BBC promotes ‘Anthropocene’ hype: #38gate begins

Posted: January 8, 2016 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, bbcbias, Geology, propaganda
Tags: ,

bbc-greenpeace-medThe idea of lending the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) conjecture an air of scientific legitimacy by defining the period since the spread of agrarianism and industrialisation as a new geological age called the ‘Anthropocene’ has been bubbling along in the background for a number of years. In fact, it’s now got it’s own grand ‘working group’ consisting of the members listed below. This list was drawn to my attention by Matt McGrath of the BBC climate-propaganda unit, the de-facto promoter of the outfit.

I don’t know how many of these people are serious working geologists, but the names Naomi Oreskes and Andy Revkin jumped out at me, and put me in mind of that other list of 28 ‘world leading climate experts’ who the BBC used as an excuse to no-platform anyone critical of their alarmist climate-schtick back in 2005. A scandal that became known as 28gate, when the 28 ‘experts’ turned out to be activists from greenpeace, WWF, Stop Climate Chaos etc.

I don’t have time to visit all these links to check out backgrounds and publication histories, so I’m appealing for help from the talkshop readership. Start with a comment claiming some people on the list so effort isn’t wasted duplicating background checks.

Thanks for your assistance. Let’s see who’s who.

Working group convenor:

Dr Jan Zalasiewicz (Leicester) e-mail: jaz1@le.ac.uk

Members:

Colin Waters (Secretary) e-mail: cnw@bgs.ac.uk
Anthony Barnosky e-mail: barnosky@berkeley.edu
Alejandro Cearreta e-mail: alejandro.cearreta@ehu.es
Paul Crutzen e-mail: paul.crutzen@mpic.de
Matt Edgeworth e-mail: me87@le.ac.uk
Erle Ellis e-mail: ece@umbc.edu
Mike Ellis e-mail: mich3@bgs.ac.uk
Ian Fairchild e-mail: i.fairchild@bham.ac.uk
Agnieszka Gałuszka e-mail: aggie@ujk.edu.pl
Philip Gibbard (Past-president SQS, chair INQUA-SACCOM) e-mail: plg1@cam.ac.uk
Jacques Grinevald e-mail: jacques.grinevald@graduateinstitute.ch
Peter Haff e-mail: pkhaff@gmail.com
Irka Hajdas e-mail: hajdas@phys.ethz.ch
Alan Haywood e-mail: A.Haywood@leeds.ac.uk
Catherine Jeandel e-mail: Catherine.Jeandel@legos.obs-mip.fr
Andrew Kerr e-mail: kerra@cardiff.ac.uk
Reinhold Leinfelder e-mail leinfelder@hu-berlin.de
John McNeill e-mail: mcneillj@georgetown.edu
Cath Neal e-mail: cath.neal@york.ac.uk
Carlos Nobre e-mail: carlos.nobre@inpe.br
Eric Odada e-mail: eodada@uonbi.ac.ke
Naomi Oreskes e-mail: oreskes@fas.harvard.edu
Clément Poirier e-mail Clement.poirier@univ-lr.fr
Simon Price e-mail: sprice@bgs.ac.uk
Andrew Revkin e-mail revkin@gmail.com
Dan Richter e-mail drichter@duke.edu
Mary Scholes e-mail: mary.scholes@wits.ac.za
Victoria C. Smith e-mail: victoria.smith@rlaha.ox.ac.uk
Will Steffen e-mail: will.steffen@anu.edu.au
Colin Summerhayes e-mail: cps32@cam.ac.uk
James Syvitski e-mail: james.syvitski@colorado.edu
Davor Vidas e-mail Davor.Vidas@fni.no
Michael Wagreich e-mail: michael.wagreich@univie.ac.at
Mark Williams e-mail: mri@le.ac.uk
Scott Wing e-mail: wings@si.edu
Alex Wolfe e-mail: awolfe@ualberta.ca
An Zhisheng e-mail: anzs@loess.ac.cn

Promoter:

Matt McGrath e-mail: matt.mcgrath@bbc.co.uk

Working Group communications:

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    One of the justifications for an ‘anthropocene’ is that the residue from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests will be visible to geologists in thousands of years time.

    Maybe we need another geological age for the thin layer of iridium found at the 65m year level, thought to be linked to the end of the Cretaceous period. We could call it the ‘killer-asteroid-o-cene’ maybe.

  2. oldbrew says:

    It’s the Idiocene, with the BBC in the front rank of believers.

    ‘Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene’
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/welcome-to-a-new-geologic-era-the-idiocene.html

    ‘A new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman.’

  3. tallbloke says:

    I’ll do the surname initial letter E

    Matt Edgeworth:
    Matt studied for a BA degree (1987) and a PhD (1992) in Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Durham. He worked as supervisor, Project Officer and Site Director for several commercial archaeology units – including Albion Archaeology, Cambrian Archaeological Projects and Birmingham University Archaeological Fieldwork Unit – carrying out a series of urban surveys and directing excavations in Bedford, Rugby, Manchester, Wednesbury, Birmingham and elsewhere.

    Erle Ellis:
    My earlier work investigated ecological changes in ancient village landscapes across China in the transition from traditional to industrially-based agricultural systems. My teaching includes Environmental Science & Conservation (120), Landscape Ecology (305), Applied Landscape Ecology (405/605), Biogeochemical Cycles in the Global Environment (412/612) and Field Methods in Geography: Environmental Mapping (485/685). At Harvard Graduate School of Design,

    Aha! A Geologist!

    Mike Ellis:
    Research interests
    Active tectonics and tectonic geomorphology
    Climate change and the environmental impacts of climate change.
    Earth surface processes.
    The Anthropocene
    Skills
    Earth surface processes in the context of climate change and active tectonics
    Science community development
    Science leadership

  4. tallbloke says:

    Ah, the BBC’s impartial approach to scientific information…

  5. tallbloke says: January 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Ah, the BBC’s impartial approach to scientific information
    —————————–
    So you want the to give equal prominence to flat earthers, sky dragons, HARP, chemtrails, iron sun,?

    [Reply] No, but I do expect them not to hide adverse data handed to them on a plate by a properly qualified scientist, because hiding adverse data, like Michael Mann did in the ‘hide the decline’ scandal, undermines the scientific method. and skews public debate and policymaking.

    Surely if the consensus of the majority of scientists is for AGW then this should be what is pushed. You cannot expect them to push all the alternatives equally without the scientific backing?

    [Reply] Science isn’t a democracy. By your argument, the bigwigs of the renaissance period would have held sway and we’d still be on a flat earth with the Sun revolving round us. And you don’t want to align yourself with flat earthers, do you?

  6. Adam Gallon says:

    I’ll do the Gs!
    Agnieszka Gałuszka
    Professor of Geo &Geobiobiochemistry,
    •Environmental geochemistry and biogeochemistry
    •Sustainable development and green chemistry
    http://www.ujk.edu.pl/ichem/z_och_sre.html
    Looks like a real scientist, does field trips, specialises in manmade pollution, looking at heavy metal & PCB contamination in sediment cores, mosses & the like.
    Now, that I can go with.

    Jacques Grinevald
    Retired professor, Development Studies
    http://www.institutmomentum.org/manifesto/
    Classic greenies,
    “The Momentum Institute met for the first time on the 10th of March 2011, the day before an earthquake struck Japan and unleashed the nuclear catastrophe we know as Fukushima. The twofold catastrophe that engulfed the inhabitants of the northern part of Honshu Island was both local and global. It demonstrates the fragility of the thermo-industrial system. The interconnectedness of natural elements with industrial objects has made our planet an open-air laboratory: today no place on earth is free from experimentation”

    “This rapid degradation of the ecosphere goes hand in hand with the exhaustion of fossil fuel resources and the dislocation of the financial system. These three interconnected areas reached their point of no return during the first decade of the 21st century”

    “The post petrol, post-nuclear, post-coal transition means completely redesigning and rethinking the infrastructures of society and alongside this, working to achieve a new social imaginary by envisaging a near future without petrol and without non-renewable energy”

    Science degree in policies from the University Institute of High International Studies in Geneva in 1970; and his doctorate of 3rd cycle of philosophy, Paris X-Nanterre, in 1979.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Adam!
    Running total: two people who have specialist geological expertise out of five checked.

  8. [Reply] No, but I do expect them not to hide adverse data handed to them on a plate by a properly qualified scientist,
    ——————-
    tfp
    which (single?) scientist data was handed to them and what is the different data that was disputed?

    [Reply] The scientist and his science the BC rang the chief scientist about. Do keep up.
    ——————–
    because hiding adverse data, like Michael Mann did in the ‘hide the decline’ scandal, undermines the scientific method. and skews public debate and policymaking.
    ————-
    tfp
    You cannot bring that up seriously can you?
    Papers were in existence for the decline in tree ring (mxd) temperature data written by Briffa. The problem you refered to was on the cover of a pamphlet and was a simplified graphic. The measured temp changes were available and at the time not disputed. so was it invalid to add real measurements to the graphic.

    [Reply] The problem is also in MBH 98, and you know full well that hiding adverse data is against the scientific method. For a start, the hidden data disproves the efficacy of treemometers.

    ——–
    [Reply] Science isn’t a democracy. By your argument, the bigwigs of the renaissance period would have held sway and we’d still be on a flat earth with the Sun revolving round us. And you don’t want to align yourself with flat earthers, do you?
    ———
    So you DO want equal opportunities for the far out theories, for there is no way for any filtering to be applied. For who would be the filterers? you? me? the consensus of trained climate scientists? Emmanuel?, Joseph Postma, Douglas Cotton?, the Cornwall Alliance?

    [Reply] Ah yes, Copernican astronomy, a “far out theory” compared to the consensus accepted and time honoured central Earth theory. And naturally, the inquisition is the right body to apply the filtering and thumbscrews.

  9. oldbrew says:

    TFP: ‘Surely if the consensus of the majority of scientists is for AGW then this should be what is pushed. You cannot expect them to push all the alternatives equally without the scientific backing?’

    Argument from authority again.

    ‘Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, falling prey to groupthink, or speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

  10. oldbrew says:

    Alex Wolfe: Alexander P. Wolfe, Ph.D.
    Adjunct Professor, Paleobiology
    Department of Biological Sciences
    University of Alberta
    ‘paleoclimate, paleolimnology, paleoecology, global change’

    Do professors teach ‘global change’ these days?

    One of his papers: ‘A coherent signature of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition to remote watersheds of the northern hemisphere’

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    An “appeal to authority” is a declaration of cult status and beliefs. “The pope speaks for god and can not be wrong” If you do not accept the popes dogma you are bound for hell and must be evil.
    Cult leaders and their followers really hate skeptics! Even trained scientists can become indoctrinated cult followers.

    “Those that can will learn. Those that can’t must be taught.”…pg

  12. Jaime says:

    “Catherine Jeandel, a senior researcher at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS)1 in Toulouse, has a real passion for the ocean. A specialist in marine geochemistry, she measures “the distribution of certain chemical elements in water,” helpfully identifying them on her coffee mug, which features the periodic table of the elements. “They function as ‘tracers,” she continues, “enabling us to study the movement of bodies of water among these immense ‘ponds’ we call oceans, and to reconstruct their history.” The expected outcome is a more comprehensive understanding of how continental land-water exchanges take place, how carbon is carried by the oceans, and measuring the impact of climate change caused by human activity.”

    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/513.htm

  13. oldbrew says:

    ‘measuring the impact of climate change caused by human activity’ aka begging the question.

  14. Adam Gallon says:

    An Zhisheng (The link gives a 404, btw)
    http://sourcedb.cas.cn/sourcedb_ieexa_cas/yw/zjrc/200906/t20090615_1647093.html
    ” Professional areas of expertise:
    Loess and Paleoclimatology
    Paleomonsoon variations and global change, particularly on climatic effect of Tibetan Plateau growth
    Protection and sustainable development of the Loess Plateau and western China.”
    An Zhisheng has serviced as Vice Chairman of INQUA from 1999 to 2007, and Vice Chair of IGBP steering committee from 2003 to 2006
    INQUA – The International Union for Quaternary Science (INQUA) was established in 1928 and exists to encourage and facilitate the research of Quaternary scientists in all disciplines.
    IGBP – IGBP was launched in 1987 to coordinate international research on global-scale and regional-scale interactions between Earth’s biological, chemical and physical processes and their interactions with human systems. IGBP views the Earth system as the Earth’s natural physical, chemical and biological cycles and processes and the social and economic dimensions.(Note, appears to have stopped operating at the end of last year)

    Looks like a solid scientist.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Professor Mark Williams – University of Leicester, Department of Geology
    Research Group: Palaeobiology, Palaeoenvironments and Palaeoclimates

    ‘I am interested in three broad research themes:

    * Understanding the rate and degree of current environmental change from a geological context;
    * Utilising Pliocene climate as a scenario for late 21st century climate and global warming on Earth;
    * Understanding interactions between the biosphere and the evolution of the Earth System.’
    ——————-
    Michael WAGREICH, Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr.
    University of Vienna >Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy>Department of Geodynamics and Sedimentology

    Research Interests:
    interplay of sedimentation and tectonics in various settings
    computer modelling and simulation in sedimentology and stratigraphy
    geodynamics and basin formation in Alpine mountain belts
    stratigraphy, geo-events and past global change
    isotope stratigraphy
    Anthropocene definition and environmental imprint
    [bold added]

  16. Colin says:

    Peter Haff

    Seems to have given up researching sedimentary processes and moved into “neoenvironment”
    Most recent paper 2006:
    “Strudley, Mark W. and Murray, A. Brad and Haff, P.K., Emergence of pediments, tors, and piedmont junctions from a bedrock weathering-regolith thickness feedback, Geology, vol. 34 no. 10 (2006), pp. 805-808 [1], [doi] [abs].”
    Bio and Research:
    The neoenvironment is the total environment in which we live. It is the sum of the natural, human, and technological systems and processes that surround us. It includes for example forest ecosystems, animals and machines, nanotechnology, the internet, highways, medical systems, power grids, human populations, political parties, governments and bureaucracies, robots and religions and their interactions with each other. In an age in which both the level and acceleration of technology are high, understanding and living with our “environment” can only mean understanding and living with the neoenvironment. Technology cannot be factored out of the neoenvironment leaving only natural processes. The neoenvironment must be understood as a whole. There are many consequences for the future of human-well being that flow from the emergence of the neoenvironment and my research examines some of them.

  17. Colin says:

    Correction to Peter Haff
    Professor Emeritus of Geology and Civil and Environmental Engineering
    PRIMARY APPOINTMENT
    Earth & Ocean Sciences Division
    When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal 01/2015,
    Published In: Quaternary International
    Technology as a geological phenomenon: implications for human well-being 05/2014,
    Published In: Geological Society special publication
    Prediction in geology versus prediction in engineering 11/2013,
    Published In: Special Paper of the Geological Society of America
    Biolevitation of pebbles on desert surfaces 01/2013,
    Published In: Granular Matter
    A probabilistic description of the bed load sediment flux: 1. Theory 09/2012,
    Published In: Journal of Geophysical Research

  18. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Colin. “Neo-environment” looks like heady stuff for anthropocenologists to get into. Looks like it was just made for the Science/policy interface

  19. michael hart says:

    Geologists of the future will probably identify another, very short, geological period which they will name the “BBC-ocene”.

    Sociologists and humorists will label it as the “McGrath event-horizon”, if he is lucky.

    Archaeologists will be able to recognise it as a clearly identifiable layer composed of almost pure bollocks.

  20. Graeme No.3 says:

    Professor Will Steffen is an American chemist, now unfortunately in Australia.

    From 1998 to mid-2004, Steffen served as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, based in Stockholm, Sweden.
    He was Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra until 2012, and is apparently back in that position. He was a member of the Australian Climate Commission until its abolishment in September 2013. He then set up the (private) Climate Institute with Tim Flannery to continue the supply of official sounding scare statements. He is also Co-Director of the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) initiative, a joint venture of ANU and the University of Canberra. (they’re mad as rabbits in Canberra).

    Steffen, W, Grinevald, J, Crutzen, P et al 2011, ‘The anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A, vol. 369, no. 1938, pp. 842-867.

  21. J Martin says:

    How about the oBBCene ?

  22. tallbloke says:

    The link for Steffen is wrong, it should be https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/steffen-wl

    He out-experts most experts, being an expert in more areas than you can shake a hockey stick at:

    Areas of expertise
    Global Change Biology
    Epidemiology
    Crop And Pasture Biochemistry And Physiology
    Other Environmental Sciences
    Simulation And Modelling
    Environmental Management
    Farm Management, Rural Management And Agribusiness
    Palaeoclimatology
    Studies Of Pacific Peoples’ Societies
    Sustainable Agricultural Development
    Ecological Impacts Of Climate Change
    Conservation And Biodiversity
    Environmental Monitoring
    Physical Geography And Environmental Geoscience
    Environmental Science And Management
    Other Earth Sciences
    Agriculture, Land And Farm Management
    Other History And Archaeology

    No Geological expertise though.

  23. Lance Wallace says:

    Many of these people are co-authors of a Science paper discussed (asnd partially debunked) by a guest post in Wattsupwiththat–

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/08/run-away-the-anthropocene-has-arrived/

  24. catweazle666 says:

    thefordprefect says: “Surely if the consensus of the majority of scientists is for AGW…”

    Which is not the case, as I’m sure you are well aware, Mr. Prefect.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Lance, I can’t even get WUWT to load – so many ads on that site. I don’t bother any more.

  26. Graeme No.3 says:

    tallbloke:

    I wasn’t suggesting you waste your time looking at the paper, just the authors – all of whom are above. I didn’t add the list of expertise because I don’t believe it.

  27. oldbrew says:

    Comment at WUWT – by Theyouk January 8, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    The era of the super-predator, the Unprecedentasaurus.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Letter in the independent from the usual suspects:

    The letter

    The hollow cheering of success at the end of COP21 agreement proved yet again that people will hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. What people wanted to hear was that an agreement had been reached on climate change that would save the world while leaving lifestyles and aspirations unchanged.

    What they disregarded were the deadly flaws lying just beneath its veneer of success. As early as the third page of the draft agreement is the acknowledgment that its CO2 target won’t keep the global temperate rise below 2 deg C, the level that was once set as the critical safe limit. The solution it proposes is not to agree on an urgent mechanism to ensure immediate cuts in emissions, but to kick the can down the road by committing to calculate a new carbon budget for a 1.5 deg C temperature increase that can be talked about in 2020.

    Given that we can’t agree on the climate models or the CO2 budget to keep temperatures rises to 2 deg C, then we are naïve to think we will agree on a much tougher target in five years when, in all likelihood, the exponentially increasing atmospheric CO2 levels mean it will be too late.

    More ominously, these inadequate targets require mankind to do something much more than cut emissions with a glorious renewable technology programme that will exceed any other past human endeavour. They also require carbon to be sucked out the air. The favoured method is to out-compete the fossil fuel industry by providing biomass for power stations. This involves rapidly growing trees and grasses faster than nature has ever done on land we don’t have, then burning it in power stations that will capture and compress the CO2 using an infrastructure we don’t have and with technology that won’t work on the scale we need and to finally store it in places we can’t find. To maintain the good news agenda, all of this was omitted from the agreement.

    The roar of devastating global storms has now drowned the false cheer from Paris and brutally brought into focus the extent of our failure to address climate change. The unfortunate truth is that things are going to get much worse. The planet’s excess heat is now melting the Arctic Ice cap like a hot knife through butter and is doing so in the middle of winter. Unless stopped, this Arctic heating will lead to a rapid release of the methane clathrates from the sea floor of the Arctic and herald the next phase of catastrophically intense climate change that our civilisation will not survive.

    The time for the wishful thinking and blind optimism that has characterised the debate on climate change is over. The time for hard facts and decisions is now. Our backs are against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are small and the risks of implementation are great.

    We must look at the full spectrum of geoengineering. This will cover initiatives that increase carbon sequestration by restoration of rain forests to the seeding of oceans. It will extend to solar radiation management techniques such as artificially whitening clouds and, in extremis, replicating the aerosols from volcanic activity. It will have to look at what areas that we selectively target, such as the methane emitting regions of the Arctic and which areas we avoid.

    The high political and environmental risks associated with this must be made clear so that it is never used as an alternative to making the carbon cuts that are urgently needed. Instead cognisance of these must be used to challenge the narrative of wishful thinking that has infested the climate change talks for the past twenty one years and which reached its zenith with the CO21 agreement. In today’s international vacuum on this, it is imperative that our government takes a lead.

    Signed by

    Professor Paul Beckwith, University of Ottowa

    Professor Stephen Salter – Edinburgh University

    Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University

    Professor James Kennett of University of California.

    Dr Hugh Hunt – Cambridge University

    Dr. Alan Gadian -Senior Scientist, Nation Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, University of Leeds

    Dr. Mayer Hillman – Senior Fellow Emeritus of the Institute of the Policy Studies Institute

    Dr. John Latham – University of Manchester

    Aubrey Meyer – Director, Global Commons Institute.

    John Nissen – Chair Arctic Methane Emergency Group

    Kevin Lister – Author of “The Vortex of Violence and why we are losing the war on climate change”

  29. Working group convenor: Dr Jan Zalasiewicz
    I heard him give an abysmal ‘lecture’ to a group of ernest Methodists and others who were trying to ‘save the planet’. He trotted out the Anthropocene idea there and also trotted out all the usual climate nonsense which he couldn’t defend when challenged (which he was, by me!).

  30. catweazle666 says:

    That’ll be the eminent climate “scientist” Peter Wadhams who recently claimed that Evil Oil Orcs were assassinating his colleagues by making them fall downstairs while drunk at a party, getting them snuffed by a truck while riding a bicycle in London traffic and – wonder of wonders – getting Thor to strike them with a lightning bolt while they were taking a walking holiday in Scotland, presumably?

    I see…

    Jolly good. Carry on

  31. Will Steffen was behind the comical “death threats to climate scientists” episode in Canberra when someone mis-overheard a conversation about culling some pesky kangaroos:
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/11/whos-killing-climate-scientists/

  32. tom0mason says:

    The infamous BBC 28gate — aka the BBC climate-propaganda-pomposity unit’s ‘hubris group’ of Malthusian mono-thinkers — arises from it’s slumbers.
    Thankfully world climate has ignored the BBC’s fantastic and loudly propagated messages.

  33. oldbrew says:

    Full steam ahead to man-made climate lunacy?

    ‘In 2016 the Anthropocene Working Group will gather more evidence on the Anthropocene, which will help inform recommendations on whether this new time unit should be formalized and, if so, how it might be defined and characterized.’

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-anthropocene-hard-evidence-human-driven-earth.html

  34. p.g.sharrow says:

    More Elitists conspiring to commit crimes against humanity…pg

  35. Adam Gallon says:

    Eric Odada
    (His link is u/s too)
    https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/ericodada/
    Professor of Geology at the University of Nairobi. He obtained his PhD in Marine Geochemistry from Imperial College, London University (1986)

    Dr. Odada’s research interests include climate change adaptation, water quality monitoring, waste water treatment, studies of lakes and dams as archives of climatic and environmental dynamics, coastal and marine processes, sedimentary processes in large lakes and oceans and integrated water resource management.

  36. oldbrew says:

    The headline to the science paper proclaims:
    ‘The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene’

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/351/6269/aad2622

  37. oldbrew says:

    Maybe the age of over-the-top scary Hollywood-style climate scenarios should be called the Horrorcene?

  38. p.g.sharrow says:

    Somehow, I think that the Holocene- Anthropocene boundary will less pronounced then the K-T boundary…pg

  39. jdmcl says:

    Reminds of me of “How many activists does it take to change a light bulb?”

    Answer: 91 – 1 to do the work and the other 90 to write just one paper about it being mankind’s fault.

  40. jdmcl says:

    Roger, can we have a competition about this? Write to each of them asking for their evidence that the supposed warming was mankind’s fault. No opinions, no findings based on climate models unless they can prove the models are correct in all respects.

    I know Will Steffen was asked to provide evidence and he had none, but how about exposing the others.

  41. tallbloke says:

    jdmcl: That’s an excellent idea. The talkshop will sponsor a prize to the first person to get a substantive reply from any of these people. Extra points will be won by those eliciting replies which include scientific references to papers which contain evidence of ‘a human fingerprint on climate change’.

  42. tallbloke says:

    jdmcl: Reminds of me of “How many activists does it take to change a light bulb?”
    Answer: 91 – 1 to do the work and the other 90 to write just one paper about it being mankind’s fault.

    Actually, they’re not going to change the light bulb, they’re going to change the spec, and demand you buy their mercury filled light bulbs instead.

  43. dennisambler says:

    Revkin is obviously there for the spin:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/my-second-half/?_r=0

    This is a long piece, finishing with:

    “I want to help build networks of journalists and communicators in rich and poor places so that good ideas can be efficiently shared and flawed ones modified. The Earth Journalism Network is one example.”

    http://www.earthjournalism.net/

    This was previously “.org” and at the time carried this commentary about themselves:

    “Internews Network developed the Earth Journalism Network (EJN) to empower and enable journalists from developing countries to cover the environment more effectively. EJN will establish networks of environmental journalists in countries where they don’t exist, and build their capacity where they do, through training workshops, support for production and distribution, and dispersing small grants.

    The activities of the Earth Journalism Network have been funded by the Marisla Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the Robert & Michelle Friend Foundation, the Germeshausen Foundation, the Flora Family Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, the Kendeda Fund, the Smart Family Foundation, the Edgerton Family Foundation, the European Commission, the UK Department for International Development, the Swedish International Development Agency, the United Nations Foundation, the UN Environment Program, the Alumni Fund of the Philanthropy Workshop West at the Tides Foundation and an anonymous donor from the Rockefeller family.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090327063050/http://www.internews.org/articles/2009/20090316_scidevnet_ejn.shtm

    Climate change: How to report the story of the century

    “Make the distinction between individual weather events and climate change. Climate is the average weather over a long time. A few extreme weather events don’t confirm or refute climate change and it is usually wrong to attribute individual weather events directly to climate change.

    But if you’re covering a story about, say, a devastating cyclone, it is appropriate to contact climatologists or weather experts and report their views on likely trends. (and then claim it’s global warming!)”

    “Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science.”

    Go Andy….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s