. It was soon discovered that Wakefield failed to disclose multiple conflicts of interest and manipulated evidence. His paper was retracted by The Lancet, whose editor-in-chief described it as “utterly false” and said the journal had been “deceived.” Subsequent studies have established beyond doubt that Wakefield’s claims were wrong.

Hot Heat

A recent screed by a denier claims that none of the expected unhappy consequences of global warming has happened, not even any increase in heat waves. That claim is not only false, it’s ridiculous. One of the consequences of global warming is an increase in heat waves, and in extreme hot days — which isn’t a future consequence, it has happened already.

ExxonMobil climate change

October 14, 2015

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Lynch,

As Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we are alarmed by allegations that Exxon (becoming ExxonMobil in 1999) intentionally hid the truth about the role of fossil fuels in influencing climate change. Investigations by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News allege that Exxon scientists confirmed fossil fuels’ role in climate change decades ago, but top executives decided to hide the truth and instead embarked on a massive campaign of denial and disinformation.¹

ExxonMobil’s apparent behavior is similar to cigarette companies that repeatedly denied harm from tobacco and spread uncertainty and misleading information to the public. The Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuted tobacco companies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. We ask that the DOJ similarly investigate ExxonMobil for organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public. We request the DOJ investigate whether ExxonMobil violated RICO, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.

According to the invesitgation by Inside Climate News, in July 1977 at an Exxon Management Committee meeting, senior Exxon scientist James Black “delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.”² In 1978 Exxon “launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth.”³ Exxon “assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company’s understandin” of global warming.⁴

In 1982, Exxon prepared a corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change. The primer — which was circulated to management but marked “not to be distributed externally” — stated that heading off global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion” and that unless that happened “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”⁵ Exxon “did not elaborate on the carbon problem in annual reports filed with securities regulators,” nor did Exxon “mention in those filings that concern over CO2 was beginning to influence business decisions it was facing.”⁶

In 1988, instead of following their own scientists and the actual science, Exxon apparently started doing the opposite and engages in a campaign of denial and disinformation. The company “started financing efforts to amplify doubt about the state of climate science.”⁷ Exxon “helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions.”^8</sup

Despite its public efforts to deny climate change, Exxon apparently took companty actions based on its knowledge of global warming. According to the Los Angeles Times investigation, in 1990 engineers at Exxon “were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet.”⁹ A top Exxon researcher, Ken Croasdale, explored how much easier and cheaper oil drilling in the Arctic would be with a melting ice cap.¹⁰

The Times investigation concluded that “As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.”¹¹ The Times identified a “gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change.”¹²

The apparent tactics employed by Exxon are reminiscent of the actions employed by big tobacco companies to deceive the American people about the known risks of tobacco. In this case, Exxon scientists knew about fossil fuels causing global warming and Exxon took internal actions based on its knowledge of climate change. Yet Exxon funded and publicly engaged in a campaign to deceive the American people about the known risks of fossil fuels in causing climate change. If these allegations against Exxon are true, the Exxon’s actions were immoral. We request the DOJ to investigate whether ExxonMobil’s acdtions were also illegal.

Sincerely,

Ted W. Lieu
Member of Congress
Mark DeSaulnier
Member of Congress

---

¹See Sara Jerving et al., “What Exxon Knew About the Earth’s Melting Arctic,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 9, 2015; Neela Banerjee et al., “Exxon: The Road Not Taken,” Inside Climate News, Sep. 21, 2015.
²Neela Banerjee et al., “Exxon: The Road Not Taken,” Inside Climate News, Sep. 21, 2015
³Id.
⁴Id.
⁵Id.
⁶Id.
⁷Id.
⁸Id.
⁹Sara Jerving et al., “What Exxon Knew About the Earth’s Melting Arctic,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 9, 2015
¹⁰Id.
¹¹Id.
¹²Id.

Democratic Debate: My Analysis

I watched the first debate among democratic presidential candidates, just as I watched the debates among republican candidates, and there was one clear, unambiguous, by-a-landslide winner of tonight’s debate: the democratic party.

It was a lively debate, there was plenty of back-and-forth, and lots of disagreement with plenty of agreement as well. But unlike the republican debates, this one focused on real issues. This was in stark contrast to the republicans’ debates, which — as Bernie Sanders aptly described in a post-debate interview — seemed like a food fight, not a debate on substantive issues. Every one of the democrats seemed keenly aware of the important things facing our country, and very well-informed not only of the basics, but of the nuances. These are people you might actually think could be a good president, not the cadre of clowns the republicans have offered.

Pure Genius: More Oil for Climate Change

Treating lung cancer is outrageously expensive (have you seen “Breaking Bad“?). What if I suggested that we should grow more tobacco, and get more people to smoke cigarettes, so the increased revenue can help pay for treatment costs?

Or how about this: let’s produce more tobacco and create some brilliant marketing campaigns to get more people to smoke, but only do that in third-world countries so it’s somebody else’s problem, not ours. That way, we won’t have more lung cancer and emphysema and bronchitis here in the good old U.S.A., and we can use some of the revenue to help pay for treatment here in the good old U.S.A. — where we’re so good.

Wait a minute … did I say grow more tobacco to pay for lung cancer? I meant drill for more oil to pay for climate change.

CO2 Increase

CO₂ in our atmosphere is still increasing. In fact this year the annual average amount has passed 400 ppmv (part per million by volume) for the first time in a long time — at least a million years. The reason: we’re burning fossil fuels like oil, coal, natural gas. When we do, it turns that long-buried carbon into carbon dioxide, which ends up in the atmosphere. It’s as simple as that.

A Big Deal

Remember when Matt Pearce wrote an article printed in the LA Times making it sound as though the wildfire situation in the western U.S. this year is no big deal?

Reports from the National Interagency Fire Center say that this year has the most acres burned year-to-date in the U.S.

But wait — there’s more! Even though this year isn’t over yet (nearly three months remain), we’ve already set a new record:

Those black dots are yearly totals — the red one, circled, is only the year so far. With nearly three months to go, and October a traditionally bad fire month for California … how much worse will it get?

Is this what we can expect on a regular basis? I’m not referring to wildfire years — I mean, no matter what happens, people making it sound like it’s “no big deal”?