Why I don't trust polls

From The New Internationalist site:

 

Environazis

There is a sort of smugness that comes from living a green lifestyle, but these are the people who go the extra 10 (100?) kilometres toward "reducing their carbon footprint". Somehow, they manage to make you feel like you are living an environmentally unfriendly lifestyle because you:

* Don't go on holiday via astral projection (reducing your Carbon Footprint by not driving a car or, even worse, flying)
* boil the water in the electric kettle more than once (these people even have solar powered kettles).
* have any non-compact florescent bulbs in your house
* your form of transportation has any connection to fossil fuels or electricity (even if it's electric or a bicycle--rubber on the tyres)
* you throw anything into the trash and it isn't reused in some way.
* the food you ate required any energy to raise, transport, or what have you (you should photsyntesise instead of eat).
* Don't get your power from people on bicycles
* Even have a carbon footprint for that matter

I think you get the picture.

BBC's Bang Goes the Theory had an episode that was along this line called The Human Power Station. In this episode they powered a house for an entire day solely through human pedal power: while the unsuspecting family inside went about their normal Sunday routine. The clip below shows what happened when the father used an ELECTRIC SHOWER: malus malorum!



This programme rubbed in how wasteful our lifestyle is (yes, you who double boil that water!) by roasting a chicken with two 60 watt bulbs. Of course, watching 80 people pedal all day to power a house makes the point of how much energy we use. We don't realise how much literal power is needed to push our appliances. Bang did do this in a manner that was entertaining even if it did make you feel guilty for the incandescent bulbs in the fridge and cooker (do they have compact florescent bulbs (CFLs) for those yet?).

You might be able to download this episode here and it does make for fascinating viewing. Although, there were points when I wanted to roast the presenters on a solar cooker because they made me feel guilty for "wasting energy" by merely existing.

Now, I need to find some people willing to power our houses by bicycle.

The nightmare summit for the Climate

George Monbiot's take on the Mayor's Summit for the Climate. Boris Johnson is called the new face of Thatcherism, but I compare him to the Beano's Denis the Meanace. Boris is intensely likable as the video shows.

And willing to foil an attack on a woman with differing political views from feral kids! So much for armed resistance or the myth that the British "just stand by and watch". No, Boris swoops by on his bike to save the day! A conservative who endorsed Barack Obama with the praise "Unlike the current occupant of the White House, he has no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences, each containing a main verb (Telegraph Column, Oct 21, 2008)."

Why can't US Conservatives be like this? Instead, they have Sarah Palin!

Alas, I am sorry that Boris couldn't save the day in Copenhagen.

Goerge Monbiot said something interesting in his post This Is About Us: "The talks at Copenhagen are not just about climate change. They represent a battle to redefine humanity."

The summit’s premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accomodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow...

The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.

Quite true, the issue is no longer just about the climate and the environment, but how we cooperate with each other.

Society cannot function if there are no more laws making a return to the "laws of nature". Humans have removed nature from the world and created society. As George Mnbiot says "this a battle to redefine humanity, and they (the expanders/unrestrained) wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today."

Nohopenhagen

I knew that I was being far too optimistic that anything would come of this. How could anyone hope that the world's population could agree on anything no matter how much of a threat it is.

At least we cannot blame the US for screwing things up.

It seems the third world was far more of a problem. China engaged in fence post sitting to say it wasn't really developed and didn't have to reduce its emmissions.

Chinese Communism is a very weird thing. It's more like state capitalism. And it's gone insane.

I expect a "Yes, Minister" moment where they come up for a reason for the Secretary of the meeting quitting to be replaced by the Danish PM.

The only good point, Obama is limited to a three minute speech (as are the rest of the world's leaders). It would have been more fun to limit Bill Clinton to three minutes.

Climate Change

The latest Private Eye Cover. No further comment necessary.

Just in case you feel inclined to trust Monckton

George Monbiot, had a post published on the Guardian’s website, 10th December 2009 about Lord Monckton, the Climate Change Skeptic. This is a dude who believes that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government!

Needless to say, Monckton has joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Monbiot says this become the last refuge of a marvellous collection of cranks and fabulists. OK, I'll forgo the Ambrose Bierce thing here since you probably get my point.

Monckton delivered a speech in October to something called the Minnesota Free Market Institute where he said that:

• He has read the treaty that will be signed at Copenhagen next week. That's quite a feat of clairvoyance.
• The treaty says that "a world government is going to be created".
• Greenpeace is "about to impose a communist world government on the world" and President Obama, who sympathises with that aim, will sign up to it.

These are not the first of Viscount Monckton's interesting statements. He has claimed, in a letter to two US senators, that he is a member of the House of Lords.

Monckton says that he won the Falklands war for Britain by persuading the British government to use biological warfare. Gee, that's news to me since I was there (the Falklands).

Monckton said something in a Scotsman interview that indicates his casual attitude towards the truth:

"I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said, 'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No - I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't actually true. We sold shed-loads of extra puzzles and I made an handsome profit - and I sold the house as well."

this quote was reprinted at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/just_in_case_you_feel_inclined.php

Somebody say something about people being duped by climate skeptics?

Climate Change--More doing Sweet Fanny Adams

I have this weird feeling that Copenhagen will be just another clutter fuck.



Not that the Climate Skeptics will be the ones fucking things up, it seems that the third world wants more give from the developed nations. Of course, the Third World is correct. I mean Bangladesh is suffering from climate change. Maybe we should allow the displaced Bangladeshis to immigrate to the US. There are three reasons for this: one the US is partially responsible for nothing happening regarding global warming, they're muslims, and the US needs more Indian Restaurants.

OK, the last one is my bias for Indian food (which is probably another post) and most Indian Restaurants in the UK are owned by Bengalis (people from Bangladesh). Anyway, this quote from the Daily Kos got me going on this:

Immediately after a UK poll showed decreased belief in global warming, the government organized a billboard campaign to set the record straight. There has been silence from the U.S. government. However, the issues of intentional deception by global warming deniers to confuse and mislead the public about the existence of global warming and liability for damages are now before the courts in the 5th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

For some reason, the US has been controlled by the Carbon based energy industries (Coal and Petroleum) who have pretty much screwed up the debate on lots of issues I find dear (Public Transportation, alternative energy, and the environment). In particular, alternative energy industries need to be investigated. The US has been brainwashed that there will always be cheap fossil fuels, which will be another blow to its economy that will make the credit crisis look like the roaring 20s.

Let's say there are time when I wish I had a more important position in the world. But I look at my friends who do have these positions and say "fuck it". Especially when it comes to the United States.

Leadership in the United States requires quite a bit. Unless we are going to have a military take over. Not that I would mind that: Wes Clark as President, Paul Eaton as Secretary of Education, and a few others.

Seriously, one needs a thick skin since politics seems to require that one is a virginal saint, and I doubt some of them would qualify. "Ah, so you heard the voice of the Lord as you were tending your field...". Additionally, I think there is a serious need to educate the public. Although most US citizens seriously qualify as special needs children.

Yeah, even you people who listen to NPR! That's only slightly better than Fox news. If you aren't a member of your local station, you are contributing to the fact that it is beholden to "underwriters" which is a fancy way of saying advertisers. Or as the one person said during an extortathon: "You're a leech, you're taking our services without contributing." How unbiased is the info you get from NPR if its subsidised by something like the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation"? You think you're going to hear any anti-microsoft pieces? Tell me what's Ubuntu, you smug NPR listening oik?

Yeah, I like the BBC, but I listened to Radio Nederland during the last Iraq invasion! Speaking of Radio Nederland, They have a piece on Copenhagen: how to make your voice Heard! I may start listening to RNW again since NPR does suck.

Anyway, I have my blog to let off steam.

Sweet Fanny Adams = Fuck All

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Grist has a piece on how to deal with climate change skeptics. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

* Stages of Denial,
* Scientific Topics,
* Types of Argument, and
* Levels of Sophistication.

There is another version at Skeptical Science

You can take a test at National Geographic


Whatever, it's pretty obvious that global warming is happening, but some people will deny anything.



You can read the Economist Article, Climate change: Mail-strom (Nov 26th 2009) here. There is a related Economist article--Climate change: A heated debate (Nov 26th 2009) as well that you can read here.

You can find refutation material about "SwiftHack" here.

Another method is in this super video, but you need to watch it all the way through.


Just remember what Douglas Adams said in "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

People who argue that black is white get killed at the first zebra crossing

It's not easy being green!

Just in time for the Copenhagen Summit.


Let's start with my carbon footprint. I have no effing idea what exactly the number is! I assume it's low since Ilive an environmntally friendly lifestyle. It was small when I estimated it.

I no longer have a car. I'd love to say it was due to various green reasons. In reality, I did that after it was broken into in an allegedly secure garage. Although, various other green reasons (convenience of public transportation, cost of running the thing, the fact that I usually walk, and so on) did factor in to the decision.

I recycle so much that my house feels a bit like Alice's Restaurant where they "didn't have to take out their garbage for a long time". Well, I have to, but I am recycling all this paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, and whatever else can be recycled.

I haven't flown in ages, preferring trains to planes. High speed trains are the thing anyway!

I am amazed that people can be scammed about Global Warming:

In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.

Anyway, it seems that James Hansen, who heads the earth sciences division of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, is critical of so-called "cap and trade" plans that would allow industries to continue burning fossil fuel as long as they offset their excesses by purchasing credits that would go to reducing carbon emissions elsewhere. He says that wouldn't do the trick. What needs to be done is a shift in the sources of energy production from carbon based (coal and petroleum) to renewable sources. "Energy isn't the problem, carbon is the problem."

The science behind climate change isn’t a fad and it isn’t new. You might be surprised that it started back with Joseph Fourier. Of course, some people doubt evolution as well: "It's just a theory".

This video is super, but you need to watch it all the way through.


Hey, I've supported the Centre for Alternative Technology for nearly 30 years! I am sorry thet The Earth Centre in Doncaster is no longer fucntioning as a similar site. The Earth Centre's most famous bit was that it appeared in the remade version of the BBC television series Survivors (2008 & 2009). I wish that alternative and ecology education centres were much more common.

Anyway, it seems that a lot of people are dragging their feet on the environmental movement because they are being conned by a highly charged right wing media machine. Contrarians employ such rhetorical devices such as arguing that the “science is settled” (what science is ever settled?). They are pushing public policy solutions that ignore the unsettled parts of the science namely all the uncertainties around the scope and net impact of AGW and downplay the tremendous costs and risks associated with such policies and the highly debatable long term benefits of keeping the environmental status quo.

Anyway, I haven't been too impressed with the US leadership, in particular, Barack Obama. The British government has been slightly better. For some reason, the right wing fringe elements are not as powerful in the UK as they are in the US (Lord Monckton aside. But the whole world needs to get on board here as the future of the planet is at stake.

Just in time for Copenhagen

>

George Monbiot has a super piece called The Real Climate Scandal:

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence which could possibly be disputed - the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents - the evidence for manmade global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the earth’s orbit, doesn’t explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed - no science ever is - but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for manmade global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to AIDS.

I'm not sure who introduced me to George, but thank you. His columns are super. I may have picked him up from the Guardian or Andrew could have turned me on to him.

I'm glad George's still alive!