Archive for the 'Global warming' Category

Quick charging for electric vehicles figured out?

Jun 13, 2011 in Energy, Global warming

Electric goo!

One important characteristic of the new design is that it separates the two functions of the battery — storing energy until it is needed, and discharging that energy when it needs to be used — into separate physical structures. (In conventional batteries, the storage and discharge both take place in the same structure.) Separating these functions means that batteries can be designed more efficiently, Chiang says.

The new design should make it possible to reduce the size and the cost of a complete battery system, including all of its structural support and connectors, to about half the current levels. That dramatic reduction could be the key to making electric vehicles fully competitive with conventional gas- or diesel-powered vehicles, the researchers say.

Another potential advantage is that in vehicle applications, such a system would permit the possibility of simply “refueling” the battery by pumping out the liquid slurry and pumping in a fresh, fully charged replacement, or by swapping out the tanks like tires at a pit stop, while still preserving the option of simply recharging the existing material when time permits.

Caveat:

Gogotsi cautions that making a practical, commercial version of such a battery will require research to find better cathode and anode materials and electrolytes, but adds, “I don’t see fundamental problems that cannot be addressed — those are primarily engineering issues. Of course, developing working systems that can compete with currently available batteries in terms of cost and performance may take years.”

Sounds like the far bigger challenge is getting America’s solar power grid up and running…not a technical challenge, a political one that will not be broken until the grip of Big Oil either weakens or decides it can profit off the transition.

-hw

Hack attorney general climate skeptic tossed aside by the judge.

Aug 30, 2010 in Clueless Conservatives, Global warming

Wingers really believed they had something with “Climategate,” and immediately coalesced around Dr. Michael Mann as an arch-nemesis. His vindications have been multiple and thorough, and when Virginia’s activist rightwinger attorney general tried to make political hay by investigating Mann, the judge tossed it out of court because in the end he didn’t have any evidence.

According to Peatross, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, under which the civil investigative demand was issued, requires that the attorney general include an “objective basis” to believe that fraud has been committed. Peatross indicates that the attorney general must state the reason so that it can be reviewed by a court, which Cuccinelli failed to do.

See here for thoughts on my epic smackdown with a classic rightwinger on this topic at CPST. It’s a classic study in debate between a rational person in control of the facts and a raving lunatic. Rightwingers know, of course, to delay you and then accuse you of delaying (it’s akin to blocking everything they can in the Senate and claiming Obama isn’t getting enough done). But much like in the Prop 8 case, rightwinger mania doesn’t automatically translate into a solid case in court.

-hw

UPDATE: Almost on cue, one of the world’s biggest climate change skeptics changes heart and actually declares the evidence overwhelming, the problem urgent, and a carbon tax the solution.

Your liberal media.

Dec 14, 2009 in Global warming, Journamalism, Politics

No rebuttals to Palin allowed.

-mg

Commie hippie bastards.

Nov 18, 2009 in Global warming

Europe on track to meet or exceed Kyoto goals.

Meanwhile, if you favor doing anything about carbon emissions in America, you’re now a treehugging liberal, despite the fact that rightwingers have lost the argument everywhere except within their own hermetically sealed media environs.

-jb

This next trick I shall perform blindfolded.

Jul 15, 2009 in Global warming

Conor Clarke identifies the fundamental features a solution to climate change must possess. I shall attempt to engage them, doing so before reading them because if I can’t, then I must suck.

1. Any solution to climate change must have a theory for what the present generation owes future generations. That’s hard. How do we weigh the interests of people that don’t yet exist?

My suggestion: Barring a leap or degradation in evolution, rank them equal to us, yet in greater number, with no end in sight.

2. Any global solution to climate change must take account the fact that the costs of warming will be borne unevenly around the world. Parts of the northwestern United States will actually benefit from a warmer climate. Bangladesh will not. But why should the U.S. care what happens in South Asia?

The heart of the matter is in the rapidity and unpredictability of the change. The northwestern United States may benefit, but unleashing a rapid worldwide change in climate will have unpredictable consequences, which are unlikely to be beneficial. This is not to say some won’t benefit, but rather to say we can not know for sure who will benefit, and who will suffer immensely.

3. Any solution should account for the fact that the responsibility for global warming is also borne unevenly. The developing world will bear most of the costs, but the developed world bears most of the responsibility. (My understanding is that this will change at some point in the next 50 years.)

What is to add? We possess the resources to explore the options. When we find solutions that make sense for developing countries, we will, furthermore, have greater capacity to enable integration of said solutions. How it could possibly work in reverse, I do not know.

4. Related to #2, the world’s ability to adapt to a changing climate is distributed unevenly. It would surprise no one to learn that wealthy nations will have an easier time adapting than poorer ones. So should we allow poorer nations to pursue the most rapid growth possible, before the consequences become dire? Or should we pursue a solution that achieves the maximum possible reduction in global emissions?

No, and yes. Barring some exceedingly innovative explanation as to how option #1 relates in any way to modern climate research, which suggests our window for action is already eclipsing, next!

5. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen. To be sure: There is no (repeat, no) scientific uncertainty as to whether or not the climate is warming. It is. But the question is, By how much? And when? Will the temperature increase by two degrees Celsius over the next 100 years? Three degrees? Seven degrees? The differences matter.

In that the consequences range from bad to really terrible, and the solutions range from mildly unpleasant to greatly enhancing our lifestyles, sure.

6. Climate change has an incredibly long time horizon. Any small cost or small chance of a catastrophic outcome must to weighed across hundreds or thousands of years. There is also one-way ratchet here: It isn’t clear everything we change about the climate can be reversed.

And one day the sun shall consume Earth. In the meantime, shall we attempt to hew to the earth’s natural progression, and accept what we cannot change? Preferably by trying our best and seeing what doesn’t give?

7. Global warming asks us to weigh economic factors — growth, GDP — against non-economic ones, like the diversity of species and the amount of arable land on the planet. I have absolutely no clue how to do that.

These “non-economic” factors can absolutely impact the economic ones. A planet losing genetic variety and arable land is losing the potency of its food chain, not to mention the reciprocative benefits of medicinal solutions discovered within the present cornucopia of biological diversity.

Risking severe disruption of these things will all but guarantee a greater disruption of our precious yearly GDP gains.

*ahem*

So how did I do?

-jb

Gore FTW

Apr 25, 2009 in Global warming

[youtube LMJ3Xow9ZGM]

-jb

Is Global Warming a myth?

Apr 13, 2009 in Global warming

The answer is still no.

-jb

Whoops!

Feb 09, 2008 in Energy, Ethanol, Global warming

Well, I always thought of ethanol as more of a national security issue than a global warming one

The rush to grow biofuel crops — widely embraced as part of the solution to global warming — is actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them, according to two studies published Thursday in the journal Science.

One analysis found that clearing forests and grasslands to grow the crops releases vast amounts of carbon into the air — far more than the carbon spared from the atmosphere by burning biofuels instead of gasoline.

Nothing about ethanol has ever struck me as being particularly clean. I thought we were at best shaving a few million tons of carbon over ten years, although I had no hard information to base that guess on. Now the hard information comes out.

Well, I can at least hope for electric tractors one day. That and a bowl of ice cream that never empties (I’m thinking of an ice cream rental business).

-jb

Iowa sportsmen against global warming.

Nov 19, 2007 in Global warming

Anybody who has ever attended a Ducks Unlimited meeting or learned about catch and release techniques knows that those that enjoy outdoor activity in one form or another are usually way ahead of the curve when it comes to conservation techniques and rational environmental management and Iowa sportsmen are no exception.

-mg

More hydrogen fantasies.

Oct 18, 2007 in Energy, Global warming

Charmed by promises of a non-carbon based fuel and harmless emissions, The New York Times has foolishly bought into the hydrogen pipe dream. (in a video clip on that page)

The problem is that no matter how you try and gussy it up, hydrogen is part of the carbon loop. We can procure hydrogen by using one of two methods. The first way to get hydrogen is that we can refine it from fossil fuels like oil or natural gas. The second method is through the electroysis of water, which uses electricity currently created by the burning of fossil fuels. Not to mention that it is spectacularly expensive to produce, contain and transport. Consider the following from Robert Zubrin:

The idea of producing hydrogen via water electrolysis locally at filling stations is equally preposterous. To see this, consider the following. A kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline, so the owner of a filling station could only expect to obtain the same net income from a kilogram of hydrogen as from a gallon of gas. A reasonable figure for this might be $0.20 per kilogram. To obtain a modest net income of $200 per day from hydrogen sales would therefore require selling 1,000 kilograms per day. Since hydrogen requires about 163,000 kJ/kg to produce via electrolysis (assuming an 85 percent efficient electrolyzer), this means that 163,000,000 kJ = 45,278 kW-hr per day would be required by the station. At current grid power costs of $0.06/kW-hr, this would run the station an electric bill of $2,717 per day. If the electrolysis unit ran around the clock, it would need to be supplied with 1,900 kilowatts of electricity (about a thousand times the power draw of a typical house). This power would need to be supplied by the utility over special heavy-duty lines, and then transformed and rectified into direct current on site for use in the electrolyzer. Electrolyzers use high amp-low voltage power. In this case, at least several hundred thousand amps would be required. And the 1,900-kilowatt electrolyzer would not be cheap either. At current prices such a unit would cost the station owner over $10 million, which mortgaged over thirty years would cost him about $100,000 per month, assuming it lasted that long. (No one would want to do this, of course, since the same $10 million invested in five percent bonds would return $500,000 per year, or seven times the $200 per day hydrogen sales income under discussion, with no work and no risk.) Then the station owner would still need to buy and operate either a 5,000 psi explosion-proof compressor pump or a cryogenic refrigerator, and build and accept liability for high-pressure or cryogenic hydrogen storage facilities on his properties. Having paid for all that, there would then be the little matter of insurance.

The greatest threat we currently face is our collective inability to think beyond the question of “how do we keep the cars running at all costs”. Especially considering the fact that we limit ourselves to dreaming up systems and methods that resemble those that we currently employ.

-mg

update:  actually…strike what I last said…we’re dreaming up systems that are unnecessarily complex and prohibitively expensive considering electric cars predate gas combustion models.  Transportation models based upon hydrogen have only one purpose and that is to ensure that companies like Exxon and Mobil remain in the loop by incorporating all sorts of byzantine refining and distribution schemes.

Those scientists never really know for sure!

Sep 11, 2007 in Environment, Global warming, Science

Ha! They didn’t see this coming!

In just the last six days, researchers say 69,000 square miles of Arctic ice has disappeared, roughly the size of the Sunshine State.

Scientists say the rate of melting in 2007 has been unprecedented, and veteran ice researchers worry the Arctic is on track to be completely ice-free much earlier than previous research and climate models have suggested.

“If you had asked me a few years ago about how fast the Arctic would be ice free in summer, I would have said somewhere between about 2070 and the turn of the century,” said scientist Mark Serreze, polar ice expert at the NSIDC. “My view has changed. I think that an ice-free Arctic as early as 2030 is not unreasonable.”

Ooh, what’s next? 2015? They’re probably making the Arctic out to be larger than it is just so we can’t point our fingers and laugh at their tiny limited man-brains! Ah, but when New York is under water, who’ll be laughing then?

The unreliability of science. Pfft!

-jb

“These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.”

Jun 06, 2007 in Corporate shenanigans, Disappointing Dems, Energy, Environment, Global warming, Politics

So said Democratic Congressman Nick Rahall in my recent post about the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to get billions in subsidies for the coal industry.

I was also told by an intelligent commenter that looking at Rahall’s voting record shows support for coal AND the environment and that he was not merely a bought-and-paid-for politician. Here’s Rahall’s votes for the past two years.

Imagine my enormous surprise to see this post at Libs Earth Watch leading to this article.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) today sharply criticized a provision in a new bill introduced by Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) in the House Natural Resources Committee that the group said would “essentially outlaw the generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the United States and even phase out power production from existing wind turbines.”

The provision, Subtitle D of H.R. 2337, would:

* Bar any new wind power project until new Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rules are issued – a process likely to take years – and require FWS certification of every turbine
* Require all existing turbines, even small residential units, to cease operating 6 months after issuance of new FWS rules until they are “certified,” an unwieldy bureaucratic process applying to many thousands of turbines that, again, will take years
* Make it a crime, punishable by a $50,000 fine or a year in jail, to construct or generate electricity from an unapproved turbine, even for home use
* Undermine state and federal efforts to promote renewable electricity generation and subvert the growing movement to reduce global warming pollution
* Create an unworkable bureaucracy that will delay clean, emissions-free wind energy projects throughout the U.S.

The legislative proposal follows on the heels of a May 3 report from the National Academy of Sciences that states, among other things, that “Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of . . . total anthropogenic bird deaths – less than 0.003% [three of every 100,000] in 2003.” And the wind industry is already helping to fund groundbreaking collaborative research programs on bats and grassland birds to develop a knowledge base that would allow intelligent and effective conservation measures. Existing evidence suggests that fossil fuel-fired electricity generation, not covered by H.R. 2337’s requirements, has far greater wildlife impacts.

Commented Gregory Wetstone, AWEA Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs, “Wind energy requires no mining or drilling for fuel, no fuel transportation, no hazardous waste disposal, and no water use; and wind energy generates electricity without toxic pollutants like mercury, without greenhouse pollution, and of course without the conventional pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Is this really an energy sector Congress should close down, for environmental reasons?”

Isn’t that curious? Congressman Nick Rahall, not in the pocket of the coal industry, is set to try destroying wind energy.

It seems Congress, even our Democratic one, will be quite content to let Nick Rahall run wild and even vote in his bills if the netroots aren’t looking. Perhaps they should become aware that to maintain their credentials for supporting environmental issues, Nick Rahall and whatever coal-funded crackpot schemes he comes up with should be relegated to a tiny, tiny minority. Taking another look at where he stands on the issues, he’s barely even a Democrat. Yes on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the one that ended your right of habeus corpus), yes on every vote in favor of criminalizing aspects of abortion, yes on the credit card “reform” bill, yes on the Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, etc. etc. etc. Obviously he’s got some good votes in there or he’d just be a Republican, but clearly his judgment is not to be easily trusted. Perhaps we should keep our heads out of the sand when it comes to Nick Rahall.

-jb

Let the market fight global warming, right?

Jun 01, 2007 in Energy, Environment, Global warming, Peak Oil, Politics

The coal industry is spending millions lobbying for billions (gotta love the political system!) to subsidize the construction of coal-to-liquid plants which would likely double greenhouse gas emissions. “In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel.”

A very interesting article…here are two paragraphs devoted to the environmental justification:

With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence” bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and potentially greener than ethanol.

“For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.”

Zoinks, I just got pwned! Case closed, sir! The finely honed logic of a Democrat bought and paid for by the coal lobby. Of course, they must now be granted subsidies on a larger scale than ethanol plants!

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.

Carbon capture and storage is still far off, and likely to face stiff opposition.

…no company has built a commercial-scale plant that also captures carbon, and experts caution that many obstacles lie ahead.

“At best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,” said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of “The Future of Coal,” a voluminous study published in March by M.I.T. “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.”

But we can make it happen by buying enough politicians!

But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels.

Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by Politicalmoneyline.com.

With such a potential return, what’s a few million?

People who babble about the existence of the free market might as well be talking about the existence of Sasquatch. It simply isn’t the way this country works, and hasn’t been for a very, very long time. And until public financing of elections is reached, legalized bribery will ensure that our current system continues to harm the environment.

-jb

UPDATE: Obama endorses these kinds of subsidies, which puts on him a burden to justify or drop it. I’m sure that in ten, twenty years when oil is increasingly scarce, there will be a lot of people saying, “I need some juice to put in my car NOW!” This may look like some sort of easy out, but it isn’t. It just makes it more difficult getting out. This isn’t going to change my support for Obama, but he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Accomplishments in activism.

May 31, 2007 in Energy, Global warming

Tonight was my third day canvassing for clean energy. I knocked on 120 doors, talked to 60 people, and collected $390 in contributions.

Our expected daily minimum is $100. Rawk!

-jb

Springtime in Antarctica.

May 18, 2007 in Global warming

Hey, I thought Antarctica wasn’t reflecting rising temperatures corresponding with global warming?

Oh, whoops.

Warm temperatures melted an area of western Antarctica that adds up to the size of California in January 2005, scientists report.
ADVERTISEMENT

Satellite data collected by the scientists between July 1999 and July 2005 showed clear signs that melting had occurred in multiple distinct regions, including far inland and at high latitudes and elevations, where melt had been considered unlikely.

“Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula,” said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado, Boulder. “But now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite analysis.”

Fortunately, climate change skeptics aren’t held accountable, they just get to come up with another myth, crow until that gets knocked over, etc. etc.

-jb

Rupert Murdoch drives a hybrid.

May 18, 2007 in Global warming, Uncategorized

Yeah. No shit. And he supports caps on carbon emissions. But Murdoch is a business man and like most keen market watchers he knows that climate change is ultimately bad for the economy. Business loves the status quo because it is predictable. Predictable fuel, resource and labor prices mean more easily anticipated outcomes. Nobody can clearly see the ultimate end result of global warming so in that regard it is a viable threat to the valued status quo and if we can engage in mitigating factors now it’s better than regretting it later. And besides, I’m not naive enough to think that he actually believes half of the malarkey they bellow about on FOX News. He and Roger Ailes realized that there was a market out there (paranoid, xenophobic, neo-Confederate mouth-breathers) for sensationalized, jingoistic bullshit delivered by smokin’ hot babes and has been, wanna-be jocks. The more gullible among us don’t believe this, of course. They think that Fox is some lone voice of truth in a threatening librul wilderness and it’s going to be very interesting to read (if there are any) the attempts at defending Murdoch’s stance. Here’s the interview via Salon:

Some of the commentators on Fox News have expressed skeptical views about climate science — take Sean Hannity, for instance, or Bill O’Reilly. Have you heard any reaction from them to this program, or any backlash within News Corp.?

I haven’t discussed it with them yet. And, no, I haven’t heard any talk about it. Probably Sean’s first reaction will be that this is some liberal cause or something, you know? But he’s a very reasonable, very intelligent man. He’ll see, he’ll understand it. As will Bill — he just likes to get debate going between people. And that has its benefits — someone says, “No there isn’t,” someone says, “Yes there is,” and they have it out for 10 minutes and it’s entertaining and creates more consciousness.

Folks, you do understand that this interview will never be discussed, linked to or acknowledged by any of their dedicated acolytes, don’t you?

-mg

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) problematic.

May 16, 2007 in Energy, Environment, Global warming

Coal plants are just bad news, period. Yes, coal is abundant. Absolutely everything else about it is completely wretched. I’ve been hopeful that we could at least install CCS in existing coal plants, but the truth is that it’s still got a long way to go and new coal plants without CCS are still being planned and built every day, with China’s use skyrocketing. Coal in the US creates “roughly 50 percent of the nation’s electricity and more than 40 percent of the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide—the leading greenhouse gas.” There is no real way forward in energy without addressing coal. Scientific American looks at some of the problems.

That primary cost is in energy that gets used to capture the carbon—roughly 40 percent of the power a plant can produce—as well as to pressurize it and pump it underground. “In general terms, you are talking about a 50 percent increase in the cost of coal and maybe a 25 percent increase in the retail residential price of coal-fired electricity,” Moniz says. “For a 600-megawatt power plant, in order to capture most of the CO2 and sequester it for the 50-year life of the plant, you’re talking about one billion barrels of supercritical CO2. That’s a pretty big reservoir.”

CCS is utterly necessary for coal plants, yet their fundamental difficulties strongly call for a direction away from coal energy. Immediate costs do not paint the entire picture, as a related article suggests:

The report also provides estimates of what such changes might cost. These estimates range from an actual improvement of overall economic health to a loss of as much as 3 percent of global gross domestic product by 2030, depending on what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is targeted. But “costs may be substantially lower under the assumption that revenues from carbon taxes or auctioned permits under an emission trading system are used to promote low-carbon technologies,” the report notes; associated health benefits, such as decreased particulate pollution from cars, could make stringent action economically beneficial.

If humanity is going to keep moving forward, it will have to learn to calculate tomorrow’s costs against today’s savings. Fossil fuels are cheap only because their real costs are nudged outside of our tunnelvision, as per usual in modern economic thinking.

The future will provide no magic bullets, and consensus is rapidly solidifying around the reality that we are going to have to use every freakin’ resource we can find to supply our power in the face of the perfect storm that is global climate change combined with peak oil. Through a combination of biomass, wind, solar, and nuclear power (hydrogen is not a source of power, it is a vessel) along with new hydroelectric technologies and good ole’ fashioned geothermal power, we can displace carbon entirely.

Coal can be improved, but better for it to be gone entirely.

-jb

Keeping carbon in check is easily affordable.

May 06, 2007 in Energy, Global warming, Politics

The only thing truly motivating global warming deniers is that Big Energy finds it cheaper to fund them than it does to allow changes to be made that reduce carbon usage. Naturally, they can’t actually make that point, they must instead claim that enacting changes will “break” our economy.
Most anybody up to date on the future of energy technology knows this is blatantly false, but a UN report actually generated some numbers:

Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

How so? The same stuff we’ve been talking about at Iowa Liberal for some time:

To keep within that limit, which scientists and the European Union say is needed to stave off disastrous climate changes, carbon dioxide emissions need to fall 50 to 85 percent by 2050, said the report, the third in a series.

However, technological advances, particularly in more efficient energy use and production, meant such targets were within reach, it said.

It stressed the use of nuclear, solar and wind power, more energy-efficient buildings and lighting, as well as capturing and storing carbon dioxide spewed from coal-fired power stations and oil and gas rigs.

Precisely. We already have technologies at our disposal and more that are nearing completion in research and development which can transform how the world gets powered. Fossil fuels will go the way of the dinosaur. When they run out, anyway…

Sounds peachy, right? Naturally, the White House was right on board:

But A U.S. environmental official rejected some options detailed in the report for cutting emissions as too costly.

“There are measures that come currently at an extremely high cost because of the lack of available technology,” said James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

These scenarios, he said, would bring cuts in world gross domestic product of up to 3 percent. “That would of course cause global recession, so that is something that we probably want to avoid,” Connaughton said in a telephone briefing.

Damn. It would have been so cool. You know you can always trust the Bush administration with numbers, especially when it comes to the energy industry.

-jb

The sun god will not save the rightwingers.

May 03, 2007 in Global warming

Global warming deniers are a fairly sad lot. They have nobody to back them up but oil-funded think tanks and a thimble-full of scientists unable to build cases compelling enough to survive the peer-review process. Their agenda is so blatant that they are forced to invent agendas to attach to people who support the scientific perspective. And they are losing support within their own party more every day.

As with most junk-science cranks, global warming deniers search and feel out new “arguments” that they can hope to surprise laymen with. As soon as one becomes too well-known and debunked, they have to find a new one. Recently I’ve been able to identify rightwingers converging on speculation that the sun is responsible for global warming. Feeling like they have a winner, the chatter has ratcheted up considerably and begun to revolve almost entirely around solar-based theories of global warming. The news that Mars seems to be warming also has made them positively priapic. Of course, with the understanding that if the sun theory is debunked, they will quickly move on to the next angle they can find.

Time to start scramblin’, junk-peddlers. Phil Plait, astronomer:

…what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called “cherry picking”; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?

I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it’s because there’s not much to say. If they are not warming, then deniers won’t mention them, and scientists won’t report it because there is nothing to report (“News flash: Phobos still the same temperature!” is unlikely to get into Planetary Science journals).

The evidence for Mars is looked at:

First off, is Mars even warming globally at all? Perhaps not — it might be a local effect. And if it is global, there already is an idea of why that might be happening: it would be due to periodic changes in its orbit, called Milankovitch cycles. The Earth has them too, and they do affect our climate. And the guy who is proposing that the Sun is warming Mars doesn’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think his science is a little suspect. His reasoning is certainly specious– he says if Mars and Earth are both warming, it must be due to the Sun. As I point out above, that is clearly not necessarily the case. Even if this martian warming turns out to be true, it may just be a natural effect of the shape of the orbit of Mars.

Now Phil does caution everybody to avoid leaping to drastic conclusions. Indeed, being a true lover of science, I always stand prepared to move with the scientific community on an issue. If anthro climate change is one day discarded due to overwhelming evidence against it, right on. All praise the scientific method! But right now it’s the other way around, and it’s very hard indeed to imagine a sustainable future for mankind (you know, just in case the Rapture isn’t coming) without clean renewable efficient energy practices. And listening to a bunch of screaming illiterate yahoos hardly seems like the path of wisdom. One can only wonder what crackpot theory they’ll scramble to next.

-jb

Global warming; the debate is STILL over. Part 3

Apr 07, 2007 in Global warming

Grim news from the denizens of the reality-based crowd.

I’m wondering whether it’s even fair to call it a debate anymore since when presented with a mountain of data the nay-sayers best arguments consist of nothing more than “uh-uh!” I think that it’s safe to say at this point no level of evidence will sway those convinced that the climate is impervious to human influence. Scientists, or those most familiar with rationality, are getting a little tired of those who are strangers to reason:

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but, in the end, agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

Five days of negotiations reached a climax when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. “For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models,” Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

One positive note touched upon in the article:

Often it was the U.S. delegation who stood with scientists and helped reach compromise, said Stanford University scientist Stephen Schneider, a frequent critic of the Bush administration’s global warming policies.

Alas, most of Red State Amurka will be too enamoured with Rapture fantasies to give a damn and the Wall Street Journal editorial board will cling to any dissenting “evidence” regardless of how preposterous or outlandish choosing instead to worship at the false idol of the phantom invisible hand.

-mg

People should really avoid disagreeing with me.

Apr 02, 2007 in Global warming

Dana over at the rather immodestly-titled Common Sense Political Thought is more reasonable than some rightwingers, but succumbs to most of the same folly. We are rarely told, for instance, why it is unforgivable that scientists made some errors in prediction in the 70’s even though they have advanced and refined their methods greatly, while global science skeptics are allowed to say virtually anything with no repercussions. They can blab about volcanos, communist conspiracies, or how it’s all solar rays (their role is a minor one compared to greenhouse gases), but we’re supposed to keep listening to them because…

…because they’re going to keep on talking, I suppose. Anyway, in a recent global warming flap Dana suggested that I was completely off-base in suggesting climate changes that could make the Earth less able to sustain such a high population. This is hardly controversial. After all, could the Earth support one trillion people? Of course not. So anybody can agree there are limits. Pre-oil the earth was able to sustain about a billion people. Today with oil at its peak, six billion. Post-global warming, what might that figure be? Is it theoretically possible that the earth would only be able to sustain five billion?

The latest report:

But as the world’s average temperature warms from 1990 levels, the projections get more dire. Add 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — 1 degree Celsius is the calculation scientists use — and between 400 million and 1.7 billion extra people can’t get enough water, some infectious diseases and allergenic pollens rise, and some amphibians go extinct.

The article does say that food supplies could rise due to northern areas becoming more ag-friendly. Hope you enjoy getting your water from your food…

Add another 1.8 degrees and as many as 2 billion people could be without water and about 20 percent to 30 percent of the world’s species near extinction. Also, more people start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts — all caused by global warming. That would happen around 2050, depending on the level of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

It seems that in such a future the meat industry is going to be in big trouble. Are you sure you’d rather have a steak than 977 gallons of water?

-jb

ISCA is the home of many beauties.

Mar 31, 2007 in Global warming

I know I’ve convinced absolutely nobody to join ISCA and partake in some fine continuously-scrolling text-based goodness. The format renders possible a very smooth and organized flow of conversation, with a choice of two hundred topic forums. If you want to gab one on one with somebody, you hit “x” and type their name. Whoopty ding-dong, right? Ha, it’s practically going frickin’ extinct. When the last guy who went to college in the 90’s is dead, there will be no more BBSes in the world. I weep.

In the meantime, here’s an instant classic from user Molon Labe, who has annoyingly just changed his name but didn’t tell us who he was before. I’ll have to keep analyzing his argumentative style in order to identifiy him…

Raising awareness is critical when the world is full of global warming deniers
who think:

1. It’s not happening
2. If it is, humans aren’t causing it
3. If we are, our contribution is tiny
4. If it’s not, there’s nothing we can do to fix it
5. If there is anything we can do about it, it’d cost too much
6. If it doesn’t cost too much, we shouldn’t do it anyway for some principled reason like capitalism, free markets, or that it’s unfair to restrict the growth of developing nations now that the industrialized world has had the privilege of plundering the planet’s resources for 100 years.

Human defense mechanisms are ingenious at times, aren’t they? Constant use engenders refinements of this order.

-jb

Gore: Still the man.

Mar 22, 2007 in Global warming, Outstanding Democrats, Politics

This clip from TPM Cafe (they really do drink sissyboy lattes there! Here at Iowa Liberal, if we drink coffee, it’s black, cold, and has at least one cigarette butt in it.) is great. Fringe shills and outliers aren’t going to slow Al Gore down.

People read the “shocking revelations” of his lifestyle and discovered he does more to offset his energy use than they do. And the right’s documentary sequel to “What the #@*$(& Do We Know?” has underwhelmed. The green revolution is still early but inevitable. Who will be on the right side of history? Al Gore.

-jb

Global Warming Update, the debate is STILL over. Part 2.

Mar 17, 2007 in Clueless Conservatives, Environment, Global warming, Uncategorized, War on Terra

A great many of those that label themselves conservative these days don’t let truth stand in the way when it comes to scoring some cheap points any which way they can. Take art for example. Your average hair-brained idealogue cannot imagine that anyone would independently create a work of expression merely for the joy of doing so. The closest that they can come to understanding art is by indentifying and labeling it as propaganda thereby justifying their cynicism and also their feelings of being constantly under attack by would-be tryants. The same mentality comes into play in regards to global warming and the work being done by those that research it. It is unfathomable to some that scientists don’t have cynical motives and aren’t reflexively rebelling against SUVs, capitalism, Uncle Sam, etc., in order to justify their own selfish ideological concerns or their scheming desires to establish a One-World Government run by Kofi Annan and Jane Fonda.

So here we have a “documentary”, lauded by many on the “9 out of 10 doctors prefer Chesterfields!!” side of the debate, proving once and for all that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by opportunistic scientists. Never mind that it’s complete rubbish from a scientific stand-point* and forget that participants in the program were misquoted, misrepresented or are just plain old cranks. The only thing that matters is that we’ve got some hacks parroting what we believe. Facts be damned.

-mg

*see also here.

The Papal Condemnation of Ranger Rick

Mar 12, 2007 in Environment, Global warming, War on Terra

Are you an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that wants to discuss global warming or polar bear extinction?  You gotta clear it with the Commissary of the Holy Office first.

-mg           

 

Once again, conservatives appluad (while ignoring) the free market.

Mar 07, 2007 in Environment, Global warming, Local, Local Politics, Uncategorized, War on Terra

yeah...it's real

For all of the blustering about “free markets” conservatives (as usual) don’t pay much attention to the genuine article when it conflicts with their ideological devotions. They’re more interested in their own egos than they are with immediate realities. So it goes with global warming; a phenomenon even the Pentagon and a majority of the business community considers real. Why? Because the invisible hand indicates to them that they will not function well within an environment that is not hospitable to their presence.

Gander Mountain understands this simple equation. I divy up my local outdoorzy retail purchases between two places; Fin and Feather (located on Highway 6 in Iowa City) and Gander Mountain (closest one being Cedar Rapids). Gander Mountain has more of a selection but the down-side is that they’re twenty miles away.  Fin and Feather, though being within a convenient two miles of my house, have the disadvantage of inflated prices and condescending sales staff. It’s always a toss-up between driving half-an-hour and paying less or listening to some geezer tell me how if I’m fishing with anything less than a Shimano Stella I might as well give up walleye fishing (even though I’ve been fishing for twenty five years) rather than share some useful information with me. Considering the circumstances I choose driving to Cedar Rapids nine times out of ten.

Gander Mountain also understands that if there are no areas to fish or hunt they will soon be out of customers who enjoy fishing and hunting.

That is why, as a consumer and sportsman, I’m going to stop shopping at Fin & Feather in Iowa City. Gander Mountain is the type of business that understands that renewable energy goes hand in hand with the true concept of conservativism and, to a greater extent, liberty.

You meet some of these old-school types down on the water. They’re usually sitting on a five-gallon bucket with a few dinks complaining about how they used to be able to fill that bucket full of crappies or walleye or how the river used to be clear and the fish were plentiful. These are the same type of guys that took it for granted, then and now, that the past will mirror the future and they’re the same types of people, that with filthy rivers and empty creels, will lament the encroachment of insidious liberals. These are the same types who keep everything they catch, edible or not, younger generations be damned. What they don’t realize is that the markets they adore extend beyond their own opportunities to consume. That the world isn’t an infinite resource nor an infinite garbage can.

-mg

Stuff it, you dirty satanists, er, I mean, scientists!

Mar 06, 2007 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Global warming

Village idiot DJ Brian Pickrell claimed in his own comments section that he believes in evolution-

I believe in evolution, just so we’re clear on that.

-which also implies he believes in the cursed scientific view of the earth as being roughly 4.5 billion years old in a universe roughly 13.5 billion years old.

This video will drive him crazy!  Consensus is not science, Brian!

-jb

God told us we could trash this place, cuz we ain’t stayin’ long!

Mar 04, 2007 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Global warming

Not to be underestimated is the agreement between the theocratic wing and the big business wing of the Republican party on global warming.  Big business’ motivations are obvious; if it’s cheaper to campaign against global warming than enact the changes, they’ll do it.  The fundamentalist Christians though are a little less obvious to understand, but the roots are all in Genesis and Revelations, the only two books they seem to really care about (oh, they’ll throw in some Leviticus when it’s time to bash the fags, but otherwise…).  But those two books explain a) that the earth is here to serve man, end of story and b) despite Jesus’ proclamation that he’d be back within the lifetimes of those listening to him, it’s actually within the lifetime of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.

No surprise then to see this:

Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming.

The conservative leaders say they are not convinced that global warming is human-induced or that human intervention can prevent it. And they accuse the director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, the association’s vice president for government affairs, of diverting the evangelical movement from what they deem more important issues, like abortion and homosexuality.

Ah, how they have wounded their own religion.

-jb

Because they’re all smarter, that’s why!

Mar 03, 2007 in Clueless Conservatives, Global warming

Upon noting a poll of major rightwing blogs, where 100% answered that they did not believe humans were the primary cause of global warming, Andrew Sullivan says:

Some skepticism is warranted in climate change science. But the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that humans are primarily responsible for current climate change and none of the right-wing bloggers does suggests to me another sign of severe conservative meltdown.

They’re clapping VERY loudly, but it’s not working…but it has to work…someday, for something!
-jb

Ignatius on the wagon.

Mar 03, 2007 in Global warming

Taking a break from his usual insipid Beltway claptrap, Ignatius finally writes something that relates to the real world:

What Schwartz discovers with his stress-testing makes climate change even scarier: The world already is precarious; the networks that maintain political and social order already are fragile, especially in urban areas; the dividing line between civilized life and anarchy is frighteningly easy to breach, as the daily news from Iraq reminds us. We look at the behaviors of butterflies and migratory birds as harbingers of climate change. But what about early effects on human beings? “The steady escalation of climate pressure will stretch the resiliency of natural and human systems,” writes Schwartz. “In short, climate change pushes systems everywhere toward their tipping point.”

Doesn’t he know there’s nothing to worry about because we discovered that there’s still a small fraction of Al Gore’s energy use that isn’t provided by Green Power Switch?  We’ll do nothing until Al Gore’s home is actually generating green power for all of Tennessee!

-jb

Global warming hijinks!

Feb 27, 2007 in Clueless Conservatives, Global warming

The global warming debate here has sparked an avalanche of fun. Not only did we have a minor comment skirmish in my last post (11 comments is hectic traffic here in these parts!), but I went and took it straight to DJ Brian Pickrell in two comment threads on his blog. Not only that, but he has posted a flurry of global warming posts with more junkity junk science goofball claptrap than one can keep track of.

Thread one, all about climate change in general. Did you know global warming was a communist conspiracy? Find out all about it!

Thread two, starting with Brian’s attempt to mock the glorious and pristine character of our own Mike G and his DJ moniker. Apparently Brian didn’t catch that “Jack the Lad” was British slang for a young rogue and thought it meant penis. And that was funny on “so many levels”. Then it got back to global warming again. And the communist conspiracy hastened by lefty rags like Scientific American, among others.

You see, it’s all about us here at Iowa Liberal gaining “ultimate power,” or something.

Oh, you think I’m exaggerating?

And Democrats certainly know that if they can convince enough people we’re on the brink of catastrophe, they’ll willingly pay more taxes and allow more control over their lives.

Pretty soon, we may as run up a red flag with the hammer and sickle over every government building, because we will have become a full-blown communist/socialist nation.

Oh, dear!

And, by the way…if you’d actually read the MSNBC article (another one of your left-wing sources, btw), you’d see it says exactly what I’ve been saying: that Big Oil initially hired these people to get their side of the story out, not push an agenda like you people are.

I stand corrected! No agenda, they swear! Here’s more honest testimony from some people whose credibility Brian trusts:

We’ve taken action against the cabal and their global warming facts by becoming experts on legally eliminating your debt. This process will free you financially while reducing the amount of money available to this corrupt cabal. For every dollar of debt you legally eliminate through us, you’re cutting $33 out of their pockets because of their fractional reserve banking scam.

Don’t believe he could be that stupid?

I’ve seen more things than you can possibly imagine, and that’s why I’m a conservative and you’re a liberal.

Fortunately, this statement is so idiotic on its own I don’t need to tell any personal stories to rebut it. Because I’m not telling anything😉 Lastly:

…if you knew my IQ, it would be you bashing your head against the wall…

Crap, I’d better stop provoking him then, or he’ll win the argument by telling me his IQ.

We really have to find a bigger fish to fry, but could we ever find one more entertaining?

-jb

Global Warming Update: the debate is STILL over.

Feb 22, 2007 in Clueless Conservatives, Global warming, Politics

A salient point is made at Scientific American:

(Al) Gore deserves all the plaudits he has received and will receive, including potentially an Oscar. But the time for such a messenger is past. As Scientific American’s own John Rennie put it: “We’d be much better off had that [climate science] debate not occupied center stage for so long.” 2007 is the time of the engineers, scientists, politicians and entrepreneurs who have solutions–and I suspect Mr. Gore knows that his time should have passed.

How many more votes of confidence do we need to confirm theories that we had a pretty damn good idea about several decades ago?

We’ve determined that the car is pointed at us, that it’s going fast enough to kill us, that we are indeed not temporarily imbued with immortal properties, that nobody else will jump out in front of the car, that we are unlikely to bounce off the hood landing on our feet or in the arms of our future spouse, and most importantly, that if we leap out of the path of the car, we can avoid death, if not injury.  And yet, we pontificate further.

It is truly amazing how many conservatives, who try so often to take pride in their flinty sense of realism and tell us mush-headed liberals “hard truths,” cannot seem to grasp an elementary fact:  where there is cash, there is speech.

Conservative think tanks are trying to undermine this conclusion with a disinformation campaign employing “reports” designed to look like a counterbalance to peer-reviewed studies, skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism…The think tanks provide both intellectual cover for those who reject what the best science currently tells us, and ammunition for conservative policymakers like Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who calls global warming “a hoax.”

These “reports” find easy purchase in the soil of the anti-science right and the thousands of lackeys who desperately wish to be paid shills when they grow up.  Alternatively, such human-dodo hybrids will eagerly misintrepret and cherry pick the work of real scientists.  Here’s village idiot, DJ Brian Pickrell:

Antarctic temps aren’t agreeing with the “climate change” whackos.

Here’s the scientists:

Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. “If you have less ozone, there’s less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn’t warm as much.”

That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

“In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,” he said. “The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic.”

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

“It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations,” he said.

The peasant can’t even bother reading the article past the “gotcha!” moment.  Here’s a hint:  science taxes human brain, uses much power!  A tenth-grade level of understanding just won’t cut it.

Of course, a rightwinger might say, “Thar’s your public education fer ya!  No respect for logic, science, or those who can do that stuff.  I’m a goddamn idiot and I don’t even know it, and it’s all your fault!”

I could only clutch my bleeding chest wound and fall to the ground.
-jb

Dennis Prager: cynical or stupid?

Jan 19, 2007 in Clueless Conservatives, Environment, Global warming

It wouldn’t be easy to prove, not unless I can get a transcript of today’s show. Sick of commercials on KLSD1360, I did a quick dial rotation. Most radio stations play their commercials around the same times each hour, but occasionally I can catch five minutes of rightwing talk. That’s about how long I make it before I nearly snap the dial off in disbelief that these people believe anybody should take them seriously. Today I got some Dennis Prager. I felt like I was attending a sermon on how to actively lower your intelligence.

The caller asked Dennis a real hardball question: “Why won’t Al Gore debate the scientists who say he’s full of crap? And why do his people insist his excuse that he’s not much of a debater?” (This is all paraphrased, and I have the memory of a flea…)

Okay, let’s just set aside that the “scientists” that want to debate Al Gore are the same people who have lost the argument within the scientific community. Al Gore isn’t a scientist, he’s a liason between the scientific community and the public. Al Gore has perpetually been among politicians one of the most scientifically literate and philosophically astute. He’s someone I feel kinship to in that regard. I’m far too atrocious with math to get into the true nitty gritty of science, yet I’m attracted to the greatest minds and when they try to explain things to people at my level, I listen very carefully. Gore’s film The Inconvenient Truth was an initiative taken on his part to help teach the public what the best science of the day is saying about global climate changes.  And the scientific community agrees, Gore did listen to them very carefully.
Dennis Prager, however, responded (and I’m not trying to put words in anybody’s mouth, anybody who does grab a transcript will see that I’m good with “the gist”), “Well, that doesn’t make sense to me. It seems to me that if you’re smart and have good facts on your side, you’re a good debater, right? Truth persuades. When a person is persuasive in a debate, it’s because they’ve got the truth on their side. Al Gore doesn’t want to debate because he’s full of it!”

Well, folks, throw out the logic textbooks. Rhetoric is truth. Propaganda is right if you believe it.

Can Prager claim to believe this for one second? He’s supposed to be a learned man, but how could anyone remotely versed in intellectual honesty drop that whopper and not blink? How can he not understand that an “expert,” however off-base, can overwhelm a layman with minutae?  If you’ve read debates with Creationists vs. the occasional scientist who can be bothered, it’s considerable what a person can whip up to support pure gobbeldygook.
Does Dennis Prager think he would survive ten minutes against one of the world’s leading global warming experts? Please! Al Gore would sure as heck hand Prager his own balls in a global warming debate, but one must admit that in almost every case, large numbers of people will still back the loser of the debate if their beliefs match.  

So Prager forgets that Gore’s side has won the debate among people who are actually scientists. That doesn’t count!  It’s that darned liberal bias that reality has (thank you, Colbert). What counts is when a bunch of laymen are asked to be the referee on highly complicated scientific issues, duh.

Next:  the public gets to settle that string theory debate!

I think Prager’s comments illustrate that true propagandists are required to be convinced of their own bullshit when they spew it, but spend so much time spewing it they get stuck. Perhaps in the corners of his mind, for a few seconds a day, Prager is able to understand that he’s full of shit. But does he really deserve credit for that? Is he still “smart” if he knows he’s pushing flat-out brain junk?

The global warming debate is a wonderful opportunity to gauge with near scientific accuracy just how much effort humans can put into absolute, complete bunk, and how much resistance they can put up against the fairest objectivity. It reminds us that even the “smartest” of us, as no doubt many on the right consider Prager to be, will be flat dead wrong and refuse to acquiesce easily to new shifts in understanding when they come. Airtight logic will not give airtight results, or anything resembling.  And in the case of Prager, a godless priest can be fully able to comprehend the new paradigm and yet forcefully advocate against it for some fraudulent “higher ideal.”
-jb

Poisoning the well.

Jul 31, 2006 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Environment, Global warming, Uncategorized, War on Terra

The LA Times has the second of a two part series up concerning the damage already done to the environment. Since there seems to still be those that think that there is a “debate” regarding global environmental destruction and climate change it’s a jaw-dropping look at what has already happened as a result of human encroachment upon specific biological systems.

I’ve always thought that one of the most dangerous components of the far-right ideology is their insistence that they hold dominion over the earth and its inhabitants and that they can therefore shirk their duties as good stewards. By their logic they live on a disposable planet. They are the chosen ones and since God has limitless power it follows that God also has provided them with limitless resources. Add in the conviction that we are in the End Times and all true believers are going to ascend to a better place (so why worry about this earthly realm?) and you have a recipe for disaster.

-mg

Surprise! Global warming skeptics accept payola.

Jul 28, 2006 in Environment, Global warming, Uncategorized

This wont come as a surprise to most but several academics are being paid to express doubts about the causes of global warming including mouth-breather favorite Patrick Michaels who has already been exposed to be a shameless hack on several occasions.

-mg

update: RealScience debunks the IREA paper.

Brian reports: Climate report one-sided, claims one man.

Jul 16, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Global warming, Politics

Who’s the most astoundingly stupid man in Iowa?

Brian!

Our own Roscoe P. Coltrane has the goods on those damned scientists!  A global warming special report with Tom Brokaw is ONE-SIDED!  “Aha!” cries Brian.

The source for the contention?  One Roger Pielke, Sr.

Aw, let’s give Brian credit.  Truth be told, he can count all the way up to two.  Homey Iain Murray has Pielke’s back!

Because Pielke is “one of the people who aren’t interested in pushing just one particular policy perspective,” his voice isn’t usually heard and “certainly won’t be heard in Brokaw’s documentary,” Murray noted.

Don’t you know, science is all about who the kool kidz are, not peer-reviewed studies.

Or, in reality, Brian is a Republican stool pigeon, Republicans are beholden to the polluters, and so he’ll latch onto any outlier he can find and ignore the overwhelming body of evidence standing against him.

Do you think Brian or any of his dittohead clones gives a shit about who has the best science?  It’s about who can tell him what he wants to believe.

Brian doesn’t understand that on any scientific issue you can always find a few contrarians willing to be “rebels,” because Brian doesn’t have any intention of understanding the scientific community he’s so opposed to.  He just wants to take a few dissenters and pretend there’s an even debate, when a lopsided victory has already taken place.  In a landslide, it’s the global warming crowd.

Of course, Brian surely agreed that 51% gave Bush a mandate, so we can see how fuzzy his math is.

-jb