Latest Articles

‘Global warming is a hoax’–I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax …

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.).

This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered.

Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

Dams squeeze methane out of river water

There is a major controversy brewing on how carbon neutral large scale hydroelectricity really is. It has been known for a long time that dams emit both methane and CO2. The question has always been, how much of those emission are net? According to the International Rivers Network (PDF), studies by ecologist Philip Fearnside of the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) have shown that net methane emissions from hydropower are slightly higher than those from burning natural gas.

‘Some sites show cooling’–But you can’t draw global conclusions from individual sites

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Some stations, in the U.S. for example, show cooling trends. If there were really global warming, it would be warming everywhere.

Answer: Global warming is the long-term increase in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures. It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions on the planet, let alone all weather stations, will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns. Many stations have shown cooling, and some small regions have shown modest cooling as well. This does not invalidate global warming theory; it is merely the result of regional variation, and an example of how varied and complex the climate system is.

(source: NASA)

An op-ed in a UK paper

An opinion piece in The Independent argues that carbon trading is not the most effective way to reduce emissions, and is in fact counterproductive.

I've been known to make this argument myself, so I'm glad to see it in a major UK paper. (It will be quite a wait before we see it in major U.S. media.)

How much can we or should we limit our food imports?

Continued from last week ...

Soon, it's hairnet time. We pass through the double doors that separate the break room from the plant itself. The building looks big enough to hold several jumbo jets, and is divided into a tasting area, a storage area that holds the green as-yet-unroasted beans that arrive at Equal Exchange in burlap bags, and a roasting area featuring an enormous red roaster.

The green, unroasted beans are dumped into one of eight hoppers, then mixed at the roaster's discretion so they achieve the right blend of beans for the type of coffee being roasted that day. The entire contraption is controlled by a modest laptop computer, lending the whole endeavor a kind of mad-scientist feeling, like those giant weather-changing machines movie villains use to hold the world hostage.

On the other side of the plant are rows and rows of beans that have been bagged for delivery to stores and other retail customers. The sheer quantity of coffee is overwhelming. Rodney explains how quickly and dramatically Equal Exchange has grown: Over its 20 years, the co-op has grown on average more than 30% annually, and since just 2002 it has doubled to its current size of $23 million.

Animal rights and environmentalism should stay separate

I was going to write a post on animal rights a few months ago but thought better of it. I changed my mind and fluffed up what I had written in order to supplement (but not invalidate) the discussion initiated by Jason over here.

Environmentalism and animal rights should remain separate groups. Their interests, though sometimes related and even mutually beneficial, are just as often too disparate for a harmonious union. For example, hunters can make powerful conservationists (conservation being a major branch of environmentalism), but hunters and animal-rights activists mix worse than oil and water.

This article makes mention of the hundreds of thousands of goats that have finally been eliminated from the Galapagos Islands. By eliminated I mean: they were shot. Had an organized and well-funded animal-rights campaign arisen, accomplishing that task might have taken much longer, or cost a great deal more. Or it might not have happened at all. I use these goats as an analogy for the horse roundup mentioned in Jason's article. Both species of domesticated animal are the result of many thousands of years of genetic engineering by human beings to produce an animal of use to them. Neither has a place in the wild. The ecosystems they evolved in are human-generated.

Amusing

From Overheard at the Office:

Employee #1: It's them damn environmentalists that make the gas prices so high.

Employee #2: Yeah, those morons won't let us drill for oil anywhere. They're what's wrong with this country.

Employee #1: Yeah, them and the French.

North 6th Street
Gainesville, Florida

Overheard by: Environmentalist

Diversity is strength

What is environmentalism? If you ask five people you may get five distinct answers. Some think this is a big problem; I disagree.

‘Climate sensitivity is not very high’–Thermal inertia of the oceans means the jury is still out

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature, the 35 percent increase we have already seen in CO2 concentrations represents about three-quarters of the total forcing to be expected from a CO2 doubling. Since we have warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far, we should only expect about 0.3 degrees more for a doubling from pre-industrial levels, so about 1 degree total, not 3 degrees as the scientists predict. Clearly the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is much too high.

Answer: Even without addressing the numbers in this argument, there is a fundamental flaw in its reasoning.

Italian smog gets eaten

It sounds almost too good to be true, but an Italian cement manufacturer has managed to develop a pollution-degrading concrete. The technology, dubbed "TX Active," breaks down air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, benzene, and others through a natural chemical process called photocatalysis.

In areas where streets have been repaved with the compound, nitric oxides have been measured at 45-60% below normal. And in addition to being good for the ambient air, TX Active building facades stay gleaming white longer -- since the compound breaks down pollutants, it also prevents grimy buildup.