A pedal-tastic roundup

On a personal new year's note, I can't help but mention the only-months-old but hopelessly addictive new habit I know I'll be nursing throughout the year: mountain biking at night.

No idea why I only started doing this recently, and in the winter no less, but there you go. And since I splurged on a set of burly studded mountain-bike tires that should be arriving any day now, snow and ice riding on both trail and street at all hours are up next. That, and on snowmobile trails.

Any others out there who want to join the ranks of proud all-weather winter cyclists, check out this excellent website. And for night riders on road or trail, I can't say enough good things about NiteRider Trail Rat headlights. For best results, get at least one extra battery (I have three extras) and maybe a fast recharger. Combine with a $30 LED headlamp for the best night cycling around.

Now for the news:

Where We’re Going, We Don’t Need Science

U.S. EPA shifts pollutant-review process, mixing policy with science The U.S. EPA continues to suck Big Oil’s dipstick: Yesterday, the...

Robert Novak does it on purpose

A recent Gristmill post discussed an op-ed by Robert Novak on climate change.

One argument Novak makes against environmental regulations is that they're extremely expensive. Turns out when Novak's not outing CIA agents, he's getting his facts wrong.

Novak says:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that [the McCain-Lieberman climate bill] would reduce gross domestic product by $776 billion annually.

However, if you read the report he quotes you'll see that $776 billion is the cumulative and undiscounted cost of the program. $776 billion is not the cost per year.

The report actually says:

An environmental-justice advocate responds to the biofuels boom

I am very excited to see this Grist series, because I am a biodiesel user. I am also very worried...

It muddles the science and policy debates together

The darling of the the climate blogosphere for the last two days is an article by Andy Revkin on the silent middle ground in the climate debate. Since I am nothing if not a blogosheep, I felt compelled to follow the pack and weigh in.

The problem I have with the article is that it confuses two separate debates, one scientific (is climate change real?) and one value-based (what should we do about it?). By putting these two issues into the blender, the article confuses rather than clarifies.

Let's consider the first question: is climate change real?

A Green Party

Midterm election results find U.S. environmentalists hopeful Whew, what a night. Environmentalists of all stripes hailed this year’s election results,...

‘Mars and Pluto are warming too’–No they aren’t — and what if they were?

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

Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming.

Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.

The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change.

It’s likely not the primary cause

In climate change debates, one hears a lot about the Sun. A favorite argument of those opposed to action is that the warming we're presently experiencing is due to increases in solar output, also known as solar brightening, and not from greenhouse gases.

Before critiquing this argument, first remember what the IPCC says about human contribution to climate change:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Note that the IPCC says most of the recent warming is due to human activities. This leaves as much as 50% of the recent warming not attributed to humans.

It is certainly possible -- and fully consistent with the IPCC -- for solar to have contributed some part of the warming we are experiencing.

The real question is whether solar brightening could be the dominant cause of the recent warming, with humans playing a minor role. That is unlikely, for the following reasons:

‘Hansen has been wrong before’–Maybe, but not about the climate!

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

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.