‘Green News Report’ – February 26, 2013

Share article:

Follow @GreenNewsReport…

 
Listen on Apple PodcastsListen on Pandora
Listen on iHeartListen on Stitcher
Listen on TuneInRSS/XML Feed (Or use “Click here to listen…” link below.)

IN TODAY’S RADIO REPORT: Here we go again: another “historic” storm… but it’s not enough to end our historic drought; BP finally goes to trial for the oil disaster in the Gulf; China and Estonia move forward on renewable energy innovation; PLUS: CA Gov. Jerry Brown says fighting climate change is a boon, not a bust, for the economy… All that and more in today’s Green News Report!

Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)…

Link:
Embed:

Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

IN ‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (see links below): Study: how Arctic sea ice loss impacts weather extremes; Horsemeat scandal ‘an object lesson in food politics’; Drought closing U.S. feedlots, meatpackers; Dog food recall underscores toxic danger in drought; AEP agrees to close 3 coal plants; Heart-pounding ride on Navy’s Great Green Fleet; DoD attacks climate change; Media and myth on doomsday messages on climate change; Cryosat-2 confirms stunning Arctic ice loss; UK farming, flood crisis … PLUS: Tanks leaking radioactive waste in Washington State … and much, MUCH more! …

STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY’S ‘GREEN NEWS REPORT’…

‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (Stuff we didn’t have time for in today’s audio report)…


  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:
  • 13 Comments on “‘Green News Report’ – February 26, 2013

    1. Davey, that’s an interesting cultural artifact. I remember people used to think that tobacco smoke didn’t cause cancer back in the 70s, too.

      Skeptical Science has a great article surveying the actual scientific literature in the 1970s:

      “What Were Scientists Predicting in the 1970s?”

      Turns out that 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based, because the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. The media at the time plucked the contrarians and hyped them instead for the sensationalism. Didn’t you check other sources?

      So do tell, how does a list of media reports from the early 70s inform your understanding of the climate 40 years and tens of thousands of studies later?

    2. Desi,

      Regarding smoking…I admit that you are right…Al Gore was a big fan of tobacco (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-09-04/news/9609030266_1_al-gore-smoking-tobacco) so I suppose that we just had not figured it out…you know…that it was dangerous–caused cancer–until a couple of years ago.

      70’s media hype…yes, nothing has changed.

      The evolution of knowledge continues…in 40 years, you will be looking back at the AGW hype and laugh (or be embarrassed).

      Brad…interesting question…what does it matter what I do? Would knowledge of what I do color my comments or inform you as to their meaning? I doubt it. I can say this…I don’t have a tip jar…

    3. Davey Crocket –

      Brad…interesting question…what does it matter what I do? Would knowledge of what I do color my comments or inform you as to their meaning? I doubt it. I can say this…I don’t have a tip jar…

      As you may have noticed, there are a few points that are central to all that we do here. One of them has to do with transparency, conflicts of interest, etc.

      As well, I’m sure you’ve noticed by now that we have a very few rules for commenting here at The BRAD BLOG. One of them has to do with posting knowing disinformation.

      Given the amount of long-ago debunked disinformation you have attempted to drop like a turd into a punchbowl here at The BRAD BLOG over the past several weeks, the matter of your familiarity with the fact that you are posting disinformation here is key to how we will move forward in the future.

      So, again, while you needn’t share your real name publicly, would you like to offer transparency about what you do for a living, so that readers may determine for themselves what your conflicts of interest might be when you are allowed to post here? Given that your real name remains off record, I shouldn’t think that sharing what you actually do for a living would be a problem for you.

    4. Brad,

      OK. First of all I do not see what I posted as a turd nor do I believe it is disinformation…these are references to reports/papers/videos from the 70’s era. My motive was simple…to illustrate that the world can be caught up in hysteria.

      I am an intellectual property consultant (I support patent atty’s in the prosecution of patents, the assertion of patents…) I assist in licensing negotiations. My services are in high demand and I am paid well for what I do.

      I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. I have started two semiconductor companies…the last one I sold and conveyed with the purchase as the VP of Technology.

      I am inventor/co-inventor on about 40 patents with another 20-30 still pending in the patent office.

      I am an avid outdoorsman. In the last 7 years, I have hiked/backpacked/canoed over 500 miles and slept over 200 nights on the ground.

      30 yrs ago, I built a log cabin from the ground up, doing most of the work myself (with my wife). Heated it with kerosene until I got the wood stove working–wood stove is better :-). There are few hand tools with which I have not developed at least some level of proficiency. I currently live in a conventional rock home.

      In spite of my wealth, I live a frugal life…mindful of waste. Every other week, we take all of our unused materials to the recycling center. I take very short showers to reduce my consumption of water.

      I paid my own way through college and graduate school. Though I had a Marine Corps scholarship, I decided not to take it.

      For 7 years, I was an adjunct professor at a Major University–my classes averaged 60 students per semester.

      I am the author of a textbook which is now it its third edition (last edition I might add). My textbook has been translated to Chinese and Korean. I was in Japan once to give a 50 minute lecture…two Japanese came up to me, having used my book, and requested my autograph.

      Brad, you have my real name and I appreciate you allowing me to remain anonymous. However, you are welcome to google me and you will see what I have shared is accurate (well, I dont think there is anything in the cloud about the log cabin or my showers…lol).

      Oh, I have been happily married for 38 years and have never violated my marriage vows.

      One more thing…I am a musician and I continue to work at playing the guitar…I think I am getting better but, hey, the listener has to make that call!!

      With this, I think I honored your request…I hope you will honor your side of the bargain.

      Finally, if you want me to quit posting on the BB, just tell me to go away permanently. I will honor that. However, I do think my comments drive traffic on your site…from time to time (I am such a pariah it seems).

      Davey

    5. Davey @ #8 said:

      “[I]n 40 years, you will be looking back at the AGW hype and laugh (or be embarrassed).”

      So you believe the alarm raised by the global scientific community is all just a bunch of hype?

      As I’ve said before, the insurance industry and the global scientific community disagree, because the approach you advocate — which I guess boils down to ‘do nothing’ — fails on basic risk management.

      I’m curious, Davey, what of the predicted events coming true would be sufficient evidence for you. As you know, the scientific consensus predicts that waiting 40 years to take meaningful action will very likely (90% certainty, if I remember correctly) result in devastating, if not catastrophic, impacts for coming generations. So what would be an appropriate sign, or indication, or impact that would signal to you that the scientists were right?

    6. Davey @ 10:

      There are many trollish and discredited things that I could post to the blog that would drive far more traffic than your thread hijacking discredited nonsense. We’re interested in truth here, not traffic.

      That said, I appreciate the information you offered. And, just to close the remaining loops, are you in any way associated with or working for either Transcanada, the Canadian/Alberta government, any body that has anything to do with the Keystone pipeline, or any other parts of the fossil fuel industry?

    Comments are closed.

    Please help The BRAD BLOG, BradCast and Green News Report remain independent and 100% reader and listener supported in our 22nd YEAR!!!
    ONE TIME
    any amount...

    MONTHLY
    any amount...

    OR VIA SNAIL MAIL
    Make check out to...
    Brad Friedman/
    BRAD BLOG
    7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
    Los Angeles, CA 90028

    RECENT POSTSX

    About Brad Friedman...

    Brad is an independent investigative journalist, blogger and broadcaster.
    Full Bio & Testimonials…
    Media Appearance Archive…
    Articles & Editorials Elsewhere…
    Contact…
    He has contributed chapters to these books…
    …And is featured in these documentary films…

    BRAD BLOG ON THE AIR!

    THE BRADCAST on KPFK/Pacifica Radio Network (90.7FM Los Angeles, 98.7FM Santa Barbara, 93.7FM N. San Diego and nationally on many other affiliate stations! ALSO VIA PODCAST: RSS/XML feed | Pandora | TuneInApple Podcasts/iTunesiHeartAmazon Music

    GREEN NEWS REPORT, nationally syndicated, with new episodes on Tuesday and Thursday. ALSO VIA PODCAST: RSS/XML feed | Pandora | TuneInApple Podcasts/iTunesiHeartAmazon Music

    Media Appearance Archives…

    AD
    CONTENT

    ADDITIONAL STUFF

    Brad Friedman/
    The BRAD BLOG Named...

    Buzz Flash's 'Wings of Justice' Honoree
    Project Censored 2010 Award Recipient
    The 2008 Weblog Awards