This Is What A Hero Looks Like


Image by: tarsandsaction

(The above pic comes from the tarsandsaction Flickr feed which is being constantly updated with the day’s events.) Continue reading

Don’t Go Back To Sleep


I started this post earlier this week as a tribute to Tim DeChristopher, the climate activist who is currently serving time for attempting to bring attention to an unjust auction of federal lands.   Before I get to that, please watch this video from Josh Fox, director of Gasland, which details the planned acts of civil disobedience in protest of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Do you know the tale of Bidder 70? Continue reading

Soil Matters: The Broad Case for Conservation Tillage


Image by: chesbayprogram

I finished up my latest term paper last week.  It ended up being significantly different from what I had originally intended, but I’m happy with the end point the research led me to.  I’ve reproduced the intro below and you can download a PDF version of the full paper.  Please chime in with your thoughts in the comments section.  I’m passionate about this topic and would love to learn more about it from you.

Introduction

I like food. No. I love food.  I spent the first three and a half decades of my life having little understanding of the energy needs fulfilled by food and the resources dedicated to its production.  Food was something to be enjoyed and its effects on the environment, not to mention my body, were ancillary concerns. I was ignorant to the impacts of our food systems partially due to systems which are designed for that effect, but more so due to my own failings.  From a climate change perspective this allowed me to make highly destructive, guilt-free, food selections.  I enjoyed fruits and vegetables, but often overlooked them when filling protein and carbohydrate loaded choices were available.  I consumed more calories than my body required and chose foods which typically had greater far greater environmental impacts that necessary.  I knew not the folly of my ways.  I know better now, so consider this my Mea Culpa.  Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities for me to make amends.

Continue reading

Is Speech Ever Free? (BART Protests)


I’m going to do this a little differently than usual tonight as I want to share different perspectives, and not just give you mine.   don’t try tell anyone how to think, but want to challenge you to engage with these ideas.  Therefore, I’m mostly going to share Twitter posts from tonight, with a few other things sprinkled in.  (Please let me know what you think of the format.  I don’t think I’d want to do this too often, but it was interesting trying to weave together the pieces of the puzzle.)

I left the title intentionally ambiguous as I see two meanings in it which I feel deserve consideration.

  1. Do you believe we have a society in which we are free to speak our minds?
  2. If so, what did we do to earn it?  If not, do we need to?

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.  As long as you keep it civil, I’ll make no effort to silence your comments. 🙂

As always, thanks for stopping by!

-Chris

The BART Protests (Background)

Continue reading

Climategate: Case Closed


A new MIT study which will soon be released, “concluded that the (IPCC) forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.”  I’ve been thinking about this news the past couple of days and its potential implications.  The past two years have seen a steady diet of attacks on climate science and its practitioners.

For those who are not familiar, Climategate, as conservative media outlets lovingly referred to it, was the “controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.”

I was digging through Brad Johnson’s (climatebrad of ThinkProgress.org) YouTube feed earlier and ran across the following interview of Stephen Dubner, the co-author of Freakonomics. (I normally link out to all the books I reference, but couldn’t bring myself to do so here.)

(Btw, I highly recommend subscribing to Brad’s posts on YouTube.  He regularly posts relevant content for those concerned with climate science and politics.)

The interview irked me for multiple reasons.  First, the interviewer, David Asman, opened with:

Well, politicians distort the truth all the time, but scientists are not supposed to do that. Still, it does happen. Stalin used to demand results from scientists that weren’t supported by evence — evidence, and of course Hitler did the same. But surely, we are above that, aren’t we? Well, “It can’t happen here,” as many people have said, but apparently it has.

Hat tip to Brad for calling this out in his response to the interview,  “After Asman compared climate scientists to Stalin and Hitler — we’re not kidding — Dubner jumped in to accuse “potent” scientists of “colluding” to “tell Al Gore what to say,” and “distorting evidence” to “make their findings be right for their position”:” (Emphasis here is mine.)

Next, Dubner admits that the emails were “hacked” (i.e. they were illegally stolen), before positing two potential reasons for this:

“Someone either wanted to get in there because they knew there was something that you know should be read, or maybe there’s a whistle blower, at this point we really don’t know.”

With this statement, Dubner suggests that there is only one possible reason for the emails to have been stolen,  wrongdoing by the scientists whose emails were stolen, the only question is whether it was an inside job.

Asman then tees up the opportunity to wholly discredit the IPCC and Dubner swings for the fences.

ASMAN: Bottom line, we’ve got to cut to the chase. Who do you think is doing what to the evidence? Do you think that supporters of global warming and the UN are distorting evidence to prove their point?

DUBNER: Distorting evidence, probably yes. To what degree with don’t really know yet. We’re going to find out a lot more about that. Here’s what I think.

ASMAN: But doesn’t to any degree discredit their theories?

DUBNER: Yeah. You can’t —

ASMAN: If something has been made up you can’t rely on anything else.

DUBNER: You can’t read these e-mails and feel that the IPCC or the major climate scientists’ findings and predictions about global warming are kosher. You can’t. They may be, but if you read these you have to have a whole lot of skepticism about that.

Dubner does give himself the safe out at the end with the “they may be” comment, but the damage was done when he said that their findings and predictions didn’t feel kosher.

“Climategate” Debunked

In the past two years, several investigations were launched to review the stolen data.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has a nice rundown of the results:

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

If you want to take a deep dive on the subject, check out the full UCS writeup, “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy.”  Along with the links shared above, the site features additional background information, links to press releases and further fact checking information, analysis from the UCS, and quite a bit more.

And What of the Accused?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the group whose emails were stolen maintains three things on the home page of their website.
First, they list the list the outcomes of the following investigations:
  • “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact” (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
  • “we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit” (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
  • “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)
  • “careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners’ claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science” (US Environmental Protection Agency)
For further information and the latest news, please see the Media and Communications site.
Next, they have the detail the organization’s purpose:
The aim of CRU is to improve scientific understanding in:
– past climate history and its impact on humanity
– the course and causes of climate change during the present century
– prospects for the future
Finally, they share a graphic which displays the average global temp since about 1850.  This seems a nice comeuppance (Something I’m a big fan of.) as they are displaying the data which received such close scrutiny.  To me this screams, “here it is, do your worst.  We can take it!”

Time For One More Investigation?

I had planned to make a case for investigating the embattled News Corp organization, but a quick Google search told me the Joe Romm had beaten me to the punch by nearly a month.   I highly recommend reading his insightful take on the case for further investigation into the hacking incident, “Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too?”  It’s not hard to mentally connect the dots with News of the World’s hacking escapades and illicit dealings with Scotland Yard going on at the same time that Fox News was hammering away at the IPCC over the stolen emails.  I’m not aware of a shred of evidence, so call this rampant speculation if you like, but recent events tell me it’s worth a look.

Closing the Door on Climategate

I opened this post with the news that arctic sea ice is melting four times faster than the IPCC scientists had predicted.  This is just one aspect of the IPCC’s research, but it is an important one as the melting ice has serious implications on global climate.  One study suggests that the melting ice could change ocean currents and severely impact the climate in Europe and North America.  “In any case, all researchers can agree that the Arctic ice has decreased by a third since 1979, and that Arctic ice hit a new monthly record low this past month.