My thoughts exactly on the Snowpocalypse

Why did "Global Warming" become "Climate Change"?

Because while "warming" can be easily disproved by showing the temperature heading in the "wrong" (i.e. colder" direction). But "climate change" simply states that temperatures over time will be variable - something that is guaranteed to happen. However, more and more both proponents and skeptics are wondering if we know anything substantive about climate science and its causes.

Of course, this does NOT mean that we should not be looking to change our technologies to less-polluting versions

Should we do nothing about our consumption of petroleum? No, we should use this window of opportunity to decrease our reliance on petroleum; not because of "climate change," but to deprive the oil-producing nations of money too many of them use to underwrite terrorism. This should satisfy both the global warming disciples and deniers and make America and Europe less dependent on nations that wish to destroy our liberty. But threats to liberty are not limited to some oil-producing nations; they can also be found in the British Parliament and in the American Congress.

Let's abandon quests for "philosophical purity" in the Copenhagen debate, and find common points of agreement like this.

Why haven't we found aliens? Global Warming. No, really.

We like to think that science is a cold, logical, precise search for Truth-with-a-capital-T, but the fact is that like any other human endeavor science has fads and fashions. For instance, it can still be career death for a physicist to suggest any explanation but String Theory for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. At the moment, the "fad" in science is Climate Change a.k.a. Global Warming a.k.a. Sustainability. The idea that we have proven no human action is environment-neutral and that survival requires limiting human population growth and activity.

Now, SETI scientists have tried to explain our inability to detect alien life on this same principle. Essentially, the argument goes that any advanced civilization determines that their resources are limited, and thus becomes self-limiting before achieving colonies on other worlds. Thus, no aliens in our neck of the woods.

An interesting idea, but one that is bound to be "disproven" as soon as the winds of scientific fashion shift.

Obesity causes Globbal Warming?

Regular readers know that I have lost 75 lbs this year thru a combination of diet and exercise (biking). There were many reasons why I wanted to lose weight: looking better for the opposite sex, health concerns, back pain, etc. Global warming was not one of my reasons.

Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine...

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The conclusions being drawn from this study by the popular media are idiotic. But we all know that the last people it is okay to make fun or and discriminate against are the overweight. In general, the "fat people" I have known are more likely to be homebodies who stay around the house and don't travel. The extremely thin people I know, on the other hand, tend to be movers and shakers, who tend to drive their SUVs everywhere, smoke like chimneys, and always demand the latest and greatest. Does this mean thinness is a threat the planet? Of course not. But you watch. A "fat tax" is only a few years away.

It snows in UAE

In general, I tend to leave the Global Warming debate to environmentalists and policymakers. But I had to laugh at this one. For the first time in decades, it snowed in the United Arab Emirates. The event is so rare that local residents claim their dialect has no word for "snow".

Deep Thought of the Day: Is Global Warming real or a product of cultural narrative?

Fair warning, this post will NOT address the science of Global Warming at all. I am not arguing for or against it here, just making an observation about human nature. Feel free to argue the science elsewhere.

I was watching several DVDs from the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series - a "comfort food" of DVDs for me - when I noticed something. The theory of Evolution has driven us to look at history as a series of responses to events greater than ourselves. Over and over again, Evolution is seen being driven by global events larger than any particular species of ecosystem: ice ages, comet strikes, volcanic activity, etc. Each challenge brings out a different set of evolved characteristics to cope (thick fur, keen eyes, large size, etc.) This narrative - of individuals and groups driven by forces beyond their control - has become a deep part of our cultural psyche.

At the same time, there is a different narrative that is a deep part of our cultural psyche which has arisen from the Industrial Revolution. This narrative looks at the transformations of societies, ecologies, and landscapes of the 20th century, and proclaims that there is nothing that humans can not do. There is nothing that we can not modify to meet our own needs. The individual, in this view, is not a helpless reactor to events, but a DRIVER of events as he or she molds the world around them to fit themselves.

Is it any surprise then that a theory like Global Warming has gained ascendance at the moment? It is the perfect synthesis of these two cultural narratives. Are we at the mercy of forces beyond our control? YES! The planet is warming around us, changing the climate, the delicate balance of ecology, weather systems, etc. We are due to be flooded at the coasts, subjected to droughts inland, and expect a rise in disease at the periphery. But are we also the masters of our world? YES! Humans made this disaster by environmental modification, and humans have the ability to head off this disaster (if we act quickly). The warming is due to the emissions of man-made machines and the deforestation of man-made agriculture. Global warming gives us both narratives in a single story, allowing us to view our world thru a lens that perfectly matches 21st century thinking.

Of course, this does raise a question. Have humans ever been good at doing long-term planning based on an idea that happens to match the current cultural narrative? At some momenta, we may say yes. The American founders created a Republic where none had existed before, because of the ideas of their particular moment in history. But at other moments in history, the ascendant syntheses gave us Communism, Fascism/Naziism, Crusades, Empires, and more. We need to take a step back and look at this idea to be sure that we accept or deny it based on its merits, and not merely because it fits the cultural synthesis we have at the moment.

Global Warming To Turn Us Into Cannibals...

or so says Ted Turner. About halfway through the article, Turner states, "I've gotten a lot better, though. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid." Most of the rest of the article has Turner saying stupid things. According to him, if we don't stop global warming by all voluntarily only having a maximum of 1 to 2 children, by the middle of this century all of our crops will die and we'll resort to eating each other... if we're alive at all. Should we be concerned about the environment? Certainly. Should we allow a fear of what could happen to the environment rule the way we live? Certainly not.

If the Earth Is Warming, Why Am I So Cold?

If things continue, those who militantly support the theory of global warming may have egg on their face.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

Snow in Baghdad??? Global warming proponents are quick to mention that with global warming it means a overall warming of the earth and some parts of the earth will get colder, but it appears that the past twelve months have counteracted all of the warming over the last 100 years.

And the ice that was melting in the arctic?

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

As the author of a second article point out though, "OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

Biofuels BAD for the environment

I had heard about the possibility of biofuels being bad before, but this is the first report I've seen that has actually come out and said that the rush to biofuels could actually be a bad thing. There are three basic theories that are at work here. First by using corn and other food products for fuel you are depriving people of food - particularly poor people. When the amount of food supply goes down the demand goes up along with the price - thus also depriving poor people of their corn/food. The second theory is that biofuels are now becoming a cash crop, so people are going to use up as much usable land as possible to grow those crops - including valuable rain forest land. The last theory is that because biofuels require a lot of water, much of the usable water in developing countries will be used and thus there will be less usable water for those who actually need to use it. If anything this is a wakeup call to be mindful of the side effects of the rush to save the planet.

Global warming counter claims

I was listening to the radio this afternoon as I drove back to work from lunch and there was an interesting topic being discussed. Apparently, a group of well respected international scientists have been banned from attending the climate change conference in Bali because they represent a dissenting voice in the global warming debate. When I got back to work, I looked into this group and they seem to be legit. The interesting thing I found was this video [below] discussing some of the falicies of the 'science' used in An Inconvenient Truth. We've had these sorts of discussions here before, but this is the first time I have seen anything in this form disputing the 'evidence' given by the former Vice President.

I don't agree with the politics, but I still think it's funny

The problem with Global Warming predictions

My environmentally-conscious friends often criticize me for my lack of interest in the Global Warming movement and controversy. "The world is coming to an end!" some day. Others plead with me, "We only have a few years left to act before the scales are tipped and there is nothing to do to stop a runaway environmental crisis." Still others are more sober and just say "You need to be informed." But the problem all along for me has been the attempt to make global predictions based on incomplete data and an even more incomplete understanding of the underlying processes.

Well, here is another shovel of dirt to throw on my interest in Global Warming science. Click on the link below for an article showing that despite strong predictions that 2007 would be the most active hurricane system in history... what actually happened was the LEAST active one since record-keeping began.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Changes to Global Warming Calcs

Readers of this Blog know I am not a fan of the Global Warming Movement. It is not that I do not think activists sometimes raise good points - I think Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was well-done and thought-provoking - but they all-too-often are willing to latch onto any hyperbolic notion in order to try and sway opinion. It is hard enough to believe humans could have actually changed the global climate without bringing foolishness like "The Day After Tomorrow" into it. (Great special effects, though! Loved the instra-freeze of New York City.)

An example of a Global Warming scientist doing things right has emerged. In this article, a Y2K bug was found in the calculations of one of the more influential scientists in the movement, and instead of either (1) claiming that an error was impossible or (2) blaming it on a conspiracy, the scientist (and his critic) simply corrected the data and republished it. The result? Scientifically, the data is changed little - the overall deviation changes 1% or so. But rhetorically it changes radically. 5 of the hottest days in history have moved from the 90s, to prior to World War 2.

Fred Thompson on Global Warming

Fred Thompson did a bit for Paul Harvey on Global Warming that I found pretty humorous. The audio can be found here and a transcript can be found here.

Another look at Global Warming