Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under climatechange...

The infamous hacked emails of some leading climate change proponents are making rounds across the world. I have read of the coverage and yes, of course it’s very difficult to estimate what really has gone on when we only have access to some out of context emails. However, I have serious problems in understanding the reaction of the very people whose comments have been revealed. It is as if they were a case study of “What Not To Do When A Crisis Hits You” –book.

The resistance of some scientists to come open with their data and research, because of the way in which the hint of a wrongdoing was found, is as if a confectionary company denied any risks to public when a shoplifter is admitted to hospital care after being poisoned by a stolen chocolate bar. This approach doesn’t stand any intellectual criticism and is, to say the least, odd.

The scientific method is based on peer reviews and transparency. It is based on exposing your version and interpretation on basis of published data for other to see and criticise. Transparency is not a simple trick, it isn’t about the spin. And it definitely shouldn’t be considered a threat. Transparency is the very reason that science has allowed us to get where we are today. We should be proud of it as a society and we should embrace it as we embrace democracy.

I personally feel disappointed to see that what we now almost consider the climate change dogma may partly be a result of inventive statistics and trickery, spin and threats against those who came up with alternative data, views and interpretation. It is not altogether surprising, but nevertheless, it saddens me.

The hacked climate change emails are a lesson not only to the scientific community but to us who communicate about complicated issues. We must be careful in our judgements, we should tell the whole truth, warts and all, if we want to progress and remain credible with our audiences. There are no double standards in transparency and in being honest.

Filed under: Climate Change

lostmoya says...

Perhaps when Copenhagen fails, it will help us to accept that our visions of the future are also skewed by false hope. The mainstream narrative on climate change decrees that if we can get the urgent political agreements in place, and produce enough turbines and electric cars quickly enough, we can "stabilise the climate" and carry on as before. It is a narrative built on an outdated faith in our reach and our technology, and it is rubbing up hard against the buffers of ecological reality.

We have pushed back the forests, denuded the oceans, exhausted the soil, tipped other species into extinction, expanded our population to the point where we can barely feed ourselves, and changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. There is no quick fix for this, and possibly no fix at all. Our systems are not designed for it. An economy predicated on constant growth cannot be the engine of a change that urgently demands less of it. Democracies predicated on giving their consumer citizens what they want are unable to tell them what they cannot have. And the psychology of a culture that reacts in horror to any pothole on the road to utopia is not well placed to take a different path.

Paul Kingsnorth (of Dark Mountain fame) says "stuff it", eloquently.

Filed under: climate change

Take the recent report from Deutsche Bank, entitled 'The Peak Oil Market: Price Dynamics at the End of the Oil Age'. This describes a world where the effect of failing global reserves is compounded by incoherent politics. If the US Government was honest about the cost of oil, for example, it would slap another 50c on a gallon of gasoline to pay the cost of the war in Iraq. Ludicrously, as global oil supplies dwindle, the increasingly precious part that remains is concentrated in the hands of those who give it away to their citizens for almost nothing – Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, Iran, Iraq.

Governments should be planning how best to manage the limited supply of oil sensibly, for the long-term, the bankers write:
'We believe, based on the history of the past decades, years, and months, that they will do the exact opposite.'

Deutsche Bank is trying to point out the end of the Petroleum era, and how to cope... but they're not expecting anyone to listen... how cynical... they're probably right :)

Filed under: climate change

Jim says...

Going! Going! GONE! tcot cotc ClimateChange teaparty redco gop conservative http://ping.fm/K7OhO

Filed under: ClimateChange

Jim says...

Obama says 'step closer' to climate deal. Can someone say, "hubris!" tcot cotc redco teaparty ClimateChange gop http://ping.fm/zq9C3

Filed under: ClimateChange

Andrew says...

Narrator

Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature's most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world's most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.

French Horn Fanfare Theme

Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor's window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals

Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!

Narrator

This is the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, home of one of the largest nesting populations of climate scientists in Europe.

Gentle ant's-eye scene of idyllic campus lawn, strewn about with drunken mating undergraduates

Each year it attracts magnificent migratory flocks of graduate students, adjuncts and visiting faculty from across the northern hemisphere.

Shots of jumbo jets landing at Heathrow; herds of climate researchers busily milling at Duty Free shops, retrieving baggage, phoning for prearranged limo service

Within minutes of arriving on campus, the migratory researchers approach the entrance of the Climate Research Unit and perform the secret credential dance, fiercely displaying their prominent curriculum vitae. This signals to the security drone that they can be trusted with the sacred electronic lanyard badge that will grant them entrance to the hive's inner sanctum.  

During the upcoming research season, this hive alone will produce over 6 million metric tons of grant-sustaining climate data guano, but until recently little was known about the elusive genus of homo scientifica living inside. Where do they come from? What strange force draws them here year after year? In order to unravel the mystery, Iowahawk Geographic documentary filmmaker David Burge undertook a painstaking one-week project to finally capture the climate researchers in their native habitat.

In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive's security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive's social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive's internal security tapes and email files. Success.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers

But there's a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive's Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher's instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University's Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

Like other species in the order homo scientifica, the climate researcher gathers and organizes data to lure grant money to the hive. In contrast to those other species, however, the climate researcher has evolved a set of complex violent behaviors to insure any data leaving the hive is perfectly adapted to nature's most lucrative and sweetest grants. It really is a marvel of natural selection, and explains why the climate researcher continues to thrive in any kind of weather condition....

READ THE REST... iowahawk.typepad.com

This piece is referring to the unfolding ClimateGate scandal. If you haven't heard about it yet, don't be surprised. Most media outlets talk about Anthropogenic (man-created) Global Warming (AGW) as if it is already established indisputable scientific fact.

I'm mostly skeptical of claims like this, not because I am a scientist, but because anytime "science" blends with politics - it inevitably becomes ideological (if you don't agree, you are bad), rather than scientific (if you don't agree, that's good. Curiosity about why things are the way they are, is the foundation of science). The fact that Al Gore is the chief proponent of AGW, should be a sign, not to just write off his opinion, but to at least approach the topic with a measure of skepticism. (Political alignment is irrelevant. If Al Gore were substituted with George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, it wouldn't make AGW one bit more or less true, or scientific.) Also, red flags seem especially appropriate whenever any 'science' a) claims to be "closed," or that the "debate is over," (For example - here's the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report which argues the opposite) or b) predicts doom and gloom on an apocalyptic scale... "unless..."

And I can't stress this point enough: Whether or not you agree that man is causing detrimental climate change is not the issue. The issue is that AGW has entered the political body and there is already legislation (Cap and Trade) on it being written which will cause drastic changes to our economy. And make no mistake - additional fees or taxes on companies to regulate their carbon emissions WILL have drastic effects. Most notably with regard to jobs, and the poor. Rising costs of energy and products, due to climate legislation will take a huge toll on people who are already hardest hit by lack of jobs and/or poverty.

If we are going to pass legislation in regard to AGW - we had better be absolutely certain that we know:

 

  1. Beyond a reasonable doubt - AGW is a Fact,
  2. How much the legislation will cost, 
  3. Who will pay for it?, and most importantly
  4. Will the legislation address the problem?

 

If AGW is just speculation - why would we need legislation? 

If the legislation will cost everyone a fortune (Important: remember the Seen vs. the Unseen), not just in jobs and rising costs, but also in restricting personal liberty - there must exist no possible alternative.

If the proposed political action will not fix the problem - but will instead dramatically damage the poor and unemployed - then it is an unscientific and irrational policy, and must be rejected.

Remember, once a law is passed to tax businesses or people for their carbon emissions - it is highly improbably that it will ever be repealed even if the 'scientific claims' on which it is based are disproven in the future. Governments do not readily give up taxes.

With that in mind, here's ClimateGate in a nutshell

Basically - some hackers got their hands on a ton of emails between a notable group of climate scientists who are leading the charge for the idea that man is causing climate change through carbon emissions (AGW). The emails reveal many disturbing things, from attempts to manipulate the data to fit their hypothesis, unlawful destruction (hiding) of data contrary to their position, and even spite against other scientists who disagree with their position.

Obviously - if this is true - then it is a big deal given everything we just discussed.

Here are some articles to get you started:

 

 

Filed under: climate change

Said.fm says...

Photo by Flickr/x-ray_delta_one

This talk from LSE, is an academic overview of the future design of cities in the context of climate change.  The speakers include Saskia Sassen, Richard Sennet and Jonathon Porritt, each providing their own insights on the topic.

As cities contribute up to 75 percent of total carbon emissions, this is a talk we should all listen to.  Saying that, I would save it for a time when you are highly alert (maybe even with a double espresso by your side!) as the speakers express themselves from a very theoretical point of view, sometimes lacking emotion.  If you do manage to get to the end of the talk, you will be rewarded by having a better understanding of the complex problems at play within this subject.  

LSE have a large archive of equally informative podcasts on critical topics, ranging from economics through to art and science.

Link to Podcast:

LSE Podcast: Cities, Design and Climate Change


Related Links:

LSE Podcasts

Saskia Sassen

Richard Sennet

Jonathon Porritt

Filed under: climate change

Filed under: climate.change

davidconnell says...

Originally found over at grist This is the epitome of truth in advertising. Humble Oil eventually made its way to being the not-so-humble Exxon and now produces enough energy to melt 914 tons of glacier per SECOND.

The ad copy reads in part:

Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier!
The giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries. Yet the petroleum energy Humble supplies -- if converted into heat -- could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second. 
Given it's 1962 origin, I wonder if Sterling Cooper had anything to do with this bad boy? This has Paul Kinsey written all over it. 

 

Filed under: climate change

According to US columist Thomas Friedman in the NYT, if less and less US citizens believe in global warming they should at least believe in oil dependency. To simplify his point of view, the world population is to increase as never before and car sales should rocket in developing China and India especially. 

Two systemic reasons for oil prices to dramatically rise once the economic crisis is over. 

Let's be optimistic: the US might *get it* that way.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=3

{ NKN }

Filed under: climate change