Katherine Bagley is a reporter for InsideClimate News who covers the intersection of environmental science, politics and policy, with an emphasis on climate change. She is co-author of the InsideClimate News book "Bloomberg's Hidden Legacy: Climate Change and the Future of New York City," published in November 2013 and winner of the Deadline Club's Award for Reporting by Independent Digital Media. Her writing has also been included in the anthology Best American Science and Nature Writing.
She previously worked as a freelance journalist and editor, contributing print and multimedia work to Popular Science, Audubon, OnEarth and The Scientist, among other publications.
You can reach her by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
ICN reporters Lisa Song and Zahra Hirji contributed to this story.
In the months before the debut of the new documentary film "Merchants of Doubt," long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in derailing the documentary’s release.
"Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in an email last October. "Can we get an injunction against the documentary?"
Singer is one of the "merchants of doubt" identified in the documentary, as are a number of other recipients of his email. The documentary, released nationwide last week, exposes the small network of hired pundits and scientists helping to sow doubt about climate science and delay legislative action on global warming in the United States.
Singer's email became public earlier this week when it was leaked to journalists.
Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. Others seem relatively new to the denialist camp, such as climate scientist Judith Curry. All, however, have been vocal before Congress, on broadcast news or on the Internet in arguing that human activity is not the primarily driver of climate change.
The widely discredited theory that natural solar cycles are driving global warming has been part of the national conversation surrounding climate change for years, and continues to stoke confusion in the public mind. Climate contrarian Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon has been one of the most influential promoters of that idea.
Soon has come under scrutiny in recent weeks for accepting donations from fossil fuel companies in exchange for publishing his solar hypothesis, and then not disclosing the funding in conflict-of-interest statements.
Soon's theory has been debunked by several scientific committees, including the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences. Satellites have measured no increase in solar output in the past half century, meaning it "isn't even remotely credible to argue that solar output can be responsible for the anomalous warming of recent decades," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist as Pennsylvania State University.
Scientists have also found that only the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth's surface, is warming, while the stratosphere, the layer that sits above it, is cooling. This is what scientists would expect to see if human-caused greenhouse gases were causing the planet to heat up.
"If the sun were to blame, all the layers of the atmosphere would be warming," from the outermost exosphere to the innermost troposphere, said Qiang Fu, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington. The stratosphere definitely would not be cooling, he said.
Freshly formed snowball in hand, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma took the Senate floor last week. He was there to discuss the "hysteria on global warming," he said, citing the snowball and a frigid winter in Washington, D.C. as evidence that the climate isn't changing.
The senator was roundly criticized for being out of touch with the science of global warming—which involves fiercer winter storms. His prop threw the Republican Party's views on climate change into sharp relief. While top Democratic leaders including President Barack Obama consider it a dire threat, much of the GOP still denies that the planet is warming or that it's caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
With just 10 months until the first 2016 presidential primary in New Hampshire, candidate names and campaign donations are already pouring in. Most political pundits count about 20 potential Republican contenders at the moment—a list that includes current and former governors, congressmen and a surgeon.
Many of them share Inhofe's view that the world is not warming, or if it is, that humans aren't contributing to climate change. Deep-pocketed fossil fuel companies and advocacy groups are squaring up to spread around billions of dollars in campaign contributions.
There are serious ramifications for global warming in the 2016 presidential election. The next president could move to reverse Obama's initiatives to fight climate change and adapt to it, while resisting scientists' urgent calls to drastically and quickly slash greenhouse gas emissions.
Former Secretary of State and former Senator Hillary Clinton, the early Democratic frontrunner, has called global warming the "most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face." At the same time, some environmentalists have criticized her support for increased natural gas production.
Here's InsideClimate News' review of the climate positions of the top 11 GOP presidential contenders:
The Environmental Protection Agency has been accused of everything from running this country to waging an economy-destroying war on coal. But it turns out the GOP's prime target isn't that big after all.
The agency's budget represents an almost invisible slice of the federal pie—less than a quarter of a percent of Obama's proposed $4 trillion budget for the 2016 fiscal year. If approved, the EPA's budget next year would be 16.5 percent smaller than it was in 2010.
In a week when the Willie Soon scandal broke and revealed the fossil fuel industry's footprint on contrarian climate research, embattled denialists went back on the offensive.
Critics are again trying to discredit the leading international scientific body on climate change after the organization's leader resigned over allegations he sexually harassed female coworkers at his research institute in India.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stepped down Tuesday, eight months before his planned departure. In his resignation letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Pachauri wrote that “the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."
Critics of the IPCC seized on his comment to paint the scientific body as biased. The panel is "led by an environmentalist on a mission...for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling,” wrote Donna Laframboise, a vocal climate denier, on her website, NoFrakkingConsensus. Marc Morano of Climate Depot asserted that the allegations of sexual harassment are the latest sign the IPCC was being led by a "political and ethical cancer."
New York City could experience 6 more feet of sea level rise by 2100 as a result of human-driven climate change, which could frequently plunge more than 90 square miles of the five boroughs under water, according to a Feb. 17 report by a group of New York-based scientists.
Temperatures in the city could increase by as much as 8.8 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2080s, with the number of days above 90 degrees jumping from 18 today to 76 by that decade, the scientists found. Storms as intense as Hurricane Sandy, which caused more than $50 billion in damage to the city in 2012, could hit the region more often as ocean waters continue to warm. The authors wrote that they couldn't project how winter storms may change.
The report, part of a biennial series, again "demonstrates how severely climate change will affect New York," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a climate scientist at Columbia University and NASA. She is co-chair of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, which issued the report. "There will be higher temperatures, more heat waves and heavy precipitation."
This year's study is the first to provide projections to 2100. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg convened the panel Rosenzweig helps lead in 2008 to help set New York's sustainability and climate action agenda. It became an official part of city government in 2012 and is required to update climate projections about every two years. The group is made up of scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, Hunter College, Princeton University and other academic institutions.
As harsh as the current long-running California drought has been, conditions in the American West will substantially worsen in coming years, according to new research.
Later this century, the American Southwest and Central Plains are likely to experience catastrophic drought worse than any in the last millennium, according to research published today by scientists from NASA, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Cornell University. The hotter and dryer conditions will be "driven primarily" by human-caused climate change and could be so severe that communities will struggle to adapt, the study finds.
Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Co., called the results "stunning."
There's no quick fix for climate change and there won't be for decades to come. The world's only solution is to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions—and immediately.
That's the takeaway from a new two-volume report out Feb. 10 from the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The report examines whether governments could fight global warming through geoengineering, also known as climate engineering or climate intervention. The strategy involves removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or modifying clouds or other Earth systems to reflect incoming sunlight to alter the world's climate artificially.
"The top line message from the report is pretty clear: there's no climate engineering technology that would be a substitute for large-scale mitigation," said Simon Nicholson, co-director of American University's Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment who did not contribute to the report.