A video came cycling around to me that provided gleeful evidence that the Climate Alarmists use sneaky methods to distort the information and make everyone shake in their boots because the world will end in less than 12 years. This guy, Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), even went so far as to create a tool to find the best point in any trend graph for best (mis)representing data.
As with many such reports, I would always like to find myself wrong, and to discover that I've become a Climate Alarmist for nothing. All that lost sleep, spending time developing business ideas and models that are both sustainable, politically viable, and profitable.
Sadly, Heller is simply a fraud. He used his own tool to make fun of activists, and to distract people from facts. Here is a great video by Mallan Baker that takes on a couple of Heller's debunk graphs to debunks the junk.
Why is Heller talking Continental US and pointing at specific US cities when we are talking GLOBAL warming. The US had some wicked hot years during the Dust Bowl, for example.
Wikipedia can be the best overview source for highly active and rapidly updated pages like these: Global Warming, Climate Change, Sustainability in general, and Climate Change Denial.
By now you know that everyone knows that there's global warming. Thermometers tend not to lie.
But I keep finding people who have been convinced that warming is not very much, or that it is a natural cycle to earth, or that humans are only responsible for a fraction of the warming we are experiencing.
Even the oil companies now acknowledge that there's global warming, but their business model is not conducive to any of the logical approaches to deal with the issue aggressively. In fact, according to internal documents, the oil companies have know for half a century that global warming was a byproduct of their product and hidden this from the public in order to protect their business-as-usual profits.
With current technology, we can easily measure the energy that comes from the sun, and the amount that is reflected back into space. All evidence shows global warming is happening, and at an accelerating pace. You can use lots of good data sources related to land, ocean, air, ice coverage, etc. Statistically, solar flares, volcanoes, El Nino and other major factors can be isolated; warming can easily be primarily attributed to human factors.
We don't have time to debunk the deniers, people and lobbyists who are paid by deep fossil interests. We need to go about becoming more sustainable, like as if our collective lives depend on it. Business-as-usual (oil, gas, coal) is unsustainable. Being unsustainable is something that must change, sooner or later. Being unsustainable has a way of becoming more and more expensive, and coming to an ungraceful end.
Fortunately, we will actually save money (i.e., more profits) from doing smart and sustainable things. Solar and Wind are now far cheaper than fossil fuels in most locations (even when combined with battery). Renewable energy is especially cheaper when considering all the externality costs of fossil fuels (pollution, health, national security).
Energy efficiency offers a perpetuity of savings. The greenest gallon of gas is the one never pumped, refined, shipped and burned. The greenest electricity is the negawatt. We also like Teleworking, the greenest commute is zero-distance which consumes no time.
Let's all start with those things that can be done immediately (within weeks or a few months) and those that offer a perpetuity of savings. We need to start putting the magic of compounding to our advantage, not toward more non-sustainable practices.
< * Notes & References * >
Wikipedia is a great source on Climate Change. Start with the Global Warming Book.
An excellent source for fact/fiction/myth is: SkepticalScience.com (I've never seen anything there that was not supported with sources and provable with current data.)
The log entry for Baker video:
A few days ago, noted Climate Change commentator Tony Heller released a
new video with some killer facts that completely exposes the conspiracy
over climate change.
Or does it?
Let’s discuss.
The Mallen Baker Show is aimed at all people who see themselves as
change makers, with commentary on issues and change movements with a
particular focus on climate change and environment, social issues, free
speech and corporate social responsibility.
References in this video:
Tony Heller’s original video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455K...
The National Climate Assessment Report
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/down...
Extreme heat and cold graphs
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicator...
Wildfires analysis
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpres...
Interview with Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC (in German)
https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verte...
Integrated sea ice graph
https://web.archive.org/web/201905241...
Piecing together the arctic sea ice history
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-pos...
Showing posts with label denier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denier. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Climate Leadership | Climate Leadership Plan | Alberta.ca
Climate Leadership | Climate Leadership Plan | Alberta.ca:
WOW.
On the eve of the humongous climate meetings in Paris next week (week after Thanksgiving in USA), Canada has stepped up to the plate on addressing climate changes.
Alberta is the home of Coal and Oil Sands: two of the great game changers in addressing pollution in general and Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG).
There are several reports, but one is to simply charge a tax per metric tonne (yes, I know that's the colourful way to spell ton) of CO2. The price will move up from $15 to $30 per ton of CO2 by 2019.
In electric generation, the big game changer is to switch away from coal in general.
By 2030 in Alberta, "There will be no pollution from coal-fired
electricity generation." The focus will be on reduce electrical needs and switching to NatGas and Renewables.
But for Alberta, capping and steadily reversing the oil sands is a very big game changer.
With the oil glut keeping oil prices down below $50 per barrel for the foreseeable future, Alberta should be ramping down oil production anyway. (I think oil sands requires $70 to $80 to be profitable.).
The Carbon Taxes will be used: to offset increased living costs for poorer people, to assist with transition to renewables and other research.
For those still skeptical about Global Warming: Look at the pix of Athabasca Glacier over 100 years (well 98 really). Or look at any pictures over 40 years related to Glacier Bay in Alaska. Or, just a little south from Alberta, give a look at Glacier National Park in Montana (soon to be renamed Glacier-Less National Park).
'via Blog this'
WOW.
On the eve of the humongous climate meetings in Paris next week (week after Thanksgiving in USA), Canada has stepped up to the plate on addressing climate changes.
Alberta is the home of Coal and Oil Sands: two of the great game changers in addressing pollution in general and Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG).
There are several reports, but one is to simply charge a tax per metric tonne (yes, I know that's the colourful way to spell ton) of CO2. The price will move up from $15 to $30 per ton of CO2 by 2019.
In electric generation, the big game changer is to switch away from coal in general.
By 2030 in Alberta, "There will be no pollution from coal-fired
electricity generation." The focus will be on reduce electrical needs and switching to NatGas and Renewables.
But for Alberta, capping and steadily reversing the oil sands is a very big game changer.
With the oil glut keeping oil prices down below $50 per barrel for the foreseeable future, Alberta should be ramping down oil production anyway. (I think oil sands requires $70 to $80 to be profitable.).
The Carbon Taxes will be used: to offset increased living costs for poorer people, to assist with transition to renewables and other research.
For those still skeptical about Global Warming: Look at the pix of Athabasca Glacier over 100 years (well 98 really). Or look at any pictures over 40 years related to Glacier Bay in Alaska. Or, just a little south from Alberta, give a look at Glacier National Park in Montana (soon to be renamed Glacier-Less National Park).
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer. - The Washington Post
Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer. - The Washington Post:
So lots of money used to confuse and misinform can go a long way if you want to make sure that no one knows the truth and no meaningful action is taken.
That brings us to Super PACs. They mostly lie, and always obfuscate the issues. Since there's no one responsible, they are free to throw mud and tar at will and at random.
Don't see how anything could go wrong with the political engines. Do you?
Misinform and misdirection works.
We all need to realize that and start propagating truths, not lies. The tools are at our fingertips (and keyboards).
'via Blog this'
So lots of money used to confuse and misinform can go a long way if you want to make sure that no one knows the truth and no meaningful action is taken.
That brings us to Super PACs. They mostly lie, and always obfuscate the issues. Since there's no one responsible, they are free to throw mud and tar at will and at random.
Don't see how anything could go wrong with the political engines. Do you?
Misinform and misdirection works.
We all need to realize that and start propagating truths, not lies. The tools are at our fingertips (and keyboards).
'via Blog this'
Friday, October 23, 2015
More than three in four Americans believe in global warming - UPI.com
More than three in four Americans believe in global warming - UPI.com:
Finally. Even republicans have shifted to a majority accepting climate change. This is not a party thing; this is a human thing.
Once people start to realize that the earth is warming. And that people are generally responsible.
There tends to be a some obvious actions that we all must do, soon or later.
Sustainability is a law of nature that it is hard to break. Ignore it at your own risk, and everyone else's risk at well.
We promote doing smarter things now to bend the curve on the human impact on the earth. It is a compounding (geometric or exponential) kind of thing. Small(er) changes now make a BIG difference over time. Business as usual (BAS) simply compounds the issues and the problems.
Currently, this is a year of El Nino, so the record temperatures for 2015 are on path to exceed last year's record "by a mile".
Related to global warming and El Nino, check out Hurricane Patricia, the strongest hurricane ever recorded. Ouch!..
So lest start a call to action doing those actions that will save consumers, businesses, governments money while simultaneously making us all more sustainable.
'via Blog this'
Finally. Even republicans have shifted to a majority accepting climate change. This is not a party thing; this is a human thing.
Once people start to realize that the earth is warming. And that people are generally responsible.
There tends to be a some obvious actions that we all must do, soon or later.
Sustainability is a law of nature that it is hard to break. Ignore it at your own risk, and everyone else's risk at well.
We promote doing smarter things now to bend the curve on the human impact on the earth. It is a compounding (geometric or exponential) kind of thing. Small(er) changes now make a BIG difference over time. Business as usual (BAS) simply compounds the issues and the problems.
Currently, this is a year of El Nino, so the record temperatures for 2015 are on path to exceed last year's record "by a mile".
Related to global warming and El Nino, check out Hurricane Patricia, the strongest hurricane ever recorded. Ouch!..
So lest start a call to action doing those actions that will save consumers, businesses, governments money while simultaneously making us all more sustainable.
'via Blog this'
Monday, February 16, 2015
Why science is so hard to believe... It's in the Kool-Aid - The Washington Post
Why science is so hard to believe - The Washington Post:
hit the nail on the head with this article.
Ever wonder why you can talk with otherwise intelligent people and you suddenly drop into the twilight zone. They suddenly are totally convinced that the earth is flat, and there's no arguing with them.Or they are totally convinced the fluoride in water is a horrible government conspiracy to ...
It is in the water. Or the Kool-Aid. Each group, tribe if you will, is drinking a different flavor. And you drink enough of it, the facts get a little wacky.!!!
This is a wonderful opinion letter.
Here also is a great article as well on the distrust of science by Americans. It includes Pew Research on the topic.
Hmmm....
Achenback argues against the idea of scientist taking a more proactive stance. He argues that when scientist step off of the ivory tower to wrestle in the mud of politics and public policy they get dirty-ugly like the rest of us. (Well, something kind of like that argument anyway.)
So, it appears, that many people only want to hear what they want to hear. If it doesn't match with their world view, then they switch to a channel that matches...
And so we have the world's most information rich environment, with exponentially more information available each decade, yet ignorance runs rampant. It is almost impossible to believe that such is possible. But it is.
For several years now I keep returning to the wise axioms of Rotary International. In the 4-way test, of all we say and do... "First, is it the truth?"
Ignoring the truth (ignoring the facts) has a nasty way of coming back around and biting you in the butt if/when you get it wrong.
We like to focus on sustainability. Things that are sustainable rather easy to view mathematically. Eating 4,000 calories per day, and burn only 2000, you are apt to gain weight. Burn 9m barrels of oil per day (42 gals each) pumping the hydro & carbons into the atmosphere and you are changing all kinds of things in the atmosphere (and environment). [These carbons have been sequestered in the earth for some 5 to 50 million years.] The resulting imbalances will have effects and side-effects. Guaranteed. Predicting them accurately may not be easy. Assuming that doing non-sustainable things won't cause a problem because they never caused a problem before, has some very serious logic flaws.
So, let's all move away from the flavored waters and start seeking out the crystal clear true of the facts and the issues. We'll all have a healthier outlook, and healthier teeth as well.
'via Blog this'
hit the nail on the head with this article.
Ever wonder why you can talk with otherwise intelligent people and you suddenly drop into the twilight zone. They suddenly are totally convinced that the earth is flat, and there's no arguing with them.Or they are totally convinced the fluoride in water is a horrible government conspiracy to ...
It is in the water. Or the Kool-Aid. Each group, tribe if you will, is drinking a different flavor. And you drink enough of it, the facts get a little wacky.!!!
This is a wonderful opinion letter.
Here also is a great article as well on the distrust of science by Americans. It includes Pew Research on the topic.
Hmmm....
Achenback argues against the idea of scientist taking a more proactive stance. He argues that when scientist step off of the ivory tower to wrestle in the mud of politics and public policy they get dirty-ugly like the rest of us. (Well, something kind of like that argument anyway.)
So, it appears, that many people only want to hear what they want to hear. If it doesn't match with their world view, then they switch to a channel that matches...
And so we have the world's most information rich environment, with exponentially more information available each decade, yet ignorance runs rampant. It is almost impossible to believe that such is possible. But it is.
For several years now I keep returning to the wise axioms of Rotary International. In the 4-way test, of all we say and do... "First, is it the truth?"
Ignoring the truth (ignoring the facts) has a nasty way of coming back around and biting you in the butt if/when you get it wrong.
We like to focus on sustainability. Things that are sustainable rather easy to view mathematically. Eating 4,000 calories per day, and burn only 2000, you are apt to gain weight. Burn 9m barrels of oil per day (42 gals each) pumping the hydro & carbons into the atmosphere and you are changing all kinds of things in the atmosphere (and environment). [These carbons have been sequestered in the earth for some 5 to 50 million years.] The resulting imbalances will have effects and side-effects. Guaranteed. Predicting them accurately may not be easy. Assuming that doing non-sustainable things won't cause a problem because they never caused a problem before, has some very serious logic flaws.
So, let's all move away from the flavored waters and start seeking out the crystal clear true of the facts and the issues. We'll all have a healthier outlook, and healthier teeth as well.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change
Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
Monday, January 9, 2012
Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?: Scientific American
Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?: Scientific American:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
I came upon this as I was building a WikiBook on Sustainability and Climate change.
Wikipedia has a great coverage of Climate Change and it includes this great article.
It is interesting how we Americans are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a low(er) carbon world. Much of the rest of the developed world has been working on lower emissions for more than a decade, since the Kyoto protocol.
But the psychology (sociology really) is interesting...
Painfully interesting:-(
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real - Yahoo! News
Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real - Yahoo! News: "Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels."
So the long-term denier Muller has finally decided that there really is global worming. Duh.
At least as important is that the funding is by Koch Foundation. It looks like they will stand behind the findings and push on for more research as to the cause of global warming.
Apparently Muller has a presentation on Monday and is preparing for peer-review publication of 4 articles on the research.
That is why I really like approaching the whole issue from the perspective of "Sustainability". If it can't be done in the long term (like population growth, deficits, fossil fuels) then it is not sustainable. We/you/me have to start planning to change our evil ways, now at a time of our choosing... or later at a time that is much less convenient and likely far more expensive. Ouch! or Double Ouch!:-(
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)