Read more @ The Right-Wing Media’s Discipline Machine : CJR
-----------------------------
When Mitt Romney was asked at a New Hampshire town hall in June 2011 about climate change, he probably did not think he was taking a risk by admitting that it is happening. “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer,” said Romney. “Number two, I believe that humans contribute to that…. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change.”
The science on the subject is clear, and Romney had said the same in the 2008 without inviting a notable backlash. But this time was different. Rush Limbaugh, the godfather of modern conservative talk radio, reacted with horror. Romney had just demonstrated himself too credulous of science and Enlightenment reasoning to win the Republican nomination. “Bye-bye nomination,” Limbaugh intoned. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates who want to buy into it!”
Limbaugh’s assertion that Romney could not win the Republican nomination was premature; Romney remains very much in contention. But right-wing voters have held Romney’s statement against him as they continue to search for a suitable alternative.
The brouhaha might seem strange to an outsider, since Romney did not actually propose to do anything about climate change. In his campaign book No Apologies, Romney dismissed cap and trade as “radical feel-good politics.” But the conservative media no longer accept objective facts—the facts themselves must now fit the right-wing narrative. Joseph Lawler, then the managing editor of The American Spectator, explained the closed-circuit epistemology as a means of guaranteeing a preferred policy outcome: “Expressing skepticism of the science behind climate change, as for instance Gov. Rick Perry has, allows candidates to assure voters that they won’t support cap and trade or carbon taxes once they’re in office.”
Sure enough, the next time Romney discussed climate change publicly, at a town hall in Dover, New Hampshire, in August, he softened his earlier comments, saying, “I think the Earth is getting warmer…. I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.” By late October, Romney had turned into a full-fledged climate change denier. “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” he said at a fundraiser in Pittsburgh.
This episode—the bullying of an educated executive vying to be leader of the free world into the denial of demonstrable facts—was a striking demonstration of the sway Limbaugh and his cronies in conservative media hold over Republican hopefuls. It’s a degree of influence unmatched by any entity on the left, or for that matter by issue activists on the right. (The anti-tax Club for Growth also put out a white paper attacking Romney’s climate change apostasy, but it garnered far less attention than Limbaugh did.) And as the Republican primary unfolds, the consequences of the right-wing media megaphone are clear: the ideological discipline meted out by the pundits is a big part of the reason Republican candidates are sticking so relentlessly to doctrinaire conservative positions during this campaign cycle, and why there is often so little space between them.
Limbaugh, who invented the modern right-wing talk radio format and spawned a generation of imitators, is not the only pundit who thinks he is more powerful than actual elected officials: in October, Sean Hannity invited Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on his radio program and spent most of the interview lecturing Paul for having had the audacity to criticize him. But Limbaugh is the only one for whom it is undeniably true. “The candidates who run afoul of Limbaugh are marked for death,” says Thomas Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University. “Talk radio, and Limbaugh in particular, has defined what the acceptable limits are for the candidates,” Fiedler adds. “They’ve clustered themselves much farther on the right end of the spectrum.”
For the conservative media, the task of whipping Republicans into line isn’t limited to the official campaign. During the debate over health care reform, former public supporters of the individual mandate—including presidential candidates-to-be such as Newt Gingrich and Romney—abandoned their prior positions and lined up against “Obamacare.” Amid the hyperventilating about “death panels,” as the party’s prospective standard-bearers fell into line, it became politically untenable for GOP legislators to negotiate even on a bill whose roots lay in conservative proposals. The Affordable Care Act ended up passing nonetheless—and Republicans in Congress had no influence over the law.
“There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped,” wrote former Bush speechwriter David Frum. “Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.” Speaking to ABC’s Nightline soon after, Frum summed up the new balance of power. “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us,” he said, “and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Another Day, Another Distortive Attack On Climate Change - Forbes
Read more @ Another Day, Another Distortive Attack On Climate Change - Forbes
by Steve Zwick/Jan. 30, 2012
---------------------------------------
I’ve been accused on this blog of being mean to climate deniers – of calling them “deniers” when they fancy themselves “skeptics”. Well, what else do we call people who ignore and even distort evidence that doesn’t support their prejudice? I can think of words that are a lot worse than “denier”, but changing our terminology to suit deniers is like calling a thief a businessman just because that’s how he sees himself.
The latest example of denial (as opposed to legitimate skepticism) came in the UK’s Sunday Daily Mail, in a distortive piece that reads like the stuff you see on late-night infomercials – you know, the ones that offer fool-proof market timing mechanisms that will MAKE YOU RICH?
The piece in question is called Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again): Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years, and it’s been mailed to me by more than a dozen readers, despite being so full of fallacies that I don’t know where to begin.
Trouble is, I’m tired of debunking the same lies over and over again – it’s like picking weeds – but this time I don’t have to, because the Met Office itself posted a blog that shines the bright light of transparency onto this piece of distortive
by Steve Zwick/Jan. 30, 2012
---------------------------------------
I’ve been accused on this blog of being mean to climate deniers – of calling them “deniers” when they fancy themselves “skeptics”. Well, what else do we call people who ignore and even distort evidence that doesn’t support their prejudice? I can think of words that are a lot worse than “denier”, but changing our terminology to suit deniers is like calling a thief a businessman just because that’s how he sees himself.
The latest example of denial (as opposed to legitimate skepticism) came in the UK’s Sunday Daily Mail, in a distortive piece that reads like the stuff you see on late-night infomercials – you know, the ones that offer fool-proof market timing mechanisms that will MAKE YOU RICH?
The piece in question is called Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again): Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years, and it’s been mailed to me by more than a dozen readers, despite being so full of fallacies that I don’t know where to begin.
Trouble is, I’m tired of debunking the same lies over and over again – it’s like picking weeds – but this time I don’t have to, because the Met Office itself posted a blog that shines the bright light of transparency onto this piece of distortive
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Read more @ A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target Bad Astronomy Discover Magazine
---------------------------------------------
Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction, distortion, error, and misdirection.
Stick around for all of this. It’ll be… interesting.
Our story so far
OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote. Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at all; those two links have many more links therein.
In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And this is where the fun begins.
That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear, those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled "Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’ article and see… So I read it.
My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
---------------------------------------------
Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction, distortion, error, and misdirection.
Stick around for all of this. It’ll be… interesting.
Our story so far
OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote. Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at all; those two links have many more links therein.
In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And this is where the fun begins.
That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear, those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled "Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’ article and see… So I read it.
My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
Cornell Chronicle: AAAS 2012 lectures on climate change
Read more @ Cornell Chronicle: AAAS 2012 lectures on climate change
---------------------------------
Three Cornell researchers will discuss mitigating climate change, biochar and the challenges of wheat rust, respectively, at the 2012 Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Vancouver, Canada, Feb. 16-20.
AAAS is an international professional association that seeks to "advance science, engineering and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." It publishes the prestigious journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports.
Charles Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of crop and soil sciences, will both speak at the symposium "Climate Solutions: The Challenges of Getting to 350," Feb. 19. The symposium will explore the challenges society faces in getting Earth's atmosphere down from its current level of 393 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm. Many scientists and others believe that society can only avert dangerous climate change by stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) at 350 ppm by 2100.
Greene's talk, "Geoengineering: The Inescapable Truth of Getting to 350," will center on the role of geoengineering in removing carbon from the atmosphere, and his argument that the goal of reaching 350 ppm will only be possible if humankind supplements aggressive CO2 emission reductions with CO2 removal from the atmosphere and sequestration through geoengineering.
---------------------------------
Three Cornell researchers will discuss mitigating climate change, biochar and the challenges of wheat rust, respectively, at the 2012 Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Vancouver, Canada, Feb. 16-20.
AAAS is an international professional association that seeks to "advance science, engineering and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." It publishes the prestigious journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports.
Charles Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of crop and soil sciences, will both speak at the symposium "Climate Solutions: The Challenges of Getting to 350," Feb. 19. The symposium will explore the challenges society faces in getting Earth's atmosphere down from its current level of 393 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm. Many scientists and others believe that society can only avert dangerous climate change by stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) at 350 ppm by 2100.
Greene's talk, "Geoengineering: The Inescapable Truth of Getting to 350," will center on the role of geoengineering in removing carbon from the atmosphere, and his argument that the goal of reaching 350 ppm will only be possible if humankind supplements aggressive CO2 emission reductions with CO2 removal from the atmosphere and sequestration through geoengineering.
Time of Year Significant in Projections of Climate Change Effects -- Environmental Protection
Read more @ Time of Year Significant in Projections of Climate Change Effects -- Environmental Protection
-------------------------
Feb 15, 2012
Does it matter whether long periods of hot weather happen in June or July, August or September?
Scientists studying the subtle effects of heat waves and droughts say that when such events happen makes a big difference.
Based on more than 25 years of data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Kansas--one of 26 such NSF LTER sites across the globe--ecologists looked at how droughts and heat waves affect grass growth during different months of the year.
The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published their results.
"A major challenge in studying climate change is separating the effects of long-term trends from interannual variation," says Saran Twombly, program director for NSF's LTER Network. "This study identifies variation in the timing and magnitude of drought and heat as keys to an ecosystem. The results highlight the importance of long-term data to understanding the complex interactions that underlie ecological responses to climate change."
The researchers found that droughts reduced grass growth most in early June, while heat waves reduced grass growth only during late July.
Neither drought nor heat waves in August or September seemed to have an effect on grass growth.
"Future projections need to incorporate predictions of not only how much climate will change, but when during the year changes will happen," says Joseph Craine of Kansas State University, the paper's lead author.
Co-authors of the paper are Jesse Nippert, Adam Skibbe and Stacy Hutchinson of Kansas State University; Andrew Elmore of the Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; and Nathaniel Brunsell of the University of Kansas.
"The effects of climate change on grasslands depend on when they happen may not be much of a surprise--little snow in winter may have less effect than low rainfall in summer, for example," Craine says.
The sensitivity of grasslands to the timing of drought and heat waves was a big surprise, however.
-------------------------
Does it matter whether long periods of hot weather happen in June or July, August or September?
Scientists studying the subtle effects of heat waves and droughts say that when such events happen makes a big difference.
Based on more than 25 years of data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Kansas--one of 26 such NSF LTER sites across the globe--ecologists looked at how droughts and heat waves affect grass growth during different months of the year.
The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published their results.
"A major challenge in studying climate change is separating the effects of long-term trends from interannual variation," says Saran Twombly, program director for NSF's LTER Network. "This study identifies variation in the timing and magnitude of drought and heat as keys to an ecosystem. The results highlight the importance of long-term data to understanding the complex interactions that underlie ecological responses to climate change."
The researchers found that droughts reduced grass growth most in early June, while heat waves reduced grass growth only during late July.
Neither drought nor heat waves in August or September seemed to have an effect on grass growth.
"Future projections need to incorporate predictions of not only how much climate will change, but when during the year changes will happen," says Joseph Craine of Kansas State University, the paper's lead author.
Co-authors of the paper are Jesse Nippert, Adam Skibbe and Stacy Hutchinson of Kansas State University; Andrew Elmore of the Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; and Nathaniel Brunsell of the University of Kansas.
"The effects of climate change on grasslands depend on when they happen may not be much of a surprise--little snow in winter may have less effect than low rainfall in summer, for example," Craine says.
The sensitivity of grasslands to the timing of drought and heat waves was a big surprise, however.
Heads Above Water | OnEarth Magazine
Pandango: Fox News is talking about the dangers of global warming? How can that be?!
-----------------------------------------
Read the entire story @ Heads Above Water OnEarth Magazine
------------------------------
by George Black/Feb. 15, 2012
When even Fox News affiliates and small-island dictators sound the warning on climate change, it’s time to take heed. [I disagree with you on that statement, George. Fox News, or no Fox News, we should have taken heed a long time ago. -Pandango]
Great piece on Fox News the other day. No, really.
It was a two-minute story on Fox’s Colorado affiliate (which is about as close as we get to serious documentaries on a major network these days), about the storm that had just dumped an unseasonable 16 inches of snow on Denver, the heaviest February storm in exactly 100 years. The headline -- "Scientists Research Link Between Extreme Weather and Climate Change" -- had me braced for the usual Fox fare. So did the opening lines from the reporter, Dave Young: "There’s a lot of people who have a hard time buying into the whole global warming thing, especially when they have two feet of snow still sitting in their front yard in early February." But what followed was a pleasant surprise.
The focus of the piece was the University of Colorado, where, Young said, "some of the most important work on climate change" is being done. He started with meteorologist Bob Henson of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who laid out clearly how a warming atmosphere holds more water vapor and therefore leads to heavier storms. Next up was John Wahr, one of a team of physicists that has spent eight years measuring the loss of ice sheets in the Arctic. The scientists have "found them melting at an alarming rate," Young reported, showing us some satellite maps for greater dramatic effect. Since the study began, four billion tons of water have sluiced into the oceans, enough to cover the entire United States to the depth of one and a half feet and raise global sea levels by roughly half an inch. "Everyone should be worried about this," said Wahr in conclusion.
-----------------------------------------
Read the entire story @ Heads Above Water OnEarth Magazine
------------------------------
by George Black/Feb. 15, 2012
When even Fox News affiliates and small-island dictators sound the warning on climate change, it’s time to take heed. [I disagree with you on that statement, George. Fox News, or no Fox News, we should have taken heed a long time ago. -Pandango]
Great piece on Fox News the other day. No, really.
It was a two-minute story on Fox’s Colorado affiliate (which is about as close as we get to serious documentaries on a major network these days), about the storm that had just dumped an unseasonable 16 inches of snow on Denver, the heaviest February storm in exactly 100 years. The headline -- "Scientists Research Link Between Extreme Weather and Climate Change" -- had me braced for the usual Fox fare. So did the opening lines from the reporter, Dave Young: "There’s a lot of people who have a hard time buying into the whole global warming thing, especially when they have two feet of snow still sitting in their front yard in early February." But what followed was a pleasant surprise.
The focus of the piece was the University of Colorado, where, Young said, "some of the most important work on climate change" is being done. He started with meteorologist Bob Henson of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who laid out clearly how a warming atmosphere holds more water vapor and therefore leads to heavier storms. Next up was John Wahr, one of a team of physicists that has spent eight years measuring the loss of ice sheets in the Arctic. The scientists have "found them melting at an alarming rate," Young reported, showing us some satellite maps for greater dramatic effect. Since the study began, four billion tons of water have sluiced into the oceans, enough to cover the entire United States to the depth of one and a half feet and raise global sea levels by roughly half an inch. "Everyone should be worried about this," said Wahr in conclusion.
Climate change science debate sees real scientists gaining ground - Morning Call
Read the entire story @ Climate change science debate sees real scientists gaining ground - Morning Call
-------------------------------------
February 14, 2012|Paul Carpenter
-------------------------------------
February 14, 2012|Paul Carpenter
One of the first things C. Burke Swan of Allentown emphasized was that he does not pretend to be a climate scientist. His doctorate is in electrical engineering and he retired from Bell Laboratories in 1994.
That said, he wanted to call my attention to a new report on what real climate scientists are saying about global warming and climate changes caused by pollution.
"I could well understand if you don't want to weigh in on the climate change controversy that has recently made it into The Morning Call," his letter began. "Articles and letters in the non-scientific media could give a reader the impression that all arguments have equal weight and validity."
Actually, I have weighed in on similar points, and I am not scientific at all.
I can read, however, and in past columns, I have said we should "consider the source" of claims that global warming is no big deal, because they too often come from those interested only in protecting the profits enjoyed when pollution is not restrained, in studies too often funded by outfits like Exxon-Mobil.
Swan referred to a Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal opinion article, "No need to panic about global warming," written by 16 scientists who were not climate specialists and, he said, "thus not qualified in this area."
That, Swan said, was countered by an item written by 37 other scientists.
Swan urged me to look at a new report in Physics Today, a magazine published by the American Institute of Physics, which is not funded by Exxon-Mobil nor by any other establishment with a vested interest in pollution, one way or the other.
"Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers," said the headline on the February 2012 Physics Today story. It told of how scientists who tell the truth about the causes of global warming have been threatened with "I know where your kids go to school" messages and other forms of intimidation, but now they "have begun to fight back."
"I think the community [of scientists] is finding a voice," Ben Santer of the renowned Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was quoted as saying.
"Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening," the story said, and "most of the observed increase in ... temperatures since the mid 20th century is due to human activities."
In a similar vein, a column in Forbes magazine last week by Peter Gleick of the National Academy of Sciences noted that global warming deniers use selective data and "scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods" to claim climate change is not happening. "The problem with this argument is that it is false; global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth," he said.
The Physics Today article also focused on an episode that prompted me to write about this issue a number of times.
When research by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann linked global warning to carbon dioxide pollution, the vested interests went after him, even relying on thieves who broke into his email files. I noted the "scientists" who challenged his research were funded, in part, by Exxon-Mobil and the mineral mining industry.
That said, he wanted to call my attention to a new report on what real climate scientists are saying about global warming and climate changes caused by pollution.
"I could well understand if you don't want to weigh in on the climate change controversy that has recently made it into The Morning Call," his letter began. "Articles and letters in the non-scientific media could give a reader the impression that all arguments have equal weight and validity."
Actually, I have weighed in on similar points, and I am not scientific at all.
I can read, however, and in past columns, I have said we should "consider the source" of claims that global warming is no big deal, because they too often come from those interested only in protecting the profits enjoyed when pollution is not restrained, in studies too often funded by outfits like Exxon-Mobil.
Swan referred to a Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal opinion article, "No need to panic about global warming," written by 16 scientists who were not climate specialists and, he said, "thus not qualified in this area."
That, Swan said, was countered by an item written by 37 other scientists.
Swan urged me to look at a new report in Physics Today, a magazine published by the American Institute of Physics, which is not funded by Exxon-Mobil nor by any other establishment with a vested interest in pollution, one way or the other.
"Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers," said the headline on the February 2012 Physics Today story. It told of how scientists who tell the truth about the causes of global warming have been threatened with "I know where your kids go to school" messages and other forms of intimidation, but now they "have begun to fight back."
"I think the community [of scientists] is finding a voice," Ben Santer of the renowned Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was quoted as saying.
"Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening," the story said, and "most of the observed increase in ... temperatures since the mid 20th century is due to human activities."
In a similar vein, a column in Forbes magazine last week by Peter Gleick of the National Academy of Sciences noted that global warming deniers use selective data and "scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods" to claim climate change is not happening. "The problem with this argument is that it is false; global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth," he said.
The Physics Today article also focused on an episode that prompted me to write about this issue a number of times.
When research by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann linked global warning to carbon dioxide pollution, the vested interests went after him, even relying on thieves who broke into his email files. I noted the "scientists" who challenged his research were funded, in part, by Exxon-Mobil and the mineral mining industry.
INFOGRAPHIC: The Politics of Climate Change
Read the entire story @ INFOGRAPHIC: The Politics of Climate Change
The Great Partisan Divide
What are the politics of global warming? Here are on-record summations of the viewpoints of current Republican presidential hopefuls:
“There is no such thing as global warming…” —Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum in an interview with Glenn Beck last year.
“You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming…” —Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in a 2009 interview.
“I believe we don’t know…” —Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, responding to whether global warming is man-made.
Such opinions have sparked debate, but do such party beliefs reflect American public viewpoints? Yes, according to the Pew Survey, which indicates an increasing a partisan divide on global warming: 77 percent of Democrats cited solid evidence of global warming, versus only 43 percent of Republicans. Independents are somewhere in between with 63 percent who trust that there is solid evidence. Party beliefs behind the warming trend vary. Human activity is to blame, according to 51 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Independents and just 19 percent of Republicans.
Despite the low percentage among Republicans, the survey also points notes that since 2009, there has been a sharp increase in both moderate and liberal Republicans and Independents who say there is solid evidence of global warming versus conservative Republicans, whose viewpoints indicate only a minor increase in the same belief.
The biggest findings are reflected in the party gap, Pew highlights: “The gap between conservative Republicans and the party’s moderates and liberals has increased from nine percentage points in 2009 to 32 points in the new survey.”
The other viewpoint taken into account was Tea Party Republicans versus non-Tea Party Republicans. “Among all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 30 percent say there is solid evidence of global warming and 11 percent say it is mostly caused by human activity,” according to the survey findings. “A majority (56 percent) of Republicans and GOP leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party see solid evidence of global warming, and 28 percent say it is mostly caused by human activity.”
The Great Partisan Divide
What are the politics of global warming? Here are on-record summations of the viewpoints of current Republican presidential hopefuls:
“There is no such thing as global warming…” —Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum in an interview with Glenn Beck last year.
“You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming…” —Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in a 2009 interview.
“I believe we don’t know…” —Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, responding to whether global warming is man-made.
Such opinions have sparked debate, but do such party beliefs reflect American public viewpoints? Yes, according to the Pew Survey, which indicates an increasing a partisan divide on global warming: 77 percent of Democrats cited solid evidence of global warming, versus only 43 percent of Republicans. Independents are somewhere in between with 63 percent who trust that there is solid evidence. Party beliefs behind the warming trend vary. Human activity is to blame, according to 51 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Independents and just 19 percent of Republicans.
Despite the low percentage among Republicans, the survey also points notes that since 2009, there has been a sharp increase in both moderate and liberal Republicans and Independents who say there is solid evidence of global warming versus conservative Republicans, whose viewpoints indicate only a minor increase in the same belief.
The biggest findings are reflected in the party gap, Pew highlights: “The gap between conservative Republicans and the party’s moderates and liberals has increased from nine percentage points in 2009 to 32 points in the new survey.”
The other viewpoint taken into account was Tea Party Republicans versus non-Tea Party Republicans. “Among all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 30 percent say there is solid evidence of global warming and 11 percent say it is mostly caused by human activity,” according to the survey findings. “A majority (56 percent) of Republicans and GOP leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party see solid evidence of global warming, and 28 percent say it is mostly caused by human activity.”
Can a Prius increase global warming? - CSMonitor.com
Read the entire story @ Can a Prius increase global warming? - CSMonitor.com
I haven't read David Owen's new book but he appears to be taking Jevons too seriously. He needs to read Gary Becker's work on the value of time in a society where our value of time is rising. Here is the blurb for his book:
"Hybrid cars, fast trains, compact florescent light bulbs, solar panels, carbon offsets: Everything you've been told about living green is wrong. The quest for a breakthrough battery or a 100 mpg car are dangerous fantasies. We are consumers, and we like to consume green and efficiently. But David Owen argues that our best intentions are still at cross purposes to our true goal - living sustainably and caring for our environment and the future of the planet. Efficiency, once considered the holy grail of our environmental problems, turns out to be part of the problem. Efforts to improve efficiency and increase sustainable development only exacerbate the problems they are meant to solve, more than negating the environmental gains. We have little trouble turning increases in efficiency into increases in consumption."
I haven't read David Owen's new book but he appears to be taking Jevons too seriously. He needs to read Gary Becker's work on the value of time in a society where our value of time is rising. Here is the blurb for his book:
"Hybrid cars, fast trains, compact florescent light bulbs, solar panels, carbon offsets: Everything you've been told about living green is wrong. The quest for a breakthrough battery or a 100 mpg car are dangerous fantasies. We are consumers, and we like to consume green and efficiently. But David Owen argues that our best intentions are still at cross purposes to our true goal - living sustainably and caring for our environment and the future of the planet. Efficiency, once considered the holy grail of our environmental problems, turns out to be part of the problem. Efforts to improve efficiency and increase sustainable development only exacerbate the problems they are meant to solve, more than negating the environmental gains. We have little trouble turning increases in efficiency into increases in consumption."
Global warming and future conflict - Tufts Daily - Tufts University
Global warming and future conflict - Tufts Daily - Tufts University
Though the majority of the scientific community has reached a consensus that climate change is a real phenomenon and life-threatening problem, there are many ideas of what the "worst case" could look like. Some scientists argue that certain areas have already hit a tipping point; for example, species are dying out at an unprecedented rate, and diversity will probably never be the same again. In addition, the environmental changes caused by climate change — diminishing water resources, changing rain patterns, diminishing crop returns — are already producing social consequences.
Migrations of people looking for life-sustaining resources can become a political weapon or capacity swamp on a neighboring nation, creating tensions with their neighbors and potentially provoking war. Internally, tensions between different ethnic groups who already are in conflict will be exacerbated as they battle for grazing land and clean water. Scarcity of resources will become yet another reason for conflict against old enemies.
Changing temperatures won't just make some parts of the world hotter; others will grow cooler. Rains will come not in monsoon seasons but in intermittent downpours that destroy topsoil by washing it away rather than enriching it over the course of the rainy season. Decreased soil richness and changing climate patterns will lead to decreased crop yields; prices for grains will rise, a known cause of political unrest due to rising food prices.
Though there are ways to mitigate and potentially reverse some of the adverse effects of climate change, these are not widely practiced. Bringing these low-use techniques into widespread use will take both time and political will. With the accelerating pace of climate change, there may not be time for these necessary preconditions to come into force. Indeed, there are still climate change deniers. The countries most able to affect greenhouse gas outputs (like the U.S.) are the ones doing very little about these problems and even denying their existence. Furthermore, the economic gain possible when using harmful chemicals and energy techniques eliminates incentives for change amongst these powerful countries. They are growing richer while resources dwindle and conflict rises.
Though the majority of the scientific community has reached a consensus that climate change is a real phenomenon and life-threatening problem, there are many ideas of what the "worst case" could look like. Some scientists argue that certain areas have already hit a tipping point; for example, species are dying out at an unprecedented rate, and diversity will probably never be the same again. In addition, the environmental changes caused by climate change — diminishing water resources, changing rain patterns, diminishing crop returns — are already producing social consequences.
Migrations of people looking for life-sustaining resources can become a political weapon or capacity swamp on a neighboring nation, creating tensions with their neighbors and potentially provoking war. Internally, tensions between different ethnic groups who already are in conflict will be exacerbated as they battle for grazing land and clean water. Scarcity of resources will become yet another reason for conflict against old enemies.
Changing temperatures won't just make some parts of the world hotter; others will grow cooler. Rains will come not in monsoon seasons but in intermittent downpours that destroy topsoil by washing it away rather than enriching it over the course of the rainy season. Decreased soil richness and changing climate patterns will lead to decreased crop yields; prices for grains will rise, a known cause of political unrest due to rising food prices.
Though there are ways to mitigate and potentially reverse some of the adverse effects of climate change, these are not widely practiced. Bringing these low-use techniques into widespread use will take both time and political will. With the accelerating pace of climate change, there may not be time for these necessary preconditions to come into force. Indeed, there are still climate change deniers. The countries most able to affect greenhouse gas outputs (like the U.S.) are the ones doing very little about these problems and even denying their existence. Furthermore, the economic gain possible when using harmful chemicals and energy techniques eliminates incentives for change amongst these powerful countries. They are growing richer while resources dwindle and conflict rises.
Open Channel - Leaked: a plan to teach climate change skepticism in schools
Open Channel - Leaked: a plan to teach climate change skepticism in schools:
Internal documents have been leaked from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago nonprofit think tank, showing its funding of leading skeptics of global warming and a plan to teach climate change skepticism in schools. An anonymous person leaked the documents to several publications and activists supporting the science of climate change.
"The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more," reports the DeSmogBlog, which published the documents on Tuesday. The blog opposes what it calls the "climate denial machine." (Disclosure: msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)
The first batch of documents is here on the DeSmogBlog, and a second batch dealing with fundraising.
The documents show a plan to develop a curriculum for teaching about climate change in K-12 schools, focusing on the message that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain -- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."
Internal documents have been leaked from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago nonprofit think tank, showing its funding of leading skeptics of global warming and a plan to teach climate change skepticism in schools. An anonymous person leaked the documents to several publications and activists supporting the science of climate change.
"The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more," reports the DeSmogBlog, which published the documents on Tuesday. The blog opposes what it calls the "climate denial machine." (Disclosure: msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)
The first batch of documents is here on the DeSmogBlog, and a second batch dealing with fundraising.
The documents show a plan to develop a curriculum for teaching about climate change in K-12 schools, focusing on the message that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain -- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Harsh winter weather continues in Europe; rare snowstorm hits Libya : Weather Underground
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Harsh winter weather continues in Europe; rare snowstorm hits Libya : Weather Underground
Figure 1. The scene in Tripoli, Libya, on February 6, 2012, after a rare snowstorm. Image credit: libyall.com.
Figure 1. The scene in Tripoli, Libya, on February 6, 2012, after a rare snowstorm. Image credit: libyall.com.
Shark attack deaths double as tourism, global warming bring migration changes
by AFP/TheAustralian.com/Feb. 14, 2012
------------------------
SHARKS killed twice as many swimmers and surfers last year than in 2010, with the increase due largely to a growth in tourism and changing shark patterns due to global warming.
There were 12 deaths in 46 shark attacks in 2011, a mortality rate of more than 25 per cent compared to an average of under seven per cent in the last 10 years, according to statistics from the University of Florida.
Countries that recorded shark attack deaths included Australia with three fatal out of 11 attacks; South Africa, two fatal out of five; the French island of Reunion, two deaths in four attacks; and Seychelles with two attacks both ending in death.
Other countries with non-fatal shark attacks included Indonesia (three), Mexico (three), Russia (three) and Brazil (two).
Three locations not normally associated with high numbers of shark attacks - Reunion, Seychelles and New Caledonia - registered a total of seven attacks with five fatal outcomes, according to George Burgess, an ichthyologist from the University of Florida.
Read more at theaustralian.com
------------------------
SHARKS killed twice as many swimmers and surfers last year than in 2010, with the increase due largely to a growth in tourism and changing shark patterns due to global warming.
There were 12 deaths in 46 shark attacks in 2011, a mortality rate of more than 25 per cent compared to an average of under seven per cent in the last 10 years, according to statistics from the University of Florida.
Countries that recorded shark attack deaths included Australia with three fatal out of 11 attacks; South Africa, two fatal out of five; the French island of Reunion, two deaths in four attacks; and Seychelles with two attacks both ending in death.
Other countries with non-fatal shark attacks included Indonesia (three), Mexico (three), Russia (three) and Brazil (two).
Three locations not normally associated with high numbers of shark attacks - Reunion, Seychelles and New Caledonia - registered a total of seven attacks with five fatal outcomes, according to George Burgess, an ichthyologist from the University of Florida.
Read more at theaustralian.com
Going public [on global warming] the next frontier for scientists
by Larry Pynn/Vancouver Sun/Feb. 14, 2012
------------------------------
Climate change scientist Andrew Weaver has paid a price for bringing his research to the public.
His University of Victoria office contains a Wall of Hate, filled with the "vitriolic diatribes" of people who can-not accept the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming.
One man even stood in front of UVic with a placard calling Weaver a "practising liar" over concerns the professor was interfering with the natural course of religion.
"He thinks that by talking about climate science people might change their behaviour, and ... you might prevent the Rapture from occurring, and that would be against God's will," Weaver said.
He adds that whether you are researching the mating habits of an insect or something more contentious - "climate physics, environ-mental monitoring, genetically modified foods, or even evolution" - there is one constant.
That is the importance of having people see your research.
"Scientists have a duty and responsibility to convey the outcomes of their research to those who ultimately fund it, which is the public."
Thousands of scientists gathering this week at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science know full well that doing the research is only the first step.
Getting your results accepted as public policy can be a much greater challenge.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Going+public+next+frontier+scientists/6149027/story.html#ixzz1mNL40OpX
------------------------------
Climate change scientist Andrew Weaver has paid a price for bringing his research to the public.
His University of Victoria office contains a Wall of Hate, filled with the "vitriolic diatribes" of people who can-not accept the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming.
One man even stood in front of UVic with a placard calling Weaver a "practising liar" over concerns the professor was interfering with the natural course of religion.
"He thinks that by talking about climate science people might change their behaviour, and ... you might prevent the Rapture from occurring, and that would be against God's will," Weaver said.
He adds that whether you are researching the mating habits of an insect or something more contentious - "climate physics, environ-mental monitoring, genetically modified foods, or even evolution" - there is one constant.
That is the importance of having people see your research.
"Scientists have a duty and responsibility to convey the outcomes of their research to those who ultimately fund it, which is the public."
Thousands of scientists gathering this week at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science know full well that doing the research is only the first step.
Getting your results accepted as public policy can be a much greater challenge.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Going+public+next+frontier+scientists/6149027/story.html#ixzz1mNL40OpX
Sixth great extinction underway
by Redding.com/Feb. 13, 2012
--------------------------
A catastrophe worse than climate change?
That is what scientists from University of Copenhagen are saying "after 100 researchers and policy experts from EU countries" gathered last month at the University of Copenhagen "to discuss how to organise the future UN Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES - an equivalent to the UN panel on climate change (IPCC)."
It is not a surprise to hear that "Biodiversity is declining rapidly throughout the world," but the idea that this issue is "perhaps even larger than mitigating the negative effects of global climate change," is deeply disturbing.
Mother Jones did a great story on this issue a few years ago, writing, "By the end of the century, half of all species on Earth may be extinct due to global warming and other causes. Who will survive the world's dwindling biodiversity, and why?"
This is from an article in 2007 from The Independent:
"By the most conservative measure - based on the last century's recorded extinctions - the current rate of extinction is 100 times the background rate. But the eminent Harvard biologist Edward O Wilson, and other scientists, estimate that the true rate is more like 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate."
"Somewhere between 2.7 and 270 species are erased from existence every day. Including today."
Read more at Redding.com
--------------------------
A catastrophe worse than climate change?
That is what scientists from University of Copenhagen are saying "after 100 researchers and policy experts from EU countries" gathered last month at the University of Copenhagen "to discuss how to organise the future UN Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES - an equivalent to the UN panel on climate change (IPCC)."
It is not a surprise to hear that "Biodiversity is declining rapidly throughout the world," but the idea that this issue is "perhaps even larger than mitigating the negative effects of global climate change," is deeply disturbing.
Mother Jones did a great story on this issue a few years ago, writing, "By the end of the century, half of all species on Earth may be extinct due to global warming and other causes. Who will survive the world's dwindling biodiversity, and why?"
This is from an article in 2007 from The Independent:
"By the most conservative measure - based on the last century's recorded extinctions - the current rate of extinction is 100 times the background rate. But the eminent Harvard biologist Edward O Wilson, and other scientists, estimate that the true rate is more like 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate."
"Somewhere between 2.7 and 270 species are erased from existence every day. Including today."
Read more at Redding.com
Santorum’s well-compensated love of fracking
by David Sirota/Salon/Feb. 13, 2012
---------------------------
If any state was going to produce a Republican who might understand the dangers of unbridled oil and gas drilling — and specifically, of the drilling process known as “fracking” — you would think it would be Pennsylvania.
The state, after all, is the home of Dimock, a town near the crucial Delaware River watershed that has become the Erin Brockovich-worthy example of what can go wrong when fracking goes completely unregulated. As Vanity Fair reported in its shocking 2010 expose of the situation, Dimock is “the place where, over the past two years, people’s water started turning brown and making them sick, one woman’s water well spontaneously combusted, and horses and pets mysteriously began to lose their hair.” Similarly, the state has most recently seen a massive fracking blowout in Canton — one in which the Environmental Protection Agency subsequently found evidence of contaminated groundwater. And it is the state where a landmark Duke University study found “evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction.”
So when former Pennsylvania senator turned Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum late last week cited his roots in the Keystone State as reason to support more fracking and oppose any regulation of the process, it provided a disturbing example of the power of Big Money over our political system.
To review: In an Oklahoma speech last week, Santorum said, “I come from Pennsylvania [where] we’re doing a little bit of [fracking] in Pennsylvania, thank God.” He then went on to say fracking is “the new boogeyman” — the “new way [for environmentalists] to try to scare you [by] saying, ‘Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s going to happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff.’ Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen.”
Read more at Salon
---------------------------
If any state was going to produce a Republican who might understand the dangers of unbridled oil and gas drilling — and specifically, of the drilling process known as “fracking” — you would think it would be Pennsylvania.
The state, after all, is the home of Dimock, a town near the crucial Delaware River watershed that has become the Erin Brockovich-worthy example of what can go wrong when fracking goes completely unregulated. As Vanity Fair reported in its shocking 2010 expose of the situation, Dimock is “the place where, over the past two years, people’s water started turning brown and making them sick, one woman’s water well spontaneously combusted, and horses and pets mysteriously began to lose their hair.” Similarly, the state has most recently seen a massive fracking blowout in Canton — one in which the Environmental Protection Agency subsequently found evidence of contaminated groundwater. And it is the state where a landmark Duke University study found “evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction.”
So when former Pennsylvania senator turned Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum late last week cited his roots in the Keystone State as reason to support more fracking and oppose any regulation of the process, it provided a disturbing example of the power of Big Money over our political system.
To review: In an Oklahoma speech last week, Santorum said, “I come from Pennsylvania [where] we’re doing a little bit of [fracking] in Pennsylvania, thank God.” He then went on to say fracking is “the new boogeyman” — the “new way [for environmentalists] to try to scare you [by] saying, ‘Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s going to happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff.’ Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen.”
Read more at Salon
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wikipedia Favorite: Debunker
Debunker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A debunker is a person who attempts to discredit and contradict claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "debunk" is defined as 1. Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). 2. Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes". If debunkers are not careful, their communications may backfire – increasing an audience's long term belief in myths. Backfire effects can occur if a message spends too much time on the negative case, if it is too complex, or if the message is threatening.[2]
Read more at Wikipedia
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "debunk" is defined as 1. Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). 2. Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes". If debunkers are not careful, their communications may backfire – increasing an audience's long term belief in myths. Backfire effects can occur if a message spends too much time on the negative case, if it is too complex, or if the message is threatening.[2]
Read more at Wikipedia
Climate change is here to stay – for centuries
by UCLA Today/2012
-----------------------
-----------------------
There is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the world is locked into at least a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit global temperature increase that will last for millennia, according to a new report released by the National Research Council.
Marilyn Raphael, a UCLA geography professor who helped write the report from the National Academy of Sciences, said the implications were sometimes frightening even to her committee of mostly experts from government and academic institutions who teamed up to develop "Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia." The team collected previously published scientific reports to compile their report on climate change.
"I think most of us were really taken aback by the length of time that we're locked into climate change," Raphael said. "Previously the conversation has been about the next generation or two, but now we're looking at millennia. It's sobering and a little frightening."
To prevent the global average temperature from increasing more than 3.6 degrees, carbon dioxide emissions would have to be reduced by 80 percent now, the report said. "I think you'll agree, that's not likely to happen," Raphael said.
So, not to put too fine a point on it, but is the world screwed?
"Yes. We're locked into a temperature change," she said. "It doesn't mean we give up or lose hope. On a personal level, it does make me think about personal choices I can make to reduce my carbon footprint."
As the world's population continues to emit CO2, it will be locked into higher and higher temperature increases, the report explained. But the sooner emissions are reduced, the authors wrote, the sooner that temperature climb will level off, or stabilize. "Stabilization" doesn't mean the world will cool back down – it will just stop getting hotter, Raphael explained.
Because carbon dioxide takes so long to dissipate from the atmosphere, the current levels of CO2 are going to be with us for thousands of years, no matter how much people reduce their emissions, the report said. Today's CO2 measurements – 390 parts per million – will culminate in a 2-degree Celsius, or 3.6 F, increase in the Earth's average temperature, Raphael said.
"That doesn't sound like much, but it will change things," she said. "Think of the warmest summer you've experienced in your lifetime. You can expect that to become the norm for summer."
As the world's average temperature rises, the report found that for each degree Celsius:
- The Mediterranean, the southwestern U.S. and southern Africa will face 5-10 percent less rainfall;
- Arctic sea ice will melt 15-25 percent;
- Alaska and other far-northern regions will face 3-10 percent increases in heavy rainfall;
- Food crops will falter by 5-15 percent;
- Rivers like the Rio Grande will dwindle 5-10 percent;
- Wildfires will consume two to four times as much land.
Tennesseans Evolved Thumbs After All
by Joseph Evans/Disinformation/Feb. 12, 2012
----------------------
People think Tennesseans are remarkably stupid. Like the late Bill Hicks, who continually mocked my state during his comedy routines. “In many parts of our troubled world, people are yelling ‘Revolution!’” he ranted. “In Tennessee they’re yelling ‘Evolution! We want our thumbs!!‘” Whenever Tool or A Perfect Circle would come to town, singer Maynard Keenan always asked Tennessee audiences to put their thumbs in the air. As we held our opposable digits over our heads, Keenan came with the punch line: “Just making sure you have them.” What can I say? Stereotypes are hilarious.
So it is without resentment that this Tennessean wishes Charles Darwin a happy 203rd birthday today. I would love to celebrate with a heapin’ helpin’ of chilled monkey brains, but ’round these parts that would require cannibalizing the locals.
Despite the creationists’ best efforts, Darwin’s theory of natural selection reigns as the unifying concept in biology, and continues to give wider context to such disparate fields as ecology, epidemiology, and psychology. E.O. Wilson, the father of sociobiology, contends, “There is no question [that Darwin's] body of work, pivoted by The Origin of Species, is the most important scientific work of all time.”
Read more at Disinformation
----------------------
People think Tennesseans are remarkably stupid. Like the late Bill Hicks, who continually mocked my state during his comedy routines. “In many parts of our troubled world, people are yelling ‘Revolution!’” he ranted. “In Tennessee they’re yelling ‘Evolution! We want our thumbs!!‘” Whenever Tool or A Perfect Circle would come to town, singer Maynard Keenan always asked Tennessee audiences to put their thumbs in the air. As we held our opposable digits over our heads, Keenan came with the punch line: “Just making sure you have them.” What can I say? Stereotypes are hilarious.
So it is without resentment that this Tennessean wishes Charles Darwin a happy 203rd birthday today. I would love to celebrate with a heapin’ helpin’ of chilled monkey brains, but ’round these parts that would require cannibalizing the locals.
Despite the creationists’ best efforts, Darwin’s theory of natural selection reigns as the unifying concept in biology, and continues to give wider context to such disparate fields as ecology, epidemiology, and psychology. E.O. Wilson, the father of sociobiology, contends, “There is no question [that Darwin's] body of work, pivoted by The Origin of Species, is the most important scientific work of all time.”
Read more at Disinformation
Soil erosion increases global warming
by News24/Feb. 13, 2012
------------------
London - Global warming will get worse as agricultural methods accelerate the rate of soil erosion, which depletes the amount of carbon the soil is able to store, a United Nations' Environment Programme report said on Monday.
Soil contains huge quantities of carbon in the form of organic matter which provides nutrients for plant growth and improves soil fertility and water movement.
The top metre of soil alone stores around 2 200 billion tons of carbon, which is three times the level currently held in the atmosphere, said the UNEP Year Book 2012.
"Soil carbon is easily lost but difficult to rebuild," the report said.
"Soil carbon stocks are highly vulnerable to human activities. They decrease significantly [and often rapidly] in response to changes in land cover and land use such as deforestation, urban development and increased tillage, and as a result of unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices."
Such activities can break down soil's organic matter. When this happens, some carbon is converted to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is one of the main contributors to global warming, and it is lost from the soil.
Around 24% of global land has already suffered from declines in health and productivity over the past quarter of a century due to unsustainable land use, UNEP said.
Some 60% of carbon stored in soils and vegetation was lost as a result of land use changes, such as clearing land for agriculture and cities, since the 19th century.
Read more at News24
------------------
London - Global warming will get worse as agricultural methods accelerate the rate of soil erosion, which depletes the amount of carbon the soil is able to store, a United Nations' Environment Programme report said on Monday.
Soil contains huge quantities of carbon in the form of organic matter which provides nutrients for plant growth and improves soil fertility and water movement.
The top metre of soil alone stores around 2 200 billion tons of carbon, which is three times the level currently held in the atmosphere, said the UNEP Year Book 2012.
"Soil carbon is easily lost but difficult to rebuild," the report said.
"Soil carbon stocks are highly vulnerable to human activities. They decrease significantly [and often rapidly] in response to changes in land cover and land use such as deforestation, urban development and increased tillage, and as a result of unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices."
Such activities can break down soil's organic matter. When this happens, some carbon is converted to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is one of the main contributors to global warming, and it is lost from the soil.
Around 24% of global land has already suffered from declines in health and productivity over the past quarter of a century due to unsustainable land use, UNEP said.
Some 60% of carbon stored in soils and vegetation was lost as a result of land use changes, such as clearing land for agriculture and cities, since the 19th century.
Read more at News24
Arctic warms to highest level yet as researchers fear tipping points
by Jeremy Hance/Mongabay/Feb. 13, 2012
---------------------
---------------------
Texas Drought 2012: An Update from UT
by John Nielsen-Gammon/Climate Abyss/Feb. 2012
-------------------------
John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist, Texas A&M University
Overall, drought conditions have improved since September. But only in the north-central and eastern parts of the state have large reservoirs seen water storage increase by more than 5% of capacity. Much of the rest of the state has not seen improvement in reservoir levels, and a few major reservoirs in the western half of the state remain dry.
The Climate Prediction Center is calling for enhanced chances of below-normal rainfall through spring, which is a problem since May is the most important month for rainflow and reservoir replenishment. In the summer, the odds favor above-normal temperatures, which would imply increased water demand and increased lake evaporation. Thus, there will continue to be water supply issues across most of the state through summer.
On the longer term, there’s nearly a 50% chance of a third La Nina, and the longer-term sea surface temperature patterns will continue to favor drought for another several years. Climate change does not seem to be reducing rainfall, but the ever-increasing temperatures will continue to increase evaporation so future water won’t go nearly as far as before.
Read more at Climate Abyss
-------------------------
John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist, Texas A&M University
Overall, drought conditions have improved since September. But only in the north-central and eastern parts of the state have large reservoirs seen water storage increase by more than 5% of capacity. Much of the rest of the state has not seen improvement in reservoir levels, and a few major reservoirs in the western half of the state remain dry.
The Climate Prediction Center is calling for enhanced chances of below-normal rainfall through spring, which is a problem since May is the most important month for rainflow and reservoir replenishment. In the summer, the odds favor above-normal temperatures, which would imply increased water demand and increased lake evaporation. Thus, there will continue to be water supply issues across most of the state through summer.
On the longer term, there’s nearly a 50% chance of a third La Nina, and the longer-term sea surface temperature patterns will continue to favor drought for another several years. Climate change does not seem to be reducing rainfall, but the ever-increasing temperatures will continue to increase evaporation so future water won’t go nearly as far as before.
Read more at Climate Abyss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)