Climate & Energy

They blinded me with bad science

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?

I don't believe 'em. But should you? You can't read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago, so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it. But some of the comments in my recent post "The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP" can't seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists from the University of Alabama in Huntsville who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere. In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of my posts, let's see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong -- dead wrong -- for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths: that the satellite data didn't show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday: conference call

As he told Grist readers earlier this year, Bill McKibben is kicking off a new campaign based around the number 350 — as in 350 parts-per-million of CO2 in the atmosphere, the level scientists like …

How to explain peak oil to everybody (even Paris Hilton)

Target your peak oil message to your audience

  Photo: Eric Neitzel/WireImage. Peak oil is all over the place. The cover of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, you name it. The peak has tipped into the consciousness of the world. And those of us who were aware before are going to be fielding some questions. So it pays to have a response ready for the latecomers.   It has occurred to me that there must be a simple way of explaining peak oil to everyone -- but most solutions have concentrated on creating a single simple method of explaining peak oil, when what is needed is a highly specialized approach, designed to help people grasp the issue in the most basic terms imaginable. Being a helpful sort, I have undertaken to provide those explanations. Thus, all you need to do is evaluate the person you are explaining things too, and from there, insert the proper explanation, using my handy list. If the person is a lot like Homer Simpson: The way to explain it is: "Beer comes from oil. You use oil to run tractor to grow barley. You use oil to run fermenting equipment. You use oil to ship beer to liquor store. You use gas, made from oil, to drive drunk to the store to get beer. No oil means no more beer -- ever."

Feds can dump more waste at Wash. Superfund site, says court

Washington State doesn’t have the right to refuse more dumping of radioactive waste at the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site, an appeals court ruled Wednesday. In 2004, nearly 70 percent of Washingtonians voted to keep …

Recycled Energy on NPR

Castens implement Phase II of global domination plan

On my morning commute, I always listen to music. Maybe two or three times in the last couple of years, I’ve listened to NPR instead, but it’s rare. This morning, though, on a whim, I …

World’s leading energy monitor worried about oil supply

Predictions that global oil supply will keep up with demand may be just plain wrong, says some peak-oil-preaching wacko the world’s leading energy monitor. The International Energy Agency is in the midst of its first …

Alaska will sue over polar-bear listing

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will sue the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species. “We believe that the listing was unwarranted and that it’s unprecedented to list …

The truth about no-till farming

It does not save carbon and is not a carbon offset

The list of very knowledgeable folk who still are pushing no-till farming as a greenhouse-gas mitigation strategy -- even though science passed them by a while ago -- includes: Sen. John McCain Princeton University* [PDF] The Chicago Climate Exchange [PDF] The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions [PDF] I buried the science in the McCain post, but it deserves higher visibility. As a major review article [PDF] from Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, "Tillage and soil carbon sequestration -- What do we really know?" concluded:


Wall Street Journal editorial mischaracterizes both my position and biofuels

To my surprise, on Tuesday I found myself cited by the Wall Street Journal as a strong advocate of subsidies for food-based ethanol, and as a recipient of "federal dole" who ought to "take a vow of embarrassed silence." While I appreciate the Journal's foray into fiction writing (and I'd love to discuss my status on the dole with my accountant, who recently filed my taxes), I would like to clarify a few facts and offer a more rounded view of biofuels and ethanol in general. A few facts:

Got 2.7 seconds?

We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.