shcb has made disparaging remarks about the hockey-stick graph, so I realize that he has some sort of theory for why it’s not compelling, even though 98% (literally) of the top currently publishing climate scientists disagree with him.
Even so, hope springs eternal that leading the horse to water one more time will finally get it to drink. And this graph is animated. Look, shiny!
I Do Not Want Mercy, I Want You To Join Me.
I’m not saying any of this to ask you for mercy, but to ask you to join me. If you side with Mr Huber and believe that your role is to discourage citizens from holding their government accountable, then you should follow his recommendations and lock me away. I certainly don’t want that. I have no desire to go to prison, and any assertion that I want to be even a temporary martyr is false. I want you to join me in standing up for the right and responsibility of citizens to challenge their government. I want you to join me in valuing this country’s rich history of nonviolent civil disobedience. If you share those values but think my tactics are mistaken, you have the power to redirect them. You can sentence me to a wide range of community service efforts that would point my commitment to a healthy and just world down a different path. You can have me work with troubled teens, as I spent most of my career doing. You can have me help disadvantaged communities or even just pull weeds for the BLM. You can steer that commitment if you agree with it, but you can’t kill it. This is not going away. At this point of unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks like. In these times of a morally bankrupt government that has sold out its principles, this is what patriotism looks like. With countless lives on the line, this is what love looks like, and it will only grow. The choice you are making today is what side are you on.
After turning down a plea offer that would essentially have let him walk away in return for making a public apology, Tim DeChristopher is serving a 2-year sentence at a federal prison. More about Tim here: Frequently Asked Questions about Tim DeChristopher.
From Kate’s ClimateSight blog: Who are the Skeptics?
…there is a remarkable level of scientific consensus on the reality and severity of human-caused global warming. However, most members of the public are unaware of this consensus – a topic which we will focus on in the next installment. Anyone with an Internet connection or a newspaper subscription will be able to tell you that many scientists think global warming is natural or nonexistent. As we know, these scientists are in the vast minority, but they have enjoyed widespread media coverage. Let’s look at three of the most prominent skeptics, and examine what they’re saying.
Those who claim there is an absence of scientific consensus on global warming have an obligation to actually look at the credentials and track-record of the scientists on both “sides” of the controversy. When you do that, it quickly becomes apparent that on the one hand, we have apples. On the other, oranges. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you your oranges.
Gary Gutting, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame, offers a pretty rock-solid argument that I recommend to our resident AGW denier: On Experts and Global Warming.
How can we, nonexperts, take account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public policy?
To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the authority of experts. First of all, such appeals require a decision about who the experts on a given topic are. Until there is agreement about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions. Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points relevant to our discussion. Precisely because we are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are. Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we nonexperts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim.
There’s really no way I can see around his logic. I’m sure shcb will find a way, but I think that’s more a testimony to the power of motivated reasoning and the plasticity of shcb’s reality than it is to the merits of Gutting’s argument.
Bill McKibbon’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post: A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!
Dale McGowan explains (in an otherwise worthwhile piece that I’m not going to focus on here) how he helped his 9-year-old daughter deal with the fear that resulted from her having heard about Christian radio-show host Harold Camping’s (latest) prediction that the world would end soon:
I looked her in the eye. “When you’re trying to figure out what to believe, a good way to start is to just ask why other people believe it, then decide whether it’s a good reason.”
We can apply this approach to the question of whether human activity is altering the climate, and whether that alteration is dangerous. For example, today USA Today ran an editorial (Our view: America, pick your climate choices) that basically equates climate change deniers with birthers:
Late last week, the nation’s pre-eminent scientific advisory group, the National Research Council arm of the National Academy of Sciences, issued a report called “America’s Climate Choices.” As scientific reports go, its key findings were straightforward and unequivocal: “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment.” Among those risks in the USA: more intense and frequent heat waves, threats to coastal communities from rising sea levels, and greater drying of the arid Southwest.
Coincidentally, USA TODAY’s Dan Vergano reported Monday, a statistics journal retracted a federally funded study that had become a touchstone among climate-change deniers. The retraction followed complaints of plagiarism and use of unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia.
Taken together, these developments ought to leave the deniers in the same position as the “birthers,” who continue to challenge President Obama’s American citizenship – a vocal minority that refuses to accept overwhelming evidence.
Nothing much new here (as the editorial points out). But they also did something interesting: They ran an “opposing view” piece by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) arguing the opposite position. See Inhofe’s view: All pain, no gain.
Not too long ago, President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress proudly announced that America would lead the fight against global warming by passing a cap-and-trade bill. But despite overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2009, Democrats barely found the votes to get the proposal through the House, and Senate Democrats never even brought it up for a vote.
The reason is simple. Cap-and-trade is designed to make the energy we use more expensive. Consider President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who said in 2008, “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s about $7 to $8 a gallon.
What the Democrats have since learned is that the American public is more skeptical of the science of global warming than at anytime over the past decade. Frank Newport of Gallup stated earlier this year, “Americans’ attitudes toward the environment show a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence.”
I encourage you to read Inhofe’s whole piece. There are some additional arguments in it, mainly that if the US pursues cap-and-trade pricing on carbon it will simply shift carbon emissions to other countries and actually increase those emissions.
So, I put it to you: Just on the basis of these two pieces, which side in the debate is making the stronger argument?
USA Today editorial board: the nation’s pre-eminent scientific advisory group is straightforward and unequivocal in stating that “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment.”
Jim Inhofe: Congress has failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, despite Democratic majorities, because the electorate is worried about the effect it would have on gas prices. Meanwhile, the American people’s concerns about global warming have diminished over the past decade.
Hm. I wonder which argument should carry more weight as I try to assess whether climate change poses a significant risk? I could listen to the scientists who study climate. Or I could listen to politicians who receive massive campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, and consumers concerned about the price of gas. I wonder which of those groups has a better take on what’s going to happen with climate?
Chris Mooney (who I suspect is working on a new book on this subject, which I can’t wait to read) has another item up today pointing to yet another study that documents the phenomenon that those on the left or right who self-identify as being more knowledgeable about the science of climate change tend to be more, rather than less, polarized in their views. That is, Democrats who see themselves as well-informed on the subject are more likely to acknowledge the actual scientific consensus, while well-informed Republicans are more likely to deny it, than those of either party who say they don’t know as much. See: Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial.
This core finding itself is not new – a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.
How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased – based on our views and information sources – and moreover, twice biased in different directions.
High-school science teacher Greg Craven had way too much fun making this video:
In some ways Australia is ground zero in the climate change catastrophe. For whatever reasons, human-caused perturbations of climate are falling especially hard and especially early Down Under. Which means their politics are probably in some ways a predictor of what we can expect in other parts of the world as things get climatically weirder.
Anyway, I really liked this piece by Australian Stephan Lewandowsky:
The truth is out there. It’s more about American politics than Australian politics, but I still get a sense of the Australian reality seeping through:
The late Stephen Jay Gould referred to a fact as something that it would be “perverse to withhold provisional assent.” Notwithstanding the Academy’s clear statement about the existence of global warming and its human-made causes, recent surveys reveal that the majority of US Republicans do not accept this scientific fact.
Indeed, tragically and paradoxically, among Republicans acceptance of the science decreases with their level of education as well as with their self-reported knowledge: Whereas Democrats who believe they understand global warming better also are more likely to believe that it poses a threat in their lifetimes, among Republicans increased belief in understanding global warming is associated with decreased perception of its severity. The more they think they know, the more ignorant they reveal themselves to be.
Why?
What motivates people to reject trivially simple facts – such as the President’s place of birth – as well as more complex facts – such as insights from geophysics and atmospheric science?
The peer-reviewed psychological literature provides some insight into this question. Numerous studies converge onto the conclusion that there is a strong correlation between a person’s endorsement of unregulated free markets as the solution to society’s needs on the one hand, and rejection of climate science on the other. The more “fundamentalist” a person is disposed towards the free market, the more likely they are to be in denial of global warming.
But what do markets have to do with geophysics or the thermal properties of CO2?
The answer is that global warming poses a potential threat to laissez-faire business. If emissions must be cut, then markets must be regulated or at least “nudged” towards alternative sources of energy – and any possibility of regulation is considered a threat to the very essence of their worldview by those for whom the free market is humanity’s crowning achievement.
It is this deep psychological threat that in part explains the hyper-emotionality of the anti-science discourse: the frenetic alarmism about a “world government”, the rhetoric of “warmist” or “extremist” levelled at scientists who rely on the peer reviewed literature, the ready invocation of the spectre of “socialism” – they all point to the perception of threat so fundamental that even crazed beliefs can constitute an alluring antidote.
David Roberts, writing at Grist, coins my new favorite expression (“the fussilade of lies”) while describing the Republican response to Obama’s attempted centrism: Policy in an age of post-truth politics:
The political logic behind Obama’s center-right healthcare plan (and center-right cap-and-trade plan, and too-small stimulus with too many tax cuts, and too-mild financial reform) is that there is a “center” in the policy spectrum, and that if he chooses policies located there, moderate Republicans, by virtue of their previous policy commitments, will be forced to work with him, and he will get credit for being reasonable and centrist, which will translate into votes, victories, and political momentum. That has been the basic approach of his presidency. Unfortunately, it reflects a naive policy literalism that is absolutely ubiquitous on the left.
What happened instead? On policy after policy, Obama began with grand, magnanimous concessions (see: offshore drilling) and waited in vain for reciprocation. He adopted center-right policies … and was attacked as a radical secular socialist Muslim babykiller. Every Dem proposal, no matter how mild, has been a government takeover complete with confiscatory taxes, death panels, and incipient tyranny. The fusillade of lies began early and has continued unabated.
Now, on the naive, positivist view, the media and other elite referees of public debate should have called a foul. Republicans should have been penalized for opposing and maligning policies that they’d supported not long ago, for brazenly lying, and for rejecting all attempts at compromise. They chose the strategy; the strategy should have been explained plainly to the public.
But the crucial fact of post-truth politics is that there are no more referees. There are only players.
I’ve been following Chris Mooney’s blogging and podcasting really closely for a while now; he’s digging into subjects that I find fascinating, and I like his take on them.
He has an article in the upcoming issue of Mother Jones that covers some of the most interesting stuff he’s been into lately: The science of why we don’t believe science. It discusses recent research that Dan Kahan (among others) has been doing — see Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (PDF) — that discusses how a person’s deeply held values influence his or her perception of scientific opinion. So, for example, if you are a politically conservative/libertarian-leaning person (in Kahan’s formulation, someone who values hierarchy over egalitarianism and individualism over communitarianism), then you will resist the (truthful) idea that there exists a scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet, and poses a grave risk, presumably because you fear that such a consensus, if it existed, would be used to advance a government regulatory regime that would restrict free enterprise.
But the same sword cuts the other way, too. Kahan’s research shows that those on the progressive end of the political spectrum (in his formulation, those who value egalitarianism over hierarchy and communitarianism over individualism) are similarly likely to question the (truthful) idea that there exists a scientific consensus that radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.
Mooney interviewed Kahan for his Point of Inquiry podcast a few months ago (Dan Kahan – The American Culture War of Fact), and it was a great interview; highly recommended. I was actually kind of disappointed that the article in Mother Jones didn’t go into as much detail as the podcast (see my griping here, for example). But for a broad-but-shallow overview of some intriguing aspects of the issue, it (the Mother Jones article) is definitely worth reading.
I came across this chart, which originally appeared in the journal Climatic Change (Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects), in a blog post by Julia Hargreaves (Picture of the day). I offer it here mainly because I know it will amuse Barb Tomlinson:
As someone who’s concerned about climate change and interested in local governments’ response to same, I really liked this article by Mark Hertsgaard: Why Seattle will stay dry when your city floods. It talks about the efforts of Ron Sims, former chief executive of King County, Washington, to incorporate climate science into decision-making surrounding Seattle’s water infrastructure.
One of Sims’ ideas was to make climate change central to the mission of every department in county government. “Ron is always telling us, ‘Ask the climate question,'” said Jim Lopez, Sims’ deputy chief of staff. “That means: Check the science, determine what conditions we’ll face in 2050, then work backwards to figure out what we need to do now to prepare for those conditions.”
Eban Goodstein, director of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, has a plan for building a political movement around climate change. Given my own recent realization that the only way this issue is going to be addressed effectively is if it is transformed from a partisan wedge issue into a consensus view that is shared by both major parties, I definitely sat up and took notice when I read the following passage in New year, new idea for climate: the American Clean Energy party.
How would ACE work? Simply. Run ACE-endorsed candidates in Democratic and Republican congressional and U.S. Senate primary elections. Most ACE races would be in swing districts — challenging especially dirty energy Democrats in primaries, but also creating space for a clean energy Republican voice.
ACE would be a “single focus” party, endorsing only candidates who pledged to run and govern as “moderate” D’s or R’s (as defined by their district or state) in all areas excepting one. For economic revitalization, jobs, national security, rural development, energy independence, clean air for our kids, climate stabilization, we need a revolution: clean energy!
Why moderate elsewhere? Because clean energy is the defining issue of our time. On all other issues there is time to debate, and room to compromise. But on energy, time has run out. Addiction to fossil fuels is strangling our economy, and impoverishing the planet, and we have only a few short years to act before the window for action will close, forever.
Sign me up.
Flickr image by John Wardell (Netinho)
I created this game to help me understand why different people think the way they do about climate change. The game is based on an imaginary scenario with four variables and one choice. By supplying values for the variables and then indicating your choice, you can help me better understand your thinking about climate change.
Step One: The Imaginary Scenario
You are in a casino facing a roulette wheel. On the far side of the wheel stands a croupier. The roulette wheel contains 100 slots. Some of them are red; the rest are black. In a moment you’ll get to choose how many red slots there are. This is Variable 1.
You hold a wad of money. In a moment you’ll get to decide how much money is in the wad. This is Variable 2.
You must bet the entire wad on one spin of the wheel, either on red or black. There are four possible outcomes. From best to worst, they are:
Outcome I: You bet on black, and the ball lands on black. You win. The croupier hands you back your money, and you walk out of the casino.
Outcome II: You bet on red, but the ball lands on black. You lose. The croupier collects your money, but you still get to walk out of the casino.
Outcome III: You bet on red, and the ball lands on red. You win, but you don’t get your money back. Instead, the croupier exchanges your money for a number of blank bullets, which you get to place in the slots of the roulette wheel, one bullet per slot. In a moment we’ll talk about how many blank bullets you get to place. This is Variable 3.
When you have finished placing the blanks into the slots of the roulette wheel, the croupier opens a box of live ammunition and places one bullet in each of the remaining slots. He spins the wheel again, removes either a blank or a real bullet from the slot in which the ball lands, loads the round in a gun, aims at some part of your body, and fires. We’ll talk about where he aims in a minute. This is the final variable, Variable 4.
Assuming you are able to, you walk out of the casino.
Outcome IV: You bet on black, but the ball lands on red. You lose. The croupier collects your money. He then proceeds as he did in Scenario III, except you lose the chance to try to get him to use a blank. Instead, he simply takes the gun, loads a real bullet, aims, and fires. He aims at the same place he would have aimed at in Scenario III.
Assuming you are able to, you walk out of the casino.
That’s the scenario. To play the game, you imagine yourself in that scenario, then say which color you would bet on: red or black.
Step Two: Choosing Values for the Variables
Before you can make your decision, you need to choose values for the four variables so that the imaginary scenario reflects your views about climate change. In order for you to do that, I need to explain what the different parts of the scenario represent.
As you may already be aware, there is a group of people who believe all of the following things:
For easy reference, I’m going to call the people who believe those four things “climate hawks”.
Returning to the imaginary scenario:
You represent human society.
Your bet (red or black) represents whether or not society takes the actions the climate hawks are calling for. A red bet means society takes those actions. A black bet means it does not.
If the roulette wheel lands on black it means that the climate hawks will eventually turn out to be wrong about at least one of the four things they believe.
If the wheel lands on red it means the climate hawks will eventually turn out to be right about all four things.
Since there are 100 slots on the wheel, the number of red slots (Variable 1) can be used to represent the percentage chance that the climate hawks are right about all four things. That is, if you believe there is a 25% chance that the climate hawks are right, you should pick 25 as the value for Variable 1, so there are 25 red slots on the wheel and 75 black slots. If you believe there is a 75% chance they are right, you should pick 75, so there are 75 red slots on the wheel and 25 black slots. I’m not trying to push you in any particular direction. I just want to know what you think. If you are sure that the climate hawks are wrong (or right), you’re free to choose 0 (or 100) for the number of red slots. It’s up to you.
The amount of money in the wad (Variable 2) represents the cost to society of investing in the sorts of actions the climate hawks are calling for, as opposed to investing in whatever else society might choose to invest in. Somewhat arbitrarily, I’ve picked $100,000 (roughly twice the average annual household income in the US) as the maximum number for the imaginary scenario. So, pick a number between 0 and $100,000 for this variable. The idea here is that you are choosing a number that “feels” right to you, in the sense that the pain that an individual head of household would feel if he or she lost that money in a single spin at the roulette wheel would be roughly comparable to the pain that society would feel if we invested in action on climate change, only to find out that that action was not necessary.
The number of blank bullets that you get to place on the wheel if you bet on red, and the ball lands on red (Variable 3), represents the percentage reduction in the chance of catastrophe if the hawks are right, and we do take their recommended actions. That is, it’s your best guess as to the chance that the hawks’ recommended actions will actually work to prevent catastrophe, should the hawks turn out to be right in their four beliefs. If you think the hawks’ recommended actions have a 25% chance of averting catastrophe in that scenario, you should choose 25 for this variable. If you think those actions have a 75% chance of averting catastrophe, you should choose 75. And so on.
The point at which the croupier aims his gun (Variable 4) should reflect your best guess as to the actual negative consequences society will suffer if the climate hawks are correct in their four beliefs, and we don’t succeed in averting those consequences. For this variable I’ve somewhat arbitrarily picked the following aiming points, reflecting different degrees of likely harm:
Step Three: Place Your Bet!
Whew. We’re ready to play the game. Take the values you picked for the four variables, plug them into the scenario, and then imagine yourself facing that scenario.
Now answer this question: Which would you bet on, red or black?
Please put the values you chose for the variables, and the bet you chose to make, in the comments. Thanks!
Awesome science blogger Ed Yong wrote back in October about a new study demonstrating the lengths to which people will go to avoid cognitive dissonance: When in doubt, shout – why shaking someone’s beliefs turns them into stronger advocates.
You don’t have to look very far for examples of people holding on to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thousands still hold to the idea that vaccines cause autism, that all life was created a few thousand years ago, and even that drinking industrial bleach is a good idea. Look at comment threads across the internet and you’ll inevitably find legions of people who boldly support for these ideas in the face of any rational argument.
That might be depressing, but it’s not unexpected. In a new study, David Gal and Derek Rucker from Northwestern University have found that when people’s confidence in their beliefs is shaken, they become stronger advocates for those beliefs. The duo carried out three experiments involving issues such as animal testing, dietary preferences, and loyalty towards Macs over PCs. In each one, they subtly manipulated their subjects’ confidence and found the same thing: when faced with doubt, people shout even louder.
There are a couple of obvious tie-ins to the climate change debate: Deniers deny even more fiercely in the face of mounting scientific evidence that climate change is real, and that urgent action to address it is imperative. And I guess it cuts the other way, too, as shcb is no doubt already preparing to type in response: In the face of public relations setbacks, the climate change believers are redoubling their own efforts. If you believe that the believers are factually wrong, and that the evidence against them is legitimate, then it matches up in exactly the same way.
And accused people tend to protest their innocence, whether or not they are guilty. That doesn’t make the two cases equivalent, though. There is such a thing as actual innocence, and it makes a difference.
For more great stuff from Ed Yong, check out his NERS Review of the year Part 9 – Twists and lessons.
Joseph Romm, on why he is a climate hawk:
I am a physicist by training who studied physical oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Since then, I’ve mostly been an energy technologist, including a 3-year stint as deputy manager and then manager of what was then the largest program in the world to work with businesses to develop and deploy clean energy and low carbon technologies. Then I became a consultant to businesses on clean energy and carbon mitigation, and then a full-time energy/climate policy analyst and blogger.
I don’t think “climate hawk” applies to my view of climate science, but rather my view of climate and energy policy. My view of climate science comes from having read much of the climate science literature of the last few years and having listened to many of the leading climate scientists (for a recent literature review, see “An illustrated guide to the latest climate science“). In that respect I sometimes call myself a “climate science realist.”
[snip]
The overwhelming majority of people who have seriously read the recent literature and who have talked to a large number of top climate scientists are climate hawks, whereas the vast majority of the climate doves, deniers, delayers or lukewarmers you read online or might in person have not done those two things.
Discuss.
From the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions: The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. The subtitle reads:
A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public
Currently reading it, but so far it sounds like good stuff. As summarized by Chris Mooney, the guide’s advice includes:
…knowing your audience, employing framing, using trusted messengers (often local voices), using the power of groupthink in your favor (rather than letting it turn against you), and much else.
I’ll probably yack more about this when I’ve finished it.
Stuart Staniford has an interesting writeup on his blog today about his ongoing project to shift to a sustainable lifestyle: Prospects for Early Progress in Decarbonizing my Household. He has converted to full-time telecommuting and moved his family from the Bay Area to a rental home in upstate New York. The next step: Green Acres.
So, as of a couple of weeks back, we are now the proud owners of 11 acres, complete with a mid-nineteenth century farmhouse and a medium-sized barn. It’s situated in a valley up in the hills about 10 miles from Ithaca, between two state forests, and surrounded by a land trust nature preserve. Directly on the property, we have a one acre pond, a little over an acre of lawns, 8 acres or so of gently sloping pasture, and a little woodland, mostly riparian right next to the creek that abuts the property, and a stream that runs down to it.
I say the creek abuts the property, because legally it does, and it used to do so in fact as well as in law. However, shortly before we got the house, the beavers decided to divert the creek onto the lowest portion of our lawn by damming the culvert under the road. How long the powers that be will tolerate this situation is unclear, since probably the town’s engineers would like the culvert nice and clear, and the land trust had intended the creek to run on their property, not ours. But apparently the beavers didn’t consult their lawyers or get permits before beginning their midnight construction project.
I’d love to live in a place like that, though I probably wouldn’t get much done besides bird- and bug-watching.
Another thing I love is following Staniford’s train of thought when he explains technical concepts. He reminds me a little of Robert Heinlein, who was great at rattling on for page after page about spacesuits, or the scale of the solar system, or whatever, and making everything really accessible and interesting without dumbing down the content. For example:
The coal stove is a sort of a personal climate destruction machine – it takes in both electricity and coal, and uses the electricity to power an automated feeder mechanism which takes rice coal from a hopper and burns it, somewhere out of sight in the depths of the machine, before distributing the resulting heat via a blower fan. The previous owners avowed that it would burn for four days unattended from a full hopper of coal (they were very proud of it because it heated the lower floor of the farmhouse so cheaply and conveniently).
We did contemplate running this thing for a while until it became somewhat more budgetarily convenient to replace it, but our consciences have got the better of us and we have decided that an immediate project is to replace it with a modern wood stove – less convenient, no doubt, to stack and load wood, but we need the exercise anyway, and it’s ever so much more beautiful to look at a wood fire through the glass of an efficient wood stove with secondary burners. And of course, at least in our area, there’s plenty of trees busy fixing the carbon for future firewood. Not a solution that will scale to everyone, for sure. Not a solution that works for urban areas. But one that certainly makes sense here.
From Kate of the ClimateSight blog comes this really awesome summary: The Real Story of Climategate. The whole thing is good, but I especially liked this part:
Skepticism is a worthy quality in science, but denial is not. A skeptic will only accept a claim given sufficient evidence, but a denier will cling to their beliefs regardless of evidence. They will relentlessly attack arguments that contradict their cause, using talking points that are full of misconceptions and well-known to be false, while blindly accepting any argument that seems to support their point of view. A skeptic is willing to change their mind. A denier is not.
I found ClimateSight via Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog, in his post today in which he linked to lies.com: A firehose of global warming news, both good and bad. Huzzah for inbound links!
You are currently browsing the archives for the global warming category.