An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other.
James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Author's site: cyamid.netPenetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops.
--- H. L. Mencken
By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard
Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins
As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.
Sarah Palin. Huh. Who would have thunk it? On the upside, I had but a few waking hours of moping over Barack Obama's failure to do more than give climate change a single passing reference and again champion the delusional notion of "clean coal" in his otherwise impressive acceptance speech last night before the Republican nominee reminded me just how little he really cares about the subject.
As far as I can tell, North Carolina's no different from the rest of America when it comes to religion. About a tenth of the population is free of religious conviction. That's not a big slice, but it could, in theory, be big enough to cost Sen. Elizabeth Dole her re-election this November, if enough free-thinkers learn that they're not welcome at her dinner table. Thanks to PZ's outrage, we learn that Dole is outraged that her Democratic challenger, Kay Hagan, is hanging out with horror of horrors Boston atheists.
I know I'm probably beginning to sound a like a broken record (does anyone remember what that sounds like?), but I'd like to draw your attention once again to the plight of the planet's coral reefs. Today we have the Honolulu Declaration, in which a dozen leading reef researchers make a plea for stabilization of greenhouse-gas emissions. Will it do any good?
We all make mistakes. And even the most humble among us can be a little self-righteous when it comes to our pet projects. But when was the last time you came across a self-righteous pseudo-skeptic who had the decency to admit to getting it completely wrong? Meet Steven Goddard of The Register, a peculiar little news outlet published in London. Sort of. Goddard wrote a piece that appeared on Aug. 15 under the bold headline "Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered." As anyone who has been following the plunging arctic sea-ice extent graphs at the National Snow and Ice Data Center can attest, this is a rather peculiar interpretation of the data.
If you need to kill some time while you wait for word on who Obama has chosen as running mate, check out this transcript of a radio debate on climate change. Canadian PR agent Richard Littlemore takes on British journalist Christopher Monckton on the Roy Green Show on Hamilton, Ont.'s CHML. The sad affair was presciently summed up 500 years ago by Michel de Montaigne: "No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately."
The news department of the journal Nature has just published an impressive round-up of all the major clean energy technologies installed and theoretically capacity, prices, challenges, everything you need to know. Plus an inspiring editorial. A must read for anyone interested in the subject. And it's all free access. For now.
Word is Al Gore is getting a prime speaking slot on the final night of the Democratic Convention. Those of us concerned about climate change, or even the role of science in presidential politics and governance in general, should welcome this news, right? Maybe not, if you pay attention to the polls. At least, that's Matt "Framing Science" Nisbet's contention. I would like to disagree with him, but want to spend a few minutes examining the issues, because I think it's an important one.
Jim Hansen wants to see all coal-fired plants shut down by 2030. Except for any plants that employ carbon-capture and sequestration. Al Gore wants to see the United States generate all its electricity from renewable sources by 2018, which means shutting down all the coal-fired plants. Except for any plants that employ carbon-capture and sequestration. Princeton University's Pacala and Socolow of the "wedge" strategy make CCS an integral part of their future clean energy portfolio. Everybody who's crunched the emissions numbers pretty much agrees that coal has got to go. Unless we can capture all the troublesome carbon dioxide. So can we?
I spent five years of my life in Canada's Arctic and not a day goes by that I'm not reminded just how powerful an impression those years left made on me. When I read the latest news on arctic sea-ice extent, I wish more people would recognize just how important what happens up there is to the rest of the planet. Now, I know fellow ScienceBlogger William Connelly is convinced "nothing much going on with sea ice at the moment." But that's not what I see in the latest graphs from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Looks like we won't be needing a team of aging, time-traveling Starfleet officers to save the humpbacks after all. The IUCN has downlisted (I hate that word!) (Megaptera novaeangliae) from Vulnerable to Least Concern. Only took 25 years of keeping the whalers at bay to do it. But I'll take the good news when I can get it. (At right are animatronic members of the species.)
By now we've all seen the John McCain ad that juxtaposes Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with Barack Obama. Most of us probably recognize it as disingenuous use of imagery to make a flawed argument. Sadly, the same technique is being used by one of our own here on ScienceBlogs. The culprit is Matt "Framing Science" Nisbet. Take a look.
So the other day I found myself on a conference call with James Hansen, who is just back from a European trip during which he tried to convince environment ministers that we should stop burning coal. I was given the opportunity to put one question to the guy. So, referring to his many public letters that deal with the need to focus on coal, I asked if that means all the squabbling over whether the U.S. should lift the moratorium on offshore drilling is missing the point?
Every corner of my regular morning stroll through the internet is littered with references to coal. One could say that coal is in the air. And it doesn't smell good. First, there's this depressing news from British Columbia:
It's finally time to comment on Gore's Law: "As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one."
It is easy to be disappointed with Barack Obama's recent reversal on the acceptability of new offshore drilling. But unless this is your first presidential election, then you shouldn't be too surprised. Fans of any candidate have to be prepared for a long list of compromises as the November vote approaches and the two sides do what they think they have to do to win over those who don't share their core principles. But I am disappointed nevertheless. Especially as Obama seems to have given his energy policies a fair bit of thought.
The man himself has been reduced to a footnote in the last advertisement from his new "we" campaign. The ad is scheduled to appear in the usual suspect media "to make sure Al Gore's clean electricity challenge stays on the top of our leaders' minds during their break." See a bigger version here.
Andy Revkin demonstrates once again why he's among the best science journalists around in his latest exploration of the challenges facing climatologists frustrated with the way their science is portrayed in the popular media. No real answer emerges from his analysis, but if every researcher and reporter involved in the subject read this piece, maybe we'd be closer to one.
As if the developing world didn't have a enough to worry about when it comes to joining the industrialized 21st century without following in the developed world's polluting footprints. A new study by British researchers finds that where you fly makes a difference to your impact on the climate. The take-home message is jet flights near the equator do more damage than at high latitudes.
I doubt whoever chose today's "quote of day" as it appears on my RSS-fed personalized Google homepage, was thinking about the recent climate-denying nonsense at the American Physical Society. But the timing was impeccable. First, the quote:
The Internet makes it waaaay to easy to be stupid. Over at my other blog, a collective effort assembled by the Weather Channel, I write exclusively about climate issues. Each of my posts and just about all my colleague's posts dealing with the subject assume that climate change is real and that humans are largely responsible. It's easier that way to keep things short. It also happens to be a reflection of what climatologists think. But almost every post attracts comments from those who beg to differ and last week was no different. Except that some of the comments were more inane than usual.
I don't have time today to comment on Al Gore's latest challenge to America "to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years" except to say that such a plan is at once the best idea to make it to the national stage in years and the most ambitious. More later.
I wanted to like Sizzle. I really did. I like Randy Olson's contributions here on ScienceBlogs to Shifting Baselines. Randy is a former marine biologist and I have a degree in marine biology. He thinks the climate crisis is one of if not the most important public policy challenge of our time. So do I. Global warming pseudoskeptics drive him crazy. Me, too. If anyone should appreciate what Randy's trying to do with his latest documentary, it's me. The problem is, I wasn't quite sure what it is he's trying to do until the last section of the film. I think I figured it out, but I must report that I wasn't impressed.
If you had to identify the most popularly cited threats posed by a changing climate, rising sea levels would be a strong contender. While no one would argue that the fate of hundreds of millions of humans who live in low-lying coastal regions is not a good enough reason to put the brakes on global warming, I'd like to see more attention paid to what's happening beneath the ocean surface at its current level. I'm talking about the possibility of mass coral extinction. It's the subject of a new analysis in Science by an impressive list of 39 scientists from an even more impressive list of research institutions around the world.
Not everyone here at ScienceBlogs is happy about a new project appearing here, under the auspices of SEED, and underwritten by none other than Shell. Yes, that's right, the big bad petro products transnational. "The Next Generation of Energy Ideas" is another blog collective, featuring some ScienceBloggers (including me) and a couple of others, most notably Joe Romm of Climate Progress. We'll be tackling a different question, put to us by a SEED editor, each week, and taking turns spewing forth. In return we will be paid for each post. My contributions appear Monday. How do I justify taking money from Shell?
It's time for the Union of Concerned Scientists' annual scientific integrity editorial cartoon contest. See the candidates and vote for your favorite here. My favorite:
Some guy named Ken Sprague had a thousand pounds of British currency to throw around each year so he decided, for the second year in a row, to hold a competition for editorial cartoons dealing with "climate change and other threats to the environment." Not too surprisingly, many of the entries aren't so much funny as poignant reminders of human stupidity. The Independent offers a slide show of the two dozen best. Here's my favorite by Ukraine's Igor Kondenko. It manages to incorporate a variety of ideas, including a dig at the American can-do spirit, in one simple image:
So much has come down the political pipe in the past few days I've barely had time to think about science. Plus, I'm just about to head off for a 10-day vacation back on Canadian Shield birthright, so I need to get this off my chest: The Second Amendment has to go.
The Pew Forum surveys on what Americans think always churn out fascinating results. The latest one, released Monday, is no exception. My favorite tidbit emerges from the clever decision to drill down past the simple question of whether the recipient believes in god to a more sophisticated understanding.
It shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out. Do we have the means at our disposal, now, to replace fossil fuels with clean alternatives that won't bankrupt us all? The only two variables we need consider are the energy conversion efficiency ratios of each candidate technology and the costs, up front or amortized, of same. So why can't we agree on this simple question?
There's much gnashing of teeth among the secular set these days, as South Carolina prepares to offer automobile license plates that declare "I Believe." Just in case other drivers don't get it, the specialty plates will also feature a cross, just as Florida's proposed and rejected plates would have. Is this a breach of the First Amendment, as a lawsuit filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State claims? Or is it much ado about nothing? I can't get worked up beyond blogging about it, of course.
Sixty years is a blink of the metaphorical eye on geological time scales, and it's still damn fast when you're talking about climate change. While it may be far too long for Wall Street to worry about, six decades is safely with human lifespans, and a study that concludes temperatures in Greenland can shift by 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10°C) in such a short time merits more than a passing mention.
The man that Republicans believe is the best candidate for president their party has to offer says that lifting the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling would "be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis." This may not be the least intelligent statement to be made in the 2008 campaign to date Ed Brayton prefers McCain's demonstration of his lack of understanding of basic legal principles but it still boggles the mind.
Among the most common arguments to emerge from attendees of the climate-change slide show we members of Al Gore's Climate Project hear is "what about nuclear energy?" After all, it doesn't produce any greenhouse gas emissions, at least not while operating, and the technology is already available. Well, there are three reasons why nuclear energy isn't part of a realistic solution to climate change.
I have exaggerated and generalized to grab your attention. But it's not that much of a stretch to put reviving the North American continent's moribund passenger rail network at the heart of what really matters in this election year. By this, I mean how the American presidential and congressional candidates, and their analogs in Canada, approach the subject of mass transportation will tell you a lot about whether or not they understand the most important challenges facing society.
Earth: The Sequel
The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming
by Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn
Has the climate crisis got you down? Cheer yourself up with yet another dose of (almost) unbridled optimism from the president of the Environmental Defense Fund (Fred) and one of his staffers (Miriam). Don't be fooled by the odd choice of title; this is actually an ode to the free market.
Given just how much we don't understand about the Earth's climate, it's understandable that a newcomer to the science of global warming would doubt that we are capable of predicting much of anything. Many a climate change pseudoskeptic makes this argument, which can be compelling, but only if you don't understand how science works. A paper in this week's Nature Geoscienceis a perfect example of why so many people who otherwise consider themselves skeptics, people like me, find the anthropogenic explanation for climate change so persuasive. It's not so much what we know as the trends associated with what we don't that are so convincing.
The report of NASA's Office of the Inspector General on the clumsy attempts to censoring climate science makes for a most enjoyable read. We can laugh now that it's over, I mean. There are lots of gems among the overall finding the a small cabal of political appointees in the public affairs office tried to delay or bury new findings on climate change. Here, then are some of my favorites:
Wired magazine's June cover story would have the entire environmental movement drop everything but one campaign. You don't need to see the cover to know they're talking about climate change. Does such single-mindedness make even the slightest bit of sense? Sort of. But not for the reasons the editors provide.
There's a reason the Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whaling fleets mostly take the smallest of the great whales whalers had taken so many of the bigger species that only the minke could tolerate any kind of hunt. There are supposed to be hundred of thousands of them out there, just waiting to be exploited by responsible, sustainable whaling operations. But wait...
This may strike some as a bit much, but why the heck not? An opera based on "An Inconvenient Truth." The only problem is, how will the librettist keep the science of climate change current with an expected opening (at La Scala) of 2011? By then, we may be looking at a tragicomedy. Or perhaps an opera buffo, depending on how hot things get.
Climatologists have long puzzled over what caused an abrupt drop in global average temperatures in 1945. To explain the anomaly, which, unlike most other similar rapid falls, is not associated with a volcanic eruption, most invoke an increase in airborne industrial activity following the end of the Second World War, even though the ocean temperature dip begins several years before industrial activity takes off. The idea is the clouds seeded by the extra aersols reflected more sunlight before it could be trapped in the atmosphere. But that was always a guess, and now it seems there was a simpler answer.
We've all heard economics described as the "dismal science," yet it still qualifies for a Nobel prize. Many still grumble about the decision to tack on economics to the short list of true science Nobels, and while I don't know whether such complaints are justified, there is good reason to remain highly skeptical of the field's predictive powers in general. Take the just-released Tufts University study on the cost of climate change.
I love Alaska. I really do. Not the political jurisdiction; the geographical entity that Michelle shocked felt compelled to remind her fans is the largest in the union. It's full of spectacular, mostly pristine wilderness. There's Denali, the fjords of the panhandle, its salmon, whales, eagles and bears, incomparable glaciers and some of the best aurora viewing on the planet. Too bad, then, that its human population seems hell-bent on doing everything it can to destroy what makes the place special.
One in eight. Is that low enough? Not according to the authors of a new paper in PLoS Biology who conducted the "first nationally representative survey of teachers concerning the teaching of evolution." They did come up with some optimistic data, though. When asked to describe the role, or lack thereof, in human's development over the ages, 28% said it was solely evolution. That's more than twice the rate for the population at large (13%).
...read the backgrounder produced by Real Climate's Rasmus Benestad. It's another example of the kind of reseach journalists need to do before writing about climate change research.
Should scientists place bets on how well they can predict the future? I'm not talking about inter-lab wagers on the outcome of some arcane experiment. Such games are commonplace, and usually involve ersatz currencies such as beers or domestic services. But what about real money on something as consequential as a computer model of climate trends? Is that consistent with the professional detachment that's supposed to accompany honest research?
Now don't talk to me about the polar bear
Dont talk to me about ozone layer
Aint so much of anything these days, even the air
They're running out of rhinos, What do I care ?
Lets hear it for the dolphin, Lets hear it for the trees
Aint runnin' out of nothin in my deep freeze
--Mark Knopfler
So the Bush administration finally found a way to officially add the polar bear to the list of endangered species without bringing down the wrath of the robber barons of the petroleum industry. Well, sort of.