Skip to content Skip to site navigation

Coby Beck's Posts

Comments

Bunk from Beck

Real Climate tears apart another fraudulent presentation from E. G. Beck

Over at RealClimate today, they present and debunk another fraudulent reconstruction from German school-teacher-plays-skeptic-scientist E. G. Beck. First it was his groundbreaking (as in stick your head in the sand) work on CO2; now he turns his attention to temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. When bad science still doesn't get the result you want, why not spice it up with a bit of plain and simple fraud?

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

Poll finds worldwide agreement that climate change is a threat

Public divided over whether costly steps are needed

From the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA): An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem. This majority, however, divides over whether the problem of global warming is urgent enough to require immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts are sufficient. Read the rest at their website. One data point: 39 percent of Americans think global warming is an important threat, 46 percent think it is a critical threat, only 17 percent think it is not important at all.

Read more: Uncategorized

Comments

Some apropos words

This Bertrand Russell quote seems relevant to today’s climate debates

This quote from Bertrand Russell just caught my eye: When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. I think the climate change deniers would do very well to keep this in mind. And putting near certainties aside, in risk management dealing with extremely negative possible outcomes, even great uncertainty is simply not your friend. Would you board a plane when the mechanic tells you, "I'm 95 percent sure the engines will not fail?" Tim Lambert notes, among other things, that Bjorn Lomborg thinks that is …

Read more: Uncategorized

Comments

Whitehouse.gov search engine has blinders on

Search for ‘global warming’ to no avail

Check out a post from James Annan, who details how, out of 438 documents on Whitehouse.gov the contain the phrase "global warming," only a single one is returned when using the Whitehouse.gov search engine. Color me stupefied. It's almost like they are trying to hide something. On purpose even. Who'da thunk it? [Update] As most of you probably know, this may be one of those "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" moments. (see more detailed update here). I'd have to say that in analyzing the current Whitehouse policy on just about anything, figuring out which it …

Read more: Uncategorized

Comments

Global warming news: Jan 28, 2007

In case you thought Sundays were lazy!

Be sure to check out this week's compilation of global warming news, brought to you by H. E. Taylor each week via A Few Things Ill Considered. It is quite comprehensive, so if 300+ links intimidate you, here are a few highlights: 2007/01/24: PlanetArk: UN Climate Change Panel to Issue Report Feb. 2 2007/01/23: TruthOut: Experts: Alps Glaciers Will Melt by 2050 Wiki: Climate change and agriculture 2007/01/27: TreeHugger: The Guardian Reports Bush Administration Lobbying For Planetary Engineering: The Smoke & Mirrors Option First 2007/01/26: ASM: Microfossil Data Show Yucatan Impact Did Not Wipe out Dinosaurs [Deccan Traps triggered CO2 …

Read more: Uncategorized

Comments

'The U.S. is a net carbon sink'

Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The United States absorbs more CO2 into its land than it emits into the air. The world should be grateful. Answer: As often the case, at the heart of this talking point is a grain of truth. But it does not serve the purpose for which it's been enlisted. According to the U.S. Department of Energy land-use changes in the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 have resulted in a net absorption of CO2. But this is only true of natural CO2 -- the natural flux of CO2 …

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'

‘Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster’–Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people. Answer: Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong? You can not come to a rational decision about the reality of a danger by considering how hard it might be to avoid. First things first: understand that the problem is real and present. Once you acknowledge the necessity of addressing the problem, taking action suddenly become …

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

Global Warming on Enceladus

A bit of environmental art to soften the day

Seeing as Grist likes to bring humor to environmental issues, I figure, why not art? So here is a climate-change-debate-inspired bit of original digital art. It is entitled "Global Warming on Enceladus (v. 1)." Click on the above image for a higher resolution copy (approx. 440KB). Critiques are fearfully welcomed.

Read more: Uncategorized

Comments

'Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?'

China and India have joined Kyoto, they just have different obligations, as is morally appropriate

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Why should the U.S. join Kyoto while India and China haven't? Answer: The U.S. puts out more CO2 than any other nation on earth, including China and India, by a large margin. Considering the relative populations (a billion-plus each for China and India versus 300 million in the U.S.), per capita emissions in the U.S. are many times larger. This has been true for the past 100-plus years of CO2 pollution. For the U.S. to refuse to take any steps until India and China do the same …

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

‘Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing’–Kyoto is only in its first phase

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Kyoto treaty, even if fully implemented, would only save us about a tenth of a degree of future temperature rise many decades from now. What a waste of effort! You can see for yourself here at the Junk Science website. Answer: There are three big problems with this claim. First, it's a red herring. The purpose of Kyoto is to establish international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal. You may as well time …

Read more: Climate & Energy