|
"Elections have been lost by just 537 votes." -Michael Moore |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Posts By Topic 2008 Election Baseball Beer Drinking Economics Global Warming Hockey Media-Local Media-National NARN Politics-Local Politics-National Religion Separated At Birth? Travel Contributors The Elder: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Saint Paul: saintp at excite.com JB Doubtless: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com Atomizer: atomizer77 at yahoo.com
FEATURES ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Something crucial is plummeting and the press is panicking!
Barack Obama's poll numbers? Well, yes. But, something else is plummeting and the press is panicking! Via CNN, an AP article (also picked up in the Star Tribune and around the country) on the latest developments in the Arctic: New satellite measurements show that crucial sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has plummeted to its second lowest level on record. If you lean in close to your computer screen, you can almost hear the panting and whimpering from the reporters who wrote this. I humbly submit to you that when the opening sentence of any text contains two emotionally charged terms, the intent is to persuade and motivate behavior rather than inform. (Or you happen to be reading the Weekly World News.) Call me old-fashioned, but when I'm reading the news, I like my information the old fashioned way, informational. Leave the high pressure sales job to the circulation department telemarketers. More from the Plummeting Crucialness Crisis Center: The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., announced Wednesday that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic is down to 2.03 million square miles. The lowest point on record is 1.65 million square miles set last September. Hmmm. The lowest ever recorded was just last year. And we have more crucial sea ice this year than we did last year. More than just a few ice cube trays full. According to my calculations, 380,000 square miles of it. To put that in perspective for the layman, that's enough ice to chill the Atomizer's Gin Rickies for about 3 months. Stunning, isn't it? In light of this positive trend, the opening of this article could instead, quite factually, be written as: "New satellite measurements show that CRUCIAL sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has EXPLODED by 23% over the last year." Side bar stories about how this cooling is bound to kill off rare pink flamingo flocks in Bolivia and the spike in sales of Ice Age Home Insurance would be perfect. I know, I know (/ty coughlin), the summer ain't over yet. The plummeting of the crucial sea ice could continue to unprecedented depths. In the AP's words: With about three weeks left in the melt season, the record may fall, scientists say. Hope springs eternal! Good luck with that AP. However, if a new record low for crucial sea ice is indeed news, shouldn't you wait until that record is achieved before writing about it? Why do we need the scream headline preview of what might happen in just a few weeks? Whatever the reason, it seems to be a press standard. Harkening way back to June of 2005, when American resolve to win the Iraq war was something the press could still erode, the Pioneer Press printed an article speculating that the month could be among the deadliest so far, based on mid-month totals. My reaction then, as now: If reporting the month end casualties for June as a barometer of the success for our efforts in Iraq is so damned important, why not wait until the facts actually present themselves before guessing about them in print? My conclusion on motive, it's best to get the story out now, in case the hoped for scenario doesn't actually occur. It can be harder to scare/motivate people with the news if you wait for the facts. Labels: Global warming Monday, August 11, 2008
At some point in the future we may well look back on 2008 as--to quote Churchill--"the end of the beginning" of global warming hysteria. In addition to all the contradictory scientific evidence that has emerged this year, we are also seeing leading proponents of the anthropogenic warming theory appear increasingly hypocritical in practice even as their rhetoric becomes increasingly shrill, illogical, and fear-based.
The latest such example is the revelation that Al Gore himself is tooling around in a massive new houseboat: And now, in order to complete his hypocrisy trifecta, Al Gore may now be extending his excessive consumption to the water as well. In an amazing display of conspicuous consumption, even for Al Gore, his new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina in Smithville, Tennessee is creating a critical buzz among many of his former congressional constituents. Dubbed "Bio-Solar One," which may reflect some latent Air Force One envy, Gore has proudly strutted the small-town dock claiming that his monstrous houseboat is environmentally friendly. (Only Al Gore would name his boat B.S. One and not get the joke. Or perhaps the joke is on us?) The houseboat's maker is attempting to defend its carbon footprint: "This boat is going to be the Toyota Prius of the houseboat business," Austin proclaims. "It is the most eco-friendly houseboat anywhere in the country and is going to revolutionize the houseboat industry." Saying that this is the most eco-friendly houseboat ever made is like saying this is the most family friendly gang bang porno ever shot. At the end of the day, it's still obscene. But it wasn't the houseboat itself that has really sunk Gore's credibility on the issue. It was this picture. Dude's got a jet ski. A jet ski. Think about it. Is there anything less necessary, more superfluous and a better symbol of meaningless energy consumption than a jet ski? NO ONE needs a jet ski. If tomorrow there was to be some sort of divine water craft rapture and every jet ski in the world suddenly disappeared, the human race would not be impacted in any negative way whatsoever. The only reason to have a jet ski is to have fun. Now, I'm all for having fun and am no way saying that jet ski owners should be deprived of that opportunity. But if the fate of the planet REALLY is in the balance, if the future of mankind REALLY hinges on our willingness to move away from carbon based energy, and if we REALLY only have ten years left to make a difference, don't you think that maybe, just maybe Al might have had second thoughts about picking up a jet ski? You can see how people could excuse Gore for the immense carbon footprint he generates by jet setting around the globe to attend conferences or keeping his limo idling while he's making appearances so he won't have to sweat the ride. After all, that's all part of serving the greater cause. But a jet ski? From this point forward, I won't be able to listen to anything Gore says about global warming without having an image of his jet ski pop up in my head. So when he says: We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences. I'll think, "Dude, you have a jet ski." Or: But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. Dude, you have a jet ski. We should feel a great sense of urgency because it is the most dangerous crisis we have ever faced, by far. Dude, you have a jet ski. If we did not take action to solve this crisis, it could indeed threaten the future of human civilization. Dude, you have a jet ski. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. Dude, you have a jet ski. I drive a hybrid. Tipper and I got a Lexus hybrid. And we have a couple of Priuses in the family with our children. And I encourage people to make environmentally conscious choices because we all have to solve this climate crisis. DUDE, you have a frickin' JET SKI! Are we to seriously believe that when it came down to an "environmentally conscious choice" between saving the planet and having a jet ski, you went with the jet ski but yet we're still supposed to heed your advice anyway? Dude... Labels: Global warming Monday, August 04, 2008
In the most recent civic newsletter, we learned that the city that we now call home has signed on to the climate change bandwagon:
This past winter, the City of Golden Valley signed the US Climate Protection Agreement. Participants in the agreement are encouraged to work toward meeting the 2005 Kyoto Protocol initiatives as well as educate the public about green practices. Golden Valley is one of about 40 Minnesota cities to sign the Climate Protection Agreement so far. Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take the following three actions: * strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns * urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol--7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012 * urge the US Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system Golden Valley has already started to make changes, says Al Lundstrom, environmental coordinator. As building improvements are made, the City has installed energy efficient lighting when possible, improved insulation during roof replacement projects, installed energy efficient air conditioning units when replacement is necessary, retrofitted energy efficient bulbs in traffic signals, and installed an energy efficient tankless hot water system in the utility maintenance shop. The City also implemented an idling policy (see sidebar on the Police Department's idling policy). "As we have opportunities to make capital improvements, we're looking to see where we can go greener," Lundstrom says. I don't have problem with the City taking steps to conserve energy. In fact, I commend them for it, especially since it saves money. What troubles me however is the idea that my taxes would be used for public information campaigns on climate change. Or in any way be used as part of this effort to "urge" state and local governments to "meet or beat" Kyoto targets or even worse to "urge" the Congress to pass "bipartisan" greenhouse gas legislation. It hardly seems like an appropriate role for local government to be playing. You can see the complete list of participating Labels: Global warming Monday, July 21, 2008
Since the beginning of their existence liberals have yearned to destroy the suburbs. The idea of people freely choosing to live in safe, spacey neighborhoods in homes with trees, yards, and (gulp) driveways is an affront to much of what they hold dear.
For the most part, they haven't been able to come out and say this directly of course. Instead, they've couched their plans in seemingly innocent terms like "smart growth" and "sustainability." But no matter what the wording, the end goal has always been to limit people's freedoms to decide for themselves what kind of community they would like to live in. Much better to have the "experts" in planning and government decide for them where they should reside. Now, as Joel Kotkin related in Saturday's WSJ, in California the planner class--in the form of Attorney General Jerry Brown-- has latched onto global warming as the latest excuse to drive this suburb destroying agenda forward: In the meantime, Mr. Brown is taking aim at the suburbs, concerned about the alleged environmental damage they cause. He sees suburban houses as inefficient users of energy. He sees suburban commuters clogging the roads as wasting precious fossil fuel. And, mostly, he sees wisdom in an intricately thought-out plan to compel residents to move to city centers or, at least, to high-density developments clustered near mass transit lines. Mr. Brown is not above using coercion to create the demographic patterns he wants. In recent months, he has threatened to file suit against municipalities that shun high-density housing in favor of building new suburban singe-family homes, on the grounds that they will pollute the environment. He is also backing controversial legislation -- Senate bill 375 -- moving through the state legislature that would restrict state highway funds to communities that refuse to adopt "smart growth" development plans. "We have to get the people from the suburbs to start coming back" to the cities, Mr. Brown told planning experts in March. Because he knows better and he's not above using the full force of the government to make it happen. Whether the people want to or not isn't his concern. The problem is, that's not what Californians want. For two generations, residents have been moving to the suburbs. They are attracted to the prospect, although not always the reality, of good schools, low crime rates and the chance to buy a home. A 2002 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 80% of Californians prefer single-family homes over apartment living. And, even as the state's traffic jams are legendary, it is not always true that residents clog roads to commute to jobs in downtown Los Angeles or other cities. Neither is whether these plans would actually help reduce global warming. Ali Modarres, associate director of the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, believes the density-first approach is ill-suited for areas like L.A. County, where most residents and jobs are dispersed among subregional "nodes." Research by Mr. Modarres, co-author of the powerful book "City and Environment," demonstrates that people living in nodes -- Pasadena, Torrance, Burbank and Irvine -- often enjoy considerably shorter average commutes than do a lot of inner-city residents. Many of these people commute through tangled traffic to get to jobs on the periphery. "I have no problem trying to find solutions on global warming," Mr. Modarres told me, "but I doubt these kinds of solutions are going to do anything. The whole notion that through physical planning you can get a lot of people to abandon their cars is pretty iffy." Mr. Modarres also points out that forcing developers to build near transit lines, a strategy favored by "smart-growth advocates," does not mean residents will actually take the train or bus. A survey conducted last year by the Los Angeles Times of "transit oriented development" found that "only a small fraction of residents shunned their cars during rush hour." There is also little punch behind the science used to justify the drive to resettling the cities -- and plenty of power behind the argument that suburbs are better for Mother Earth. Several prominent scholars -- including University of Maryland atmospheric scientist Konstanin Vinnikov, University of Georgia meterologist J. Marshall Shepard and Brookings Institution research analyst Andrea Sarzynski -- have found there is little evidence linking suburbanization to global warming, pointing out that density itself can produce increased auto congestion and pollution. The antisuburbanites also ignore evidence that packing people together in cities produces "heat islands." Temperatures in downtown Los Angeles sometimes reach as much as three degrees centigrade higher than outlying areas. Recent studies in Australia have shown that multistoried housing generates higher carbon emissions than either townhomes or single-family residences because of the energy consumed by common areas, elevators and parking structures, as well as the lack of tree cover. None of this matters because the real goal of all this has little or nothing to do with global warming. It's about telling you where you can and can't live. What you can and can't drive (if you're allowed to drive at all). What you can and can't eat and drink. Where you can and can't smoke (pretty much everywhere now). How much you can heat and cool your home. Etc, etc. Oh and by the way, these rules only apply to the people not the planners. A report by the Los Angeles Weekly's Dave Zahniser -- entitled "Do as We Say, Not as We Do" -- found that a lot of prominent "smart growth" advocates in Los Angeles live in large single-family homes, some of them long hikes from mass transit. Mr. Brown himself, not long ago, moved from a loft in crime-ridden downtown Oakland to a bucolic setting in the Oakland Hills. What, you don't expect HIM to live in the city do you? Labels: Global warming Saturday, July 19, 2008
Matt e-mails to pass on a tempting invite:
The Will Steger Foundation is hosting its third annual Summer Institute for Climate Change Education! The Institute will take place August 11-13 at the Science Museum of Minnesota and is a great opportunity to enhance your own understanding of climate change. Dr. James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist, will be the keynote speaker to discuss the latest on climate science in addition to Andrew Revkin (NY Times Science Reporter) and WCCO-TV anchor Don Shelby. Institute participants will receive a resource binder with new climate change curricula, expedition supplements and action resources. The theme of the Institute is "Changing School Culture" with a focus on reducing a school's carbon footprint, from classroom to community. Learn more and download the application at www.globalwarming101.com Hansen, Shelby, AND resource binders? Right here in our back yard? This is too good to be true. Get your application in today!!! Labels: Global warming Tuesday, July 01, 2008
In today's WSJ, Bret Stephens looks at the three motives for belief in global warming:
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore--population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations--and global warming provides a justification. ***** A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen. ***** Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about? As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success. In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion. Labels: Global warming Thursday, June 19, 2008
Here's a depressing observation to start your day. While there are signs here in the United States that those of us who remain skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming religion appear to have made some progress in slowing the runaway train toward panicked action, whenever I travel to other parts of the world or speak to people from other countries on the topic, I find that they have bought in to Al Gore's "consensus" hook line and sinker. Whether it's in Russia, the Philippines, China, the Netherlands, or Mexico, as far as global warming is concerned the debate is over (if it had ever even begun). Any change in or unusual occurrence of weather is instantly and unquestionably attributed to man-made climate change.
The latest such incident occurred yesterday when one of my Mexican coworkers informed us that he had recently watched "An Inconvenient Truth" with his family and was now trying to figure out ways to conserve energy to prevent global warming. He was so earnest and serious that I just didn't have the heart to raise any objection or perhaps point out that his middle-class Mexican family was probably responsible for as much CO2 emissions in a year as Al Gore was in a day jet-setting around the globe. It's going to take a lot of work and many a year to turn back this global tide. UPDATE-- Nathan e-mails to add: A century ago, any weather event would have been a sign from Jesus, the One True God. A few centuries ago, any weather event would have been a sign from The Gods. In this century, any weather event is a sign of Global Warming. So...Global Warming is the new name for God? No wonder unbelievers are treated like heretics. When people lose their faith, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Labels: Global warming Saturday, May 24, 2008
As we eagerly await tomorrow's world premiere of Shark Swarm! on the Hallmark Channel, word reaches us from Canada that enviro-horror films may be the next big thing coming out of Hollywood:
Anagram Pictures will be shooting The Thaw, which features super-celebrity Val Kilmer, from Batman Forever, the Salton Sea, Top Gun and many other motion pictures. The Thaw is about a young woman who heads to the Arctic with a group of students on a research mission, headed by Dr. Kruipen (Kilmer). The students discover that a melting polar ice-cap has released a deadly prehistoric parasite on the world after the remains of a wooly mammoth are released from the ice and thawed. The students must then find a way to save the rest of the world from the deadly parasite before it reaches the rest of civilization and causes a potentially global epidemic catastrophe. "It's a wooly mammoth that's been preserved in a polar ice-cap. Global warming is causing the polar ice-cap to melt," says co-producer Mary Anne Waterhouse. A polar bear then starts eating the mammoth's remains, becoming infected with the deadly parasite. If only the US Department of the Interior wouldn't have barged in to prevent us from exterminating those white devils once and for all, we'd be safe from the prehistoric parasite menace! Thanks a lot, Al Gore. (Via Tim Blair, at his new location.) UPDATE: Chad P. finds a potentially fatal plot flaw in The Thaw: Observation: What stood out was the idea of a wooly mammoth frozen in the "polar" ice cap. "The students discover that a melting polar ice-cap has released a deadly prehistoric parasite on the world after the remains of a wooly mammoth are released from the ice and thawed." How and why did a warm blooded "plant" eating mammal end up at the polar ice cap? pretty strange, don't ya think? Did it pack a vegan lunch on it's detour to the wilds of .... pure ice! I cannot answer that. I'm hoping this issue will be addressed in the sequel: The Thaw II: Flash Freeze. Labels: Global warming Friday, May 23, 2008
October 22, 2007 - Media critic Brian Lambert, on the importance of TV weathermen speaking their minds on global warming:
Not that I look to TV weather people for any great depth of science, much less a political point of view. But the perhaps sad fact is that for a lot of folks the TV weather anchor is their most frequent interface with meteorological science. With that in mind, and with climate change as profound an issue to everyone as it is (with or without Al Gore, although Gore's knee-jerk adversaries seem incapable of separating the two), it seems valid to me that those charming, glib people clicking through the weather maps offer a clue to their, uh, educated opinion on climate change. I've mentioned this before, but here in the Twin Cities, WCCO's Paul Douglas is, for all intents and purposes, alone in his unconditional view that climate change is upon us, it is serious and human activity is a key component. This is to Douglas's eternal credit and, to my mind anyway, greatly enhances his credibility. May 20, 2008, media critic Brian Lambert condemning a TV weatherman for speaking his mind on global warming: The fundamental issue in this "debate" is, of course, politics, not science. Fringe groups such as the OISM, to which Mike Fairbourne lent his name, are invariably politically conservative --deeply conservative-- and attack "consensus science" of actual experts, as opposed to TV weathermen, bio-chemists, and whatever from a partisan political perspective much more than one based in science. (Their "science" is usually laughably mangled.) Before you email Lambert recommendations for a good whiplash specialist, he does have a thread of consistency to his work. It's OK for local news personalities get out front of controversial issues, as long as they agree with the stridently liberal perspective. If not, prepare to be slimed. I suppose this kind of standard makes for an effective liberal media watchdog and groupthink enforcement column. I just wish his would have been promoted as such in the Twin Cities for the past several decades, instead of as objective media criticism. More from Lambert on why it's OK for Douglas to insert his global warming beliefs into the 5-day weather forecast, but not OK for Fairborne to sign a document testifying to his beliefs as a private citizen: the critical difference here is between reputable climatologists -- professionals who have submitted their work to other professionals for review and independent study -- and those who aren't, like this Oregon Institute bunch, who are all too typical of what passes for "science" on the other end of this dispute. Yes, Paul Douglas lent credibility to the former, while Fairbourne has to the latter. It's the flat out difference between credible and ... bullsh*t. Failure to recognize that some of the foremost experts in climate related science are skeptical of the agenda people like Lambert and Douglas are peddling is evidence that you're dealing with a fool or a con man. Generously assuming the former, here's a place the uninformed can start educating themselves on the science of the opposition: Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming Labels: Global warming Thursday, April 10, 2008
Add malaria to the ever growing list of problems blamed on global warming with little or no actual evidence to support such a connection. Paul Reiter--director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institut Pasteur, Paris--and Roger Bate debunk the latest Global Warming Nonsense in today's WSJ:
The concept of malaria as a "tropical" infection is nonsense. It is a disease of the poor. Alarmists in the richest countries peddle the notion that the increase in malaria in poor countries is due to global warming and that this will eventually cause malaria to spread to areas that were "previously malaria free." That's a misrepresentation of the facts and disingenuous when packaged with opposition to the cheapest and best insecticide to combat malaria ? DDT. It is true that malaria has been increasing at an alarming rate in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the world. Scientists ascribe this increase to many factors, including population growth, deforestation, rice cultivation in previously uncultivated upland marshes, clustering of populations around these marshes, and large numbers of people who have fled their homes because of civil strife. The evolution of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, and the cessation of mosquito-control operations are also factors. Of course, temperature is a factor in the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases, and future incidence may be affected if the world's climate continues to warm. But throughout history the most critical factors in the spread or eradication of disease has been human behavior (shifting population centers, changing farming methods and the like) and living standards. Poverty has been and remains the world's greatest killer. Serious scientists rarely engage in public quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective. The alarmists will likely steal the show on Capitol Hill today. But anyone truly worried about malaria in impoverished countries would do well to focus on improving human living conditions, not the weather. As Bjorn Lomborg has argued for years, spending billions (trillions?) of dollars to try to prevent something that may not actually be all that bad and that we may have little or no real ability to impact at all seems ridiculous when that money could otherwise be spent solving real problems that we know we can correct. UPDATE: Those of you always looking for the local angle (like JB), will appreciate this: Minnesota has developed into the nation's state-level combat zone on global warming, where groups and individuals have aligned to oppose what their state's climate commission is trying to sell them. Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who many political observers perceive is angling for the vice presidential nomination, has invested his credibility and stature heavily in the issue, especially as chair of the National Governors Association. The blowback began in February when fellow executives from other states took him behind the woodshed. The resistance elevated last month when one of the state's free-market think tanks, the Center of the American Experiment, brought in economist Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation to discuss the staggering costs that would result from federal and state proposals to reduce greenhouse gases Yesterday another bomb dropped in St. Paul: a coalition of free-marketers, property rights, social conservatives, state legislators, and disaffected members of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group held a press conference at the legislature and released two separate reports criticizing the junk economics, alarmist climate forecasts, and nonexistent feasibility study of the proposals coming from MCCAG. Minnesota Majority, the social conservatives, and the American Property Coalition joined forces to commission the Beacon Hill Institute to critique the MCCAG's recommendations (PDF). The Minnesota Free Market Institute also did their own study. For once local mainstream media outlets were virtually forced to report that more than just a small, dissenting group of "deniers" or "skeptics" oppose dramatic increases in energy costs that will come from these global warming "solutions." Labels: Global warming Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Roy Spencer--principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville--has some questions for the IPCC:
As a climate scientist, I would like to see some answers to a few basic global warming science questions which I'm sure the U.N.'s Ministry of Global Warming Truth (also known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) can handle. After all, since they are 90% confident that recent global warming is manmade, they surely must have already addressed these issues. Dr. Spencer goes on to lay out three challenges on global warming, none of which involve the IPCC's favorite color. We'll be interviewing him on the NARN on Saturday, April 12th at noon to discuss his new book "Climate Confusion." Dr. Spencer also has put together a good primer on the issue called Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat. Labels: Global warming Thursday, February 14, 2008
A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal had an article about eco-conscious travelers who, because of concerns over global warming, were opting for The Stay-at-Home Vacation (sub req). Although this piece is a bit dated, it's just too good to pass up.
Some travelers are deciding that saving the world is more important than seeing the world. As concerns over global warming grow, some people think giving to a carbon-offset program or staying at a "green" hotel isn't enough to compensate for an airline flight. The most eco-conscious vacationers are forgoing long-distance trips, trading treks to Europe for walks around the neighborhood -- and sometimes angering family members in other cities. Hmmm...this could come in handy. Yeah JB, I'd love to come down and help you install that new septic system, but what with global warming and all I better stay home. Spurring the movement on are environmentalists who implore the public to stop burning unnecessary fuel and stay closer to home. It's the next step for commuters who have already swapped cars for bikes and attend out-of-town meetings by videoconferencing. Sev and Nina Williams are swearing off flights and long drives in 2008 -- which will mean missing Ms. Williams's sister's September wedding in Spain. (Her sister is "disappointed," says Ms. Williams, a 33-year-old public-policy analyst.) Her sister thinks she's a freakin' nut. And if her wedding "gift" is a certificate for carbon offsets, it will take years for them to get back on talking terms. Last year, the Santa Barbara, Calif., couple took five airplane trips. This year, they plan to spend their 20-odd vacation days around town, at most driving their hybrid car the 120 miles to Disneyland with their 2-year-old son. "We just really looked at our whole life and said, what can we do to make an impact?" says Mr. Williams, 38, who owns a marketing company. We just looked at our lives and said, what can we do to really feel smug and superior? The hybrid was a good start, but how can take it to the next level? The Web site for Global Cool, a campaign to fight global warming, offers advice on how to "be cool," including, "Hey hotshot, do you really need to holiday abroad?" Hey eco-freak, who asked you anyway? Web site manager Richard Kilgarriff says visitors to the site have pledged so far to cut out enough air travel to reduce carbon emissions by a combined 2,205 tons -- the equivalent of about 1,770 round-trip New York-to-Los Angeles passenger flights. A member of AlterNet, an online community and news site, recently told readers, "Stop traveling. Don't fly in a plane. Just don't." Yes! Don't fly at all. Don't drive. Stay home and feel good about yourself. More room for me on the plane and the roadways. Although a single long-haul flight can generate more than half the emissions of an average annual commute -- a New York-to-Singapore flight on Virgin Airlines (stopping in London) results in about 8,600 pounds of carbon emissions per passenger -- some people figure skipping flights won't help. Michal Strahilevitz, a 43-year-old business administration professor in San Francisco, sold her car and cut back on leisure flying to reduce her carbon footprint, but she still flies for work. "Chances are you are just taking a seat, not adding flights to the schedule," she says. Bingo. Logic rears its head. At least momentarily. Because of cuts she has made, she says, "I feel nowhere nearly as bad about all the long showers I take." Well bully for you. So is it really about saving the planet honey or just enjoying your long showers guilt free? Peer pressure helped persuade Kim Teplitzky, a regional organizer for the Sierra Club's student coalition, to cancel a holiday trip to Guatemala and Belize that she'd been planning for months. During a visit to Venezuela a year and a half ago, a friend pointed out that the carbon footprint for each of their flights was close to some people's footprint for a whole year. "There's a stigma around flying so much when we're working so hard to get our lawmakers to reduce global-warming emissions," says Ms. Teplitzky, 23, who lives in Pittsburgh. A stigma that I hope grows and spreads within her peer group. Sharon Astyk, a 35-year-old mother of four who owns a farm in Knox, N.Y., says she used to travel a lot, especially internationally, but hasn't flown in two years. She says she became even more determined to avoid air travel after reading a 2007 book, "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning," by Guardian columnist George Monbiot. The world must reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 to avert an ecosystem collapse, the books says, and achieving the cut will mean "the end of foreign holidays -- the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany." Ms. Astyk says painful as the decision may be, she won't send her father in Bellingham, Wash., plane tickets to visit his grandchildren anymore, although she might send a train ticket. Dear Dad, thanks for raising me and devoting all those years and tears for my benefit. But I'm afraid that I have to say no to your request to come out and see the children. You see, the planet is burning... Not everyone is buying in of course: That's misguided, says Kelsey Timmerman, a 28-year-old Muncie, Ind., scuba-diving instructor and author. If he'd never been to the Great Barrier Reef, he wouldn't care as much that it is dying from rising ocean temperatures. Decisions he makes as a consumer and a voter offset emissions resulting from his travels, says Mr. Timmerman, who visited Bangladesh, Cambodia and China last year. "Travel helps us care more about our world." You gotta love that justification. How does one determine if one's "decisions as a consumer and a voter" offset your emissions? How many pounds do you get for voting for Obama? Hillary? McCain? Or is it all just a bunch of crap that you make up to feel better about yourself? One thread that runs through the story is that the people who are the most concerned about this aren't exactly what you call underprivileged: Jamie Henn, 23, who graduated from college last spring, has promised himself he'll stop flying. He studied in northern India and has been to Africa and Europe several times. But after he moves to San Francisco this winter -- driving with friends in a hybrid car -- Mr. Henn says he plans to stay put. His parents in Boston are "begrudgingly" supporting his decision, although his mother says she plans to visit. "Maybe I'll find a friend to carpool out with my mom," he says. So this precious little twenty-three year old twit is ready to give up flying, eh? After he's been to India and Africa and Europe several times? My what an inspiration his sacrifice is. Of course, most Americans aren't willing to give up air travel. The number of passengers boarding domestic flights rose 14% in the 12 months that ended in October, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. John Heimlich, chief economist at the Air Transport Association, says more foreign tourists traveling within the U.S. and more discount fliers are behind the increases. To retain eco-minded customers, Continental, Delta, Virgin and other airlines last year launched carbon-offset programs, which help counteract emissions somewhere else in the world. The Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group last year started offering discounted room rates and parking for guests who arrive in hybrid cars. Amtrak's Web site has a carbon calculator for comparing annual emissions from rail travel with air travel. The programs don't go far enough for Steve Rypka, a 55-year-old Henderson, Nev., consultant. He has stopped flying to business meetings and contributes $90 a year to carbon-offset programs to compensate for his lifestyle. Now, he wants to limit his vacations to within a one- or two-day drive in his Toyota Prius. "Buying carbon offsets isn't a license to pollute," he says. "Plus, it's not exactly punishment to cut back on air travel, with all the security issues." These are the kinds of people who scare me. You can laugh at the utter insanity of these folks, but you have to wonder how long they'll be willing to just do their own part to save the planet. Pretty soon they're going to look around and realize that just because they're selflessly making sacrifices in a noble effort to reverse global warming, the rest of us greedy fools are still flying, driving, and taking long showers to our heart's content. At that point, believing as they do that the very future of the planet is at stake, it wouldn't be hard to imagine them demanding that the government step in and impose limits on all such earth destroying activities. Travel would restricted and rationed. You would need a permit to take trips. Or there might be a lottery to win the right to travel. Only the important people (like Al Gore) would be allowed to freely jet around the world. The rest of us proles would have to stay close to home, perhaps being allowed to take a trip every five years or so if we were fortunate. It would be for our own good of course. And more importantly, the planet's. Labels: Global warming Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Big news out of China is the havoc being wrought by winter storms and unseasonably low temperatures. Some parts of the country are experiencing the coldest temperatures recorded in fifty years.
Enough to give one pause when thinking about global warming, right? Of course not. From an article in yesterday's The Straits Times (not available online): Another newspaper, the 21st Century Business Herald, interviewed a chief meteorologist who said "the extreme weather was caused by global climate change." "In my 26 years at the meteorological services, I have never come across such weather," the paper quoted Mr Yang Guiming as saying. And if China had been experiencing one of the driest warmest winters in years, what would the explanation be? Global climate change of course. Labels: Global warming Saturday, January 26, 2008
Free The Groundhog Day Rally!
Miinnesotans For Global Warming Is having a rally at the Minnesota Capital on the South Side Capital Steps on Saturday February 2, Groundhog Day from 12 -2PM. The Rally is called "Minnesotans For Global Warming--Free The Groundhog Day - Don't Tax Our Breath Rally!". The purpose of the rally is to gather and inform Minnesotans of upcoming legislation being proposed by the "Minnesota Environmental Partnership", and all the other Federal and international CO2 taxes that are being proposed and signed into law. It is our contention that these taxes will serve only to put a further burden on the Minnesota taxpayer and have no effect on the climate. We also will ask participants to go to their caucuses and propose legislation fighting these draconian laws. We will also provide a list of how the presidential candidates stand on this issue. We will hand out this act to be read at the caucuses and to be added to the parties? platform. Labels: Global warming Thursday, January 24, 2008
Pawlenty joins global-warming radio ad:
Deepening his involvement in the global warming debate and in national affairs, Gov. Tim Pawlenty is lending his voice to a nationwide radio ad sponsored by the activist Environmental Defense Action Fund. In the ad, Pawlenty teams up with Arizona's Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano to scold Congress for not doing more to combat climate change. Against a background of inspirational, New Age-style music, the two tout state-level achievements and urge Congress to pass national curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Quick action could spur thousands of 'enviro-friendly' jobs, Pawlenty and Napolitano say in the ad. Foot-dragging, they warn, could push job-yielding innovations overseas. Remember the days when T-Paw's name was seriously being floated as a potential VP choice? Even if McCain is the nominee, I can't imagine that he could afford to have someone with less than solid conservative cred like Pawlenty as his running mate. Labels: Global warming Thursday, November 01, 2007
John R. Cristy is another one of those pesky scientists who refuses to accept the "consensus" that global warming is chiefly man-made and that it will be a disaster for our planet. He's the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville so he brings considerable cred to the matter. He also happens to have claimed a share (however miniscule) of Al Gore's Noble Peace Prize by virtue of his membership on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In today's Wall Street Journal, he pens a piece explaining why he isn't buying the hype (sub req): I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time. There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.) It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days. Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'" I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer. The hubris of man in the modern world--especially those who view science as the ultimate and only source of truth--seems to know no bounds. In our age of reliance on expert opinion and cause and effect analysis of everything in life, it's refreshing to hear someone admit the reality that there is still so much that we simply don't know. Cristy also knocks down a couple of recent examples of global warming hysteria: The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started. Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest? Not necessarily. There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners. And concludes by urging people to consider the true cost and dubious benefits of attempting to "stop" global warming: California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day. Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent. But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty? My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming." Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me. Not that I would expect the Nobel Committee to consider it, but which course of action would really do more to promote world peace? Labels: Global warming Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Daniel B. Botkin--president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century"--pens a piece for today's Wall Street Journal on Global Warming Delusions gone wild (sub req):
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, "Isn't this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?" Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food -- an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography. You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life -- I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species. I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change. One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate over global warming, is the notion that THE SCIENCE (as John Kerry calls it) has all come down conclusively on one side and that anyone who remains skeptical of the coming catastrophe if we don't ACT NOW is merely a denier of reality or in the pay of Big Oil. The reality is that there are plenty of rational, thoughtful people who have looked at the THE SCIENCE and have concluded that the facts don't justify the doom saying and scaremongering. You won't see them winning awards from Norwegian politicians, hobnobbing with Hollywood stars, or being lauded by an adoring media. Their only solace will be being able to look back at some point in the future--after the global warming hysteria bubble bursts--with the satisfaction of knowing that they didn't buy the hype. Labels: Global warming Thursday, October 11, 2007
Excitement continues to build for tomorrow's announcement of the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Fresh off his Oscar, and soon to receive an Emmy, Al Gore is rumored to be a front runner for this award as well. Then all he'll need is the Tony to achieve his dream of becoming the Rita Moreno of his generation. (Suggestions for the Broadway treatment of his masterpiece: The Inconvenient Truth of Being Earnest. Or, The Music Man.) It is difficult to properly handicap Gore's chances of winning since, by Nobel Committee rules, the nominations are kept under strict secrecy for half a century: The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize. No reasons are given for this Nixonian level of paranoid control. I suspect it has something to do with never having to say you're sorry for granting a "peace" award to the likes of Yasser Arafat (1994) instead of some poor less prominent nominee slaving away to feed the hungry or cure the sick, or just not facilitating suicide bombing of innocent women and children. However, I must salute the Nobel Foundation for their fresh air and sunshine approach once the five decade interim has passed. Right here, a complete database of all nominees and their nominators, updated to the minute, circa 1955. (Come to think of it, they're still two years behind. What are they trying to hide about their actions in 1956!?) It is interesting to plug in some names from the pre-War era to see who the august Nobel Committee was considering in the past. For example, you may have heard of this Peaceful gent, Hitler. According to some reports, that nomination in 1939 was actually a protest against a flood of nominations submitted for appeaser extraordinaire, Neville Chamberlain. However, I see Hitler's ideological paisano Mussolini was also nominated, back in 1935, well before the world new him as the junior partner in Euro Fascists Inc. And nominated by no less an authority than the "Professors at the Faculty of Law at Giessen University". I image in GU's alumni fundraising newsletter, sometime around 1945, there was an article entitled something like "File that one under whoops!" Alas, we won't know the full extent of the whoops factor for this year's vote until around 2057. But we do know Al Gore is there as a nominee. If the Nobel Foundation won't tell us who the other contenders are, we'll turn to the second most prestigious judging authority of peace prize legitimacy, Irish book maker PaddyPower.com. Interestingly, they see Gore as only the third most likely winner (at 9-2 odds). Perhaps he's splitting the global warming hysteria vote with the person trailing him, climate change activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier. No she doesn't have an Oscar, Emmy, or Tony for her efforts. But she does have it all over Gore in the diversity star power department, being female, Inuit, anti-American, and suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (I'm assuming that last one). I fear her presence may sink the both of them. Who then would dare take this award away from our champion Al and his planet saving crusade? According to Paddy Power, shortest odds are on some conniving little snip named Irena Sendler (at 10-3). OK, she did rescue 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis' clutches back in 1942. But come on Irena, what have you done for Peace lately? I doubt she's even purchased one-one hundredth the carbon offsets Al Gore has. And if Gore wins, no doubt he'll be happy to purchase even more to balance off the estimated 1.2 tons of carbon his round trip flight to Sweden to pick up the award will produce. Can you say the same, Ms. Sendler? We'll find out tomorrow who the deserving Peace laureates REALLY are. Stand by, announcement at 4 AM Central Standard Time. Labels: Global warming Friday, October 05, 2007
Nate from St. Paul e-mails on his city's plans to combat global warming:
Last March, Mayor Coleman said the greatest threat to the City was not the fact that we're broke and need to raise taxes 15%; instead, the greatest threat was global warming, apparently because it meant winters warm enough that some ice on outdoor rinks was soft. If we have to wait for the ice to re-freeze after a thaw, an entire generation of St. Paulites might grow up not knowing the joy of uninterrupted outdoor skating. Imagine the disappointment on the urchins' faces when they find out that sometimes, outdoor ice melts in the winter. The horror! What to do? Drive to Roseville and skate on the indoor ice? Build an indoor ice arena in St. Paul (maybe on some of the reclaimed "brownfields" lands)? No. The City is closing 6 outdoor rinks to pay for 3 new refrigerated outdoor rinks. Yes, each will have a giant chiller to keep the ice frozen all season. I just got the flyer last night...we're getting one at Northdale Rec, across the street from me. The giant chiller will run at 100 decibels whenever the temperature is above freezing -- day and night, apparently. And there will be new stadium lights, too! Interestingly, the flyer doesn't mention how the chiller and lights are powered without contributing to global warming. Pixie dust? I've attached a a JPG of the flyer. Actually I'm a big proponent of these outdoor artificial ice rinks. Especially when they're not anywhere near my house and I don't have to pay for them. Heh heh. What's that? St. Paul still receives FIFTY-THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN LGA from the State every year, so in reality I am helping to subsidize these rinks? D'oh! Labels: Global warming Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A couple of notable events coming up locally on the global warming front.
First up, is this Friday's Cooling the Panic Over Warming Event sponsored by Senate District 42. The evening will feature former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz, Jason Lewis, and Dennis Avery. Avery is the co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years and we interviewed him on the NARN last March. Tickets are still available. Last Spring, the City of St. Louis Park showed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" at the City's Westwood Hills Nature Center. You may remember that this raised my dander a might and I lobbied city leaders to offer an alternative point of view on the matter (you may also remember that local media verified beyond doubt that "Chad Doughty is hot" at this time). Now, the efforts have finally paid off. Next Saturday, October 13th the Westwood Hills Nature Center will present: Movie: The Great Global Warming Swindle Ages 12 and up (children must be accompanied by an adult) Westwood Hills Nature Center will continue its conversation with the community about global warming this fall by presenting the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The film shows an alternate viewpoint to the one presented in the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" earlier this year. The city hopes the films will foster a balanced community dialogue on the topic of global warming. This documentary was produced by Martin Durkin and argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The movie is 90 minutes long with a discussion to follow the movie. Saturday, Oct. 13, 3 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. Westwood Hills Nature Center, 8300 W. Franklin Ave. Free Activity # 3731 Registration deadline: when programs is filled I'd strongly encourage people to turn out for the showing even if you have seen the movie before. Reports said that the turnout for the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" was quite modest and it would be great to have a decent sized crowd on hand to see an alternative viewpoint presented. They say politics is all about showing up and the debate over global warming has a huge political component to it. Show up if you can. Labels: Global warming Friday, August 24, 2007
The ever-skeptical Bjorn Lomborg says that rising damage costs from hurricanes (and other storms) have little to do with global warming and much to do with where people are choosing to build (WSJ sub req):
The global cost of climate-related disasters has increased relentlessly over the past half century. Hurricane Dean has left behind many billions of dollars of damage. But when Mr. Gore links global warming to the spiraling increase in weather-related insurance costs, he misses the fundamental points. It has become more popular than ever to reside in low-lying, coastal areas that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather. In Florida, more people live in Dade and Broward counties today than lived in all 109 coastal counties from Texas through Virginia in 1930. It's obvious that more damage will occur when many more people with much more wealth live in harm's way. No matter how you look at it, however, the prospect of $1 trillion of weather-related damage by 2040 is frightening. But it is just as frightening that we have developed a blinkered focus on reducing carbon emissions as a way to somehow stop the devastation of events like Hurricane Dean. Presumably, our goal is to help humans and the planet. Cutting carbon is a very poor way of doing that. If coastal populations kept increasing but we managed to halt climate warming, then research shows that there would still be a 500% increase in hurricane damage in 50 years' time. On the other hand, if we let climate warming continue but stopped more people from moving into harm's way, the increase in hurricane damage would be less than 10%. Labels: Global warming Thursday, August 16, 2007
St. Louis Park Activities:
Movie: The Great Global Warming Swindle - 3731 Description: Westwood Hills Nature Center will continue its conversation with the community about global warming this fall by presenting the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The film shows an alternate viewpoint to the one presented in the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" earlier this year. The city hopes the films will foster a balanced community dialogue on the topic of global warming. This documentary was produced by Martin Durkin and argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The movie is 90 minutes long with a discussion to follow the movie. Ages: 12 Yrs. and over It's a small victory, but a victory none the less. Crackpots everywhere are smiling in their basements. By the way, Chad Doughty is now officially "cool" (once again). Should I call Tim Sherno for an update? Labels: Global warming Monday, August 13, 2007
Thomas Sieger Derr nails the real motivation driving much of the global warming hype in the August/September issue of FIRST THINGS (free for all!):
Everywhere you go, you hear the news that we have only a few years to save the planet before we reach the point of no return, the tipping point, irreversible catastrophic climate change, and the end of civilization. Hyperbolic statements like these are meant mainly to scare people into acting and accepting the enormous sums required for the proposed reduction program. Sir John Houghton, the first chair of the IPCC, wrote in a 1994 book, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." A backlash against such exaggeration is growing, not least among scientists concerned for their own professional integrity. In any case, we need cooler heads to go with a warmer climate. Lindzen and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv calculate that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 would cause a temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius, which is only a little more than the rise from the late nineteenth century to the present has been. A 50 percent rise would yield a 0.5-degree-C. increase. There are, of course, good reasons for controlling many emissions and finding alternative sources to fossil fuels: pollution control, for instance, and freedom from economic fealty to some rather nasty oil-producing regimes. But stopping global warming is not one of them. It almost seems as if the issue is not in science but in ideology and social psychology. Environmental alarmism is part of a systematic rejection of industrial civilization, of technology, consumerism, globalization, and what most of us think of as growth and progress, in favor of a return to local, simpler, largely agricultural societies--and, of course, fewer children, since humans are the ultimate pollution. Climate reversal has grown to become the latest focus of this way of thinking. It is an issue that has acquired popular traction, even among people who do not share the radical goals of the larger movement, thanks to deliberate alarmism; and it is now firmly entrenched in our public discourse, especially in our politics. I suspect that it will stay there until the temperature starts to decline again, at which point, as in the 1970s, we'll hear more about the inevitable return of an ice age. This planet would be great if it weren't for the people. Labels: Global warming Thursday, July 26, 2007
Carter writes in to let us know the Fratellis opinion on the planet killing nature of charged electronic devices is apparently as nuanced as Al Gore's opinion on $30K electricity bills at his house:
You have heard the Fratellis if you have seen any of the iPod commercials. The song "Flathead" accompanied many of the commercials. Global warming hysteria hypocrisy aside, not bad. For a bunch of Scottish wankers. Labels: Global warming
Today's Wall Street Journal opinion pages feature another crackpot in denial about global warming:
Some scientists, journalists and activists see a direct link between the post-1995 upswing in Atlantic hurricanes and global warming brought on by human-induced greenhouse gas increases. This belief, however, is unsupported by long-term Atlantic and global observations. Consider, for example, the intensity of U.S. land-falling hurricanes over time -- keeping in mind that the periods must be long enough to reveal long-term trends. During the most recent 50-year period, 1957 to 2006, 83 hurricanes hit the United States, 34 of them major. In contrast, during the 50-year period from 1900 to 1949, 101 hurricanes (22% more) made U.S. landfall, including 39 (or 15% more) major hurricanes. The hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the number of hurricanes fails by an even wider margin when we compare two other multi-decade periods: 1925-1965 and 1966-2006. In the 41 years from 1925-1965, there were 39 U.S. land-falling major hurricanes. In the 1966-2006 period there were 22 such storms -- only 56% as many. Even though global mean temperatures have risen by an estimated 0.4 Celsius and CO2 by 20%, the number of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. declined. It turns out that this skeptic carries a rather impressive pedigree: Mr. Gray, professor emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and a research fellow at the Independent Institute, has been issuing Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for the past 24 years. In fact, some of his statements sound downright scientific: Here's how it works. Though most people don't realize it, the Atlantic Ocean is land-locked except on its far southern boundary. Due to significantly higher amounts of surface evaporation than precipitation, the Atlantic has the highest salinity of any of the global oceans. Saline water has a higher density than does fresh water. The Atlantic's higher salinity causes it to have a continuous northward flow of upper-ocean water that moves into the Atlantic's polar regions, where it cools and sinks due to its high density. After sinking to deep levels, the water then moves southward, and returns to the Atlantic's southern fringes, where it mixes again. This south-to-north upper-level water motion, and compensating north-to-south deep-level water motion, is called the thermohaline circulation (THC). The strength of the Atlantic's THC shows distinct variations over time, due to naturally occurring salinity variations. When the THC is strong, the upper-ocean water becomes warmer than normal; atmospheric circulation changes occur; and more hurricanes form. The opposite occurs when the THC is weaker than average. Since 1995, the Atlantic's THC has been significantly stronger than average. It was also stronger than average during the 1940s to early 1960s -- another period with a spike in major hurricane activity. It was distinctly weaker than average in the two quarter-century periods of 1970-1994 and 1900-1925, when there was less hurricane activity. A number of my colleagues and I have discussed the physics of Atlantic THC variations in our seasonal hurricane forecasts and in various conference talks for many years. Those who are convinced that greenhouse gas increases provide the only plausible explanation for the recent increases in hurricane activity are either unaware of our work, or don't want to consider any alternative. One reason may be that the advocates of warming tend to be climate modelers with little observational experience. Many of the modelers are not fully aware of how the real atmosphere and ocean function. They rely more on theory than on observation. The warming theorists -- most of whom, no doubt, earnestly believe that human activity has triggered nature's wrath -- have the ears of the news media. But there is another plausible explanation, supported by decades of physical observation. The spate of recent destructive hurricanes may have little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases and climate change, and everything to do with the Atlantic Ocean's currents. Unless someone with more hurricane cred and experience than Mr. Gray wishes to dispute this, I think it's time to borrow a page from Al Gore's playbook and declare the debate about whether man-made global warming causes more frequent and more destructive hurricanes over. It simply does not. Labels: Global warming
You've heard the Fratellis on tape as a former NARN Loon of the Week.
Now hear them LIVE at the Electric Fetus this Sunday. It's a guaranteed good time. No, I've never heard their music. But their thoughts on how to fight global warming were as entertaining as anything I've heard this summer. Not sure how these Scottish lads got to America, given the planet killing carbon output of a transatlantic flight. But if you go, you may want to keep any freshly recharged cell phones out of sight. Remember, we've only got 9 years and change to save Mother Earth. Labels: Global warming Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Forrest heps us to an e-mail sent out by the Sierra Club promoting a web site designed to silence those pesky global warming skeptics once and for all:
So, Uncle Henry gets a sadistic smile on his face whenever he sees you, "So, Chicken Little, still trying to claim the sky is falling?" Many of us have climate skeptics in our lives - those people who always find a way to deny that global warming is an issue. Well, now you've got a tool on your side. Grist, an online environmental news and discussion site, has put together a one-stop shop, including a comprehensive list of theories, arguments, and rants frequently used by climate skeptics, along with pithy, annotated responses that will leave Uncle Henry rushing back to his talk radio station for solace. Stereotype much? Anyway, here is the site in question: How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. Being a noted skeptic (or crank if you will) of the "sky is falling" climate change religion myself, I decided to take a look. At first glance the site is very impressive. They've done a good job assembling a list of the most common arguments presented against anthropogenic global warming leading to untold disasters for the planet and the need AND ability to stop it. But when you start reading some of the individual topics themselves, you will see that while the responses are indeed pithy and annotated, they often don't stand up to scrutiny once skeptical commenters (including some with a PHD behind their name) start weighing in. Then, the climate change faithful (including the series author himself Coby Beck) usually come back with an "Well, even if it's not exactly true, we still should be alarmed because..." or try to discredit the source of the contrary evidence because of exaggerated ties to the oil industry (I saw him getting gas at an Exxon station just last week!). No solace needed. Labels: Global warming Monday, July 09, 2007
In fact, hardly anyone was:
NBC's three-hour primetime "Live Earth" special, which included highlights from Saturday's global concerts, failed to generate much enthusiasm in the ratings. The estimated 2.7 million viewers was slightly under the 3 million viewers NBC has averaged on Saturday nights in the summer with repeats and the Stanley Cup hockey playoffs on what is already the least-popular night of television. Any time your TV ratings about being compared to the NHL, you know you're in trouble. I guess the good folks at MoveOn.org fell a bit short of their claim that TWO BILLION people would be participating in Live Earth around the world. Labels: Global warming Saturday, July 07, 2007
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
