climate-change : Duthie On...

A powerful indictment of CO2 restrictions as a means to combat "climate change":

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Read the whole thing, in particular the list of signatories, which includes several IPCC reviewers. Wonder why their opinions didn't make it into the Summary for Policymakers? Oh yeah, that's right, because the summary is written by policy wonks, not scientists, and the wonks are bound and determined to hype the so-called "climate crisis" at all costs. Yeah...OK.

Don't fight, adapt

Guess I won't be shopping at Whole Foods anytime soon:

Whole Foods Market won't offer plastic shopping bags at their stores after Earth Day this year. It is a savvy move for the upscale natural foods retailer, who estimates that by the end of the year the policy will have averted use of 100 million new plastic grocery bags at their 270 stores. It won't save the company any money-since the paper and multi-use bags that will replace plastic bags at their stores cost more to manufacture, stock and handle-but it is a savvy public relations move that will likely help to soothe the guilty environmental consciences of devoted Whole Foods shoppers who, like most Americans, believe paper bags are environmentally superior to plastic bags.

Unfortunately, the reality is that paper isn't better than plastic.

What's sad about this is that Whole Foods, which is run by a Libertarian, is now limiting the choices of their customers in a way that's likely to be harmful to the environment, because it plays to their incorrect preconceptions about which choice is better for the environment. While it's not surprising to see a company go for the easy profit rather than educate their customers, it's disappointing nonetheless.

Reason Foundation Commentary: Paper Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags

Who would have predicted this:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Oh yeah, that's right...I did, almost a year ago:

So it seems to me that even granting the best possible assumptions for CFL supporters we are going to end up trading mercury emissions in US coal-fired plants for:

1. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-fired plants
2. Mercury pollution at CFL facilities in China
3. Mercury pollution in the US waste stream

This just doesn't seem like a wise trade-off to me.

The article notes:

As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe. But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Welcome to the party, folks.

Oh, and make sure to read the sidebar to the article, too, which contains the 11-step process the EPA recommends for cleanup after a CFL breaks. Thanks, but not in this house, at least not until the federal ban on incandescent bulbs kicks in.

One last thing...the article doesn't do the math, but here's an interesting quote:

Consumers bought more than 300 million CFLs last year, according to industry figures, but they may be simply trading one problem (low energy-efficiency) for another (hazardous materials by the millions of pounds going right into the earth).

Let's see...5 milligrams of mercury per bulb (.005 grams) x 300,000,000 bulbs is about 1.5 million grams of mercury, or 1,500 kilograms. That's one and a half tons of mercury that may potentially enter the waste stream or end up elsewhere in the environment. And that's before the federal ban on incandescent bulbs takes effect. That's a lot of mercury to trade for warming that may not even be happening anymore.

Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - Environment- msnbc.com

 Oops:

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
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.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Excuse me if I don't hold my breath for the New York Times headline on this, or for the Nobel committee to ask for AlGore's prize back.

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Clearly, wishful thinking does not cause hurricanes:

Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy). However, the year is not over...

Click through charts and more. Once again, those who predicted a worse than usual hurricane season were wrong...and this year pretty dramatically so. Which would seem to suggest that the attempts to connect global warming and hurricane frequency/intensity should be deemed thoroughly busted. But don't hold your breath waiting for the mainstream media, or the global warming alarmists, to admit that.

COAPS - Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity

Apparently Freeman Dyson (yes, that Freeman Dyson) doesn't buy into the hype on global warming:

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Read the whole thing. I'll just say this...when you're arguing against as prominent a scientist as Dyson, you'd better have more convincing evidence than just computer models and selective real-world data (i.e. - citing declines in specific polar bear populations without noting that globally, polar bear populations are actually rising).

I really liked this bit as well:

As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organized unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science. The predictions of science-fiction writers are notoriously inaccurate. Their purpose is to imagine what might happen rather than to describe what will happen. I will be telling stories that challenge the prevailing dogmas of today. The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.

Folks like Freeman actually make me look forward to being a cranky old man. Not that I would suggest that I have anything like his level of intellect, but there's definitely something admirable about the "I don't give a damn" irascibility that comes with age.

There's also this:

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.

I think that captures the essence of the problem rather well. We have, today, a group of scientists, and the politicians who agree with them, who are demanding that we take draconian action on the basis of their asserted predictions of doom. Predictions which are based on computer models that do not adequately model real processes on our real planet, and whose inputs are based on a comparatively limited set of data. If it weren't for the fact that the liberal media agrees with them, these folks would've been laughed off the stage years ago.

Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson via BoingBoing

James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been a major critic of the Bush administration's response to global warming. Hansen has repeatedly claimed that he's being silenced for his outspoken views on the subject. Given that he's not an official spokesman for the government on climate change, it's not surprising that his public assertions that climate change is man-made and heading towards a point of no return would be viewed by the administration as unacceptable freelancing, not to mention scientifically dubious.

Now comes evidence that Hansen was, to be charitable, relying on data that was incorrect at best:

Last week's revelation by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre of a serious mistake and subsequent changes made by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the temperature history of America has created quite a debate in the new media.

While conservative bloggers were quick to point out the hypocrisy regarding the lack of an official announcement from GISS chief James Hansen as well as the possible significance to the entire global warming debate, alarmists such as RealClimate and TNR's The Plank viewed McIntyre's discovery and GISS's alterations less than earth shattering.

Is anyone at all surprised that Hansen has failed to make the same amount of noise about the errors by GISS, given that they tend to undermine his alarmist views? Or that the media has largely ignored the story? No one should be...it's just more evidence that climate change isn't about science, and making sure we have the best evidence. It's about politics, and burying any story that doesn't serve the preordained end.

Much more here.

How Important Was NASA’s Change to Historical Climate Data Last Week? | NewsBusters.org

OK, so perhaps I'm not as funny as the Dell Dude (assuming he was ever funny), but this one strikes me as an idea that only he could love.

I was browsing around Dell's website today, checking out the cost of some new desktop hardware, just for curiosity, more than anything else, when I came upon what I can only describe as the enviro-nut section of the build process.

In the services section of the website (see the image below), you now have the ability to have Dell (for a fee, of course) plant a tree for you to offset the CO2 emissions of your new PC.

They call it "Select my Plant A Tree." I call it, "let's buy into enviro-voodoo."

But hey, I suppose if people want to give Dell an extra $2-4 to make themselves feel better about buying a new PC, who am I to object. Apart from the fact that there are growing concerns that offsets may, in fact, lead to higher emissions of CO2, in part by making people feel less guilty about consuming electricity and burning fossil fuels.

It's probably not enough to stop me buying a Dell...they make good machines, and after all, the "service" is optional.

But it would be nice if there was some corporation in America willing to stand up and say "wait a minute! How about we work from facts here!"

What's especially amusing about this, IMO, is the fact that it's not as though consumers are beating the doors down demanding this, at least not if the turnout and viewership for Live Earth was any indication. Instead, this seems to be yet another example of top-down elitism...our corporate betters trying to tell us how we should live.

Thanks all the same...I'd rather have the Dell without the guilt...or the offsets.

OK, so when you've failed to convince Rolling Stone that a favorite liberal solution is a good thing, you've got a real problem (WARNING: article contains some strong language):

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Of course, author Jeff Goodell, who goes on to describe ethanol hype as "dangerous, delusional bullshit" is right on target. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, less efficient, and has the nasty side effect of raising prices for everything that depends on corn, which includes dairy products, meat, and oh, yes, corn tortillas, which are a staple of poor Mexicans, who are likely to suffer greatly from this pork being larded out to American corn farmers.

Read the whole thing.

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles : Rolling Stone

So much great snark in just two sentences: 

Originally, National Review Online thought that I might want to attend the North American concert and report directly, but I’m trying to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum. Besides, the irony of traveling to New Jersey to support an environmental cause is a tad dispiriting.

Read the whole thing.

Mark Hemingway on Live Earth on National Review Online

This, sent by a friend, is just a hoot:

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out.

OK, so let me get this straight...the globe is warming, and that's causing it to get colder and snow in Johannesburg? Anyone care to offer a scientific explanation of how that phenomenon works?

I think it's just the curse of the Goreacle. Wherever he goes, it gets cold and snows, particularly where he's going to pontificate about climate change. Perhaps, since he was in DC this week, the curse affected Jo-Burg instead, since it's still part of his big concert extravaganza.

But it couldn't be that the low turn-out had to do with people not being especially interested in being hectored about their carbon footprint by a bunch of celebs who's energy consumption easily dwarfs that of most average folks. Nah!

UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT

Gore goes on a tear in the usual vein at the DC Live Earth show:

"Some who don't understand what is now at stake tried to stop this event on the Mall," the former Democratic presidential candidate said in a thinly veiled hit on members of President George W. Bush's Republican party.

"But here we are," he said as an image of a bright Earth shined behind him. "And it wasn't the cavalry who came to our rescue, it was the American Indian."

Um...no, it wasn't. It was a bunch of libs at one of the Smithsonian museums...not the same thing, Al.

Oh, and you say you didn't know there was a DC Live Earth show? Well, apparently you're not alone:

A few hundred spectators turned out for the concert, which began at 10:30 am (1430 GMT).

I wonder how much carbon per attendee that works out to? Too darn funny.

Al Gore slams global warming doubters at Live Earth

You gotta figure Al's not thrilled with this, three days before the Live Earth carbon orgy:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Maybe, instead of trying to "save the earth" and tell all us rubes how to live our lives, AlGore should try spending a little more time being a father. Then perhaps Al III wouldn't feel quite such a strong need to act out. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that the above is a cry for help. It's easy to see the humor in this regarding Al II's crusading, but on some level you have to feel pity for Al III...it has to suck having a father who appears to be more concerned with the planet (or at least with his own political ambitions and reputation, since that's what this is all really about) than with his own son.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car | U.S. | Reuters

James M. Taylor:

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

Read the whole thing for a short list of just some of the fibs in "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient indeed.

Source: Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views

Read that last line twice...and the next time someone tells you how ethanol is necessary to combat global warming and save the world's poor from its ill effects, ask them what they're planning to do about the poor who rely on corn as a food staple, who can no longer afford it.

MORE ON WHY ETHANOL FUEL is probably a bad idea:

Congress evidently believes that American energy independence depends, in part, on turning massive quantities of food into fuel. The energy bill being debated in the Senate would mandate that 36 billion gallons of ethanol be produced for transport fuel by 2020. President Bush is more or less on board since he proposed a 35 billion gallon mandate in his last State of the Union speech. This is on top of the 2005 requirement that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be produced by 2012. Almost one-third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to produce ethanol in 2012.

Some energy hawks might argue that breaking our dependence on foreign oil is worth higher food prices. After all, on average Americans spend about 10 percent of their incomes on groceries. Doubling that would bring us back to the good old days of the 1950s when families spent about 20 percent of their incomes on food. Doubled food prices would not mean mass starvation for Americans. However, our biofuels frenzy will not only starve oil despots of cash, but it could end up literally starving millions in poor countries.

As far as I can tell, food-based ethanol is just liquid pork. Nonetheless, the idea will probably get traction, because: "the world's poor do not participate in Iowa's presidential caucuses."

Source: Instapundit.com

Really good question:

Forecasts for a busy hurricane season in 2006 were all dead wrong. This year, forecasters predicted a really busy year again. But with just two storms to date, and neither one a hurricane, you might wonder where all the action is.

Although the article goes on to suggest that it's too early to tell how busy this hurricane season will be, it's still an important reminder that prediction ain't all it's cracked up to be. And it should remind us that if some of the best forecasters in the business can be so wrong on the limited subject of hurricane number and strength, we should be extremely wary of those who claim to be able to tell us how high the average global temperatures will be a hundred years from now.

Oh, and one other thing...can we PLEASE outlaw the use of the word decimate by ignorant journalists:

Some seasons have seen unusually late starts. The 1992 season, for example, didn’t start up until August. And boy did it start with a bang: Hurricane Andrew decimated South Florida.

Even if one does not insist on the original meaning of the word, the more modern usage does not apply. Hurricane Andrew did indeed cause a great deal of damage ($26 billion, according to Wikipedia), but using sloppy language to describe the damage doesn't facilitate understanding of the scope of that storm. Perhaps this seems a bit pedantic, but is it too much to ask that those whose job it is to inform their readers excercise a little care with the language?

Source: Where are All the Hurricanes? | LiveScience

It's the simple ideas that no one cares about...at least no one who's more interested in pontificating about how we need to sacrifice our lifestyles to "save the planet":

SAVING THE PLANET -- or at least some energy -- with white roofs. It's worth a try! Megan McArdle has thoughts, and so does Mark Kleiman, who says that the idea is too simple and obvious to interest the political/policy community. "Just as a child is unlikely to be impressed with a highly efficient engine, because it fails to make a satisfyingly loud noise, or to trust a medicine that doesn't taste bitter, a political journalist is unlikely to be impressed with an innovation that doesn't cost a lot of money or create some other sort of major inconvenience or controversy."

Source: Instapundit.com -

Instapundit asks an important question: 

WILL ETHANOL LEAD TO FOOD SHORTAGES?

Ethanol is a renewable, homegrown fuel that can help lower U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But as more and more ethanol is made from corn, less and less corn is available for food production, and that’s causing some unforeseen problems.

Corn is a mainstay of American agriculture— it’s an important ingredient in cereals and baked goods, and corn syrup is used to make processed foods like candy, chips and soft drinks. But most importantly, corn is the major source of food for cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens that are headed for the dinner table.

A recent study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (which receives funding from grocery manufacturers and livestock producers) reported that U.S. ethanol production could consume more than half of U.S. corn, wheat and coarse grains by 2012, driving up food prices and causing shortages. The study estimates that booming ethanol production has already raised U.S. food prices by $47 per person annually. In Mexico, protests have already erupted over the high price of corn tortillas, a staple food in the local diet.

Read the whole thing, but it seems clear to me that making ethanol fuel out of foodstuffs is a bad idea. Ethanol from waste biomass is another story.

Of course, the answer is obvious...ethanol is already diverting corn from food production and increasing prices. The idea that these problems were "unforeseen" only highlights what I've said before...the enviro-lefties (and politically connected farmers) pushing ethanol mandates are conveniently short-sighted when it comes to enacting their policy preferences. There are very few policy consequences that would be entirely unforeseen, given a reasonable economic analysis, and this one should have been predictable by even a cursory analysis.

Source: Instapundit.com -

A "reality check" from Popular Mechanics:

How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 million tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

I'd be a lot more convinced if they weren't relying exclusively on mercury emission figures for coal-fired power plants. Last time I checked, coal was still the cheapest means for generating power, which means that all other things being equal, it's the less-polluting (and more expensive) means that will be idled by power savings from CF bulbs. Even if there is some reduction in output from coal-fired plants, the fact that PM's analysis appears to assume all reductions will be from coal-fired plants makes the analysis flawed at best.

Beyond that, PM also fails to address one of the major concerns of those of us opposed to CF mandates, namely where the mercury is emitted/located. Before we mandate the use of CF bulbs, as some governments are already moving towards, I'd like to see an analysis of the environmental impact of CF bulbs in the residential waste stream. Because despite the fact that CFs are not supposed to be simply thrown away, I suspect that most people buying them don't realize this. So is it more efficient to remove mercury at the source of a coal-fired plant, or to have to deal with mercury clean up in hundreds (or thousands) of landfills? And what of the Chinese factories where these bulbs are made? Are they included in the calculation of how much mercury is released into the environment by incandescents vs. CFs?

Source: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check - Popular Mechanics

via Instapundit, who's a fan of CFs. More power to him, just so long as I remain free to choose otherwise (I should note that Reynolds is also opposed to mandates).

Think environmentalists care about the world's poor? Think again:

H/T: Planet Gore

"But", one of Brumshagen's carpenter colleagues said of the model Ark, "I am not so sure that it will float."

So ends this ridiculous Reuters story about a group of environmental activists who are apparently rebuilding Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat. The activists (the news story doesn't mention whether they're actually believers in the Bible, or whether they're simply exploiting the story for their own ends) are attempting to highlight the purported danger of rising seas from global climate change by their carpentry efforts.

Of course, there are a few problems. One is the fact, not highlighted in the article, that even at the most extreme estimates of the IPCC, sea levels will only rise around 69cm (less than 2-1/4 feet, for those of you who don't do metric), which means that it would likely be several centuries before their ark would be borne off by the rising waters. If, that is, it could float (see above), which is another potential problem.

And, of course, being symbolic, their ark isn't meant to bear anyone anywhere, so it's not full-size, which would require a good deal more effort than they're willing to undertake. But since the goal seems to be to feel good about themselves by chastising the world's politicians, it seems they've already won:

"A boatbuilding master said they would not have the courage to do this given the short period of time," said German carpenter Rainer Brumshagen. "But I had the feeling that it could work."

"It all feels very good with the energy people are bringing here, uniting those from different countries to work together."

I wonder how much carbon is being released in the process of felling trees, processing the lumber, hauling it up the mountain, and constructing this monument to liberal political indulgence...just askin', is all.

Source: Article | Reuters

This time, from corn-based ethanol.

via Instapundit

Rich Karlgaard, in Forbes.com, discusses one of the most egregious cases of unintended (but utterly predictable) consequences in the brief history of the environmental movement, that of the banning of DDT in the wake of the release of Silent Spring, the book that is credited with starting the whole movement. It's author, Rachel Carson, has the status of a saint on the left, is lionized in the media, and even has schools named for her, such as this middle school in Herndon, VA (ironically, the location of a recent GOP primary for the Virginia State Senate).

As Karlgaard notes, the CDC estimates that malaria, which was nearly eliminated thanks to DDT, but has experienced a resurgence after the ban of DDT in the wake of Silent Spring, kills more than 800,000 children under the age of five each year. Which makes the naming of elementary and middle schools for Carson all the more ironic. The impact of the ban on malaria deaths merits just one line in the Wikipedia hagiography of Carson.

Karlgaard also notes the lack of interest by The Washington Post in this aspect of Carson's life and impact in their story today on her struggle with cancer:

Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.

Even acknowledging that there is some dispute about whether that entire figure can be laid at the feet of Carson and Silent Spring, it's simply astonishing how little desire for self-examination and reflection exists on the left. This makes it all the more clear that the environmental movement is not about the actual results...it's about feeling good about yourself, even if the actual result is other people suffering.

When I look at the current debate on global warming, it's utterly clear to me that those who advocate hugely expensive cutbacks in energy use and/or carbon taxes are utterly indifferent to the suffering that this would likely cause to those least able to afford it. Those who cannot, like Al Gore, simply buy carbon offsets and continue to consume far more than the average family, will be the ones who bear the brunt of the next set of unintended consequences. And as with Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, years from now when these consequences become obvious, few if any on the left or at The Washington Post (but I repeat myself) will be interested in examining how this came to pass.

via Instapundit

Laurie David and Sheryl Crow demonstrate that they've got it in spades.

Just imagine the temerity of Karl Rove in responding to someone deliberately attempting to pick a fight by, well, fighting. And what a shock for him to declare that he doesn't work for a couple of lefty celebrities.

According to The Daily Gut, David claimed that she's "never had anyone be so rude." Are you kidding me, lady? You take advantage of the White House Correspondent's Dinner to lecture someone you don't know about your particular political hobbyhorse, and then have the nerve to accuse him of being rude for not simply enduring your lecture in silence? Chutzpah probably doesn't cover it.

UPDATE: Byron York has more on this on NRO's The Corner, including observations from an eyewitness to the encounter. Unsurprisingly, the eyewitness account suggests that Crow and David were a tad more confrontational than their retelling allows.

In an earlier post, I pointed to an article on American Thinker about the problems with compact fluorescent bulbs, and also proposed a spoof of the "got milk" ad campaign to highlight the issue of mercury in CFLs.

Now, American Thinker has been kind enough to pick up the graphic and put it on their homepage. My thanks to AT for their interest.

American Thinker has the story.

Perhaps we should start an ad campaign...Got Mercury?



Feel free to pass the above image along, if you're so inclined.

UPDATE: I wanted to add a link to the Wikipedia article on CFLs, which confirms the 5mg figure cited in the graphic I created, and which is referred to in the article I link to. Note that the Wikipedia article also claims that the overall output of mercury from a CFL should be less, given the theoretical reduction in emissions from coal-fired power plants, than using incandescents. I find this conclusion dubious both in its merits and in its applicability to me personally.

On the merits, the conclusion assumes a direct reduction of emissions from coal-fired power plants, an assumption that isn't necessarily justifiable, as it may not take into account the percentage of US power being generated by non-coal sources, the additional power requirements in China due to the need to add manufacturing capacity for more CFLs, and other issues. And given that China is hardly a paragon of environmental responsibility, one would reasonably assume that both manufacturing of CFLs and powering of the plants are likely to be dirtier there than they would be here in the US.

On applicability, even if one accepts the argument that the overall mercury load represented by CFLs is less than that of incandescents, one has to look at the problem of waste handling. If an incandescent bulb in my home breaks, I need only worry about finding and cleaning up all the sharp glass. If a CFL breaks, I have to worry about toxic heavy metals. If the mercury load from incandescents is largely or entirely based on emissions from coal-fired plants, it's much easier to deal with by improving scrubbers or other emissions technologies, compared to figuring out what to do with potentially millions upon millions of spent CFLs, not to mention educating consumers that they cannot safely just throw them into the trash.

So it seems to me that even granting the best possible assumptions for CFL supporters we are going to end up trading mercury emissions in US coal-fired plants for:

1. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-fired plants
2. Mercury pollution at CFL facilities in China
3. Mercury pollution in the US waste stream

This just doesn't seem like a wise trade-off to me.

...and other tactics to discredit those who don't toe the catastrophic global warming line:

PowerLine blog has a great example of the full range.

It says something about the poverty of argumentation on the side of the supporters of catastrophic global warming theory that they, and the media, must distort the views of those who oppose their doom-mongering. And worse, these tactics make it harder to have a reasonable debate on reasonable steps we could be taking today, at significantly less cost than things like Kyoto, to improve the lives of real people, right now (note that which steps should be taken by whom...and whether by private parties or government entities...is the subject of a separate, though related, debate).

Folks like Bjørn Lomborg are to be thanked for trying to focus the debate on where we can best use resources, rather than on hyperventilating about CGW and carbon emissions. I may not agree with all of Lomborg's priorities, but at least he recognizes that wasting hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent a miniscule amount of warming is a phenomenally stupid choice, and one that will inevitably result in more deaths and misery than would otherwise be the case.

Not surprisingly, political hacks like Al Gore have steadfastly refused to have a head-to-head debate with Lomborg, perhaps because they're well aware that it would highlight the weakness of their arguments, and in Gore's case, his rank hypocrisy in being a prolific energy consumer while urging the rest of us to life a more austere lifestyle.

H/T Planet Gore

So as I write this, it's snowing outside my window in Northern Virginia. I eagerly await the latest convoluted explanation from Al Gore & Co. on how this is actually caused by anthropogenic global warming.

I mean, after all, if Manhattan can flood and then freeze solid in a matter of hours (The Day After Tomorrow, quite possibly one of the dumbest movies ever made), what's a little snow in April?

So says Michael Crichton in an interview with Scott Burgess.

Crichton has a remarkable facility for breaking things down to their essence, and this interview is no exception. I doubt he's the first to say it, but the notion merits repeating, often and loudly...science is not, nor should it be, a matter of consensus. We don't vote on science, we form hypotheses, and test them to weigh their merits.

The global warming bullies don't want anyone to upset their apple cart, so they attempt to browbeat their opponents with consensus. Does that suggest confidence in their hypothesis, or the opposite?

Via Planet Gore

As Amy Ridenour (via Iain Murray of NRO's Planet Gore blog) points out, you call it a "free concert." Think about this a minute...according to Gore, et. al., Global Warming is the most critical issue to our collective survival. But it would appear that there's not a lot of demand for political rallies on the issue. So let's get a bunch of lefty musicians and celebs together, and draw people that way. Then we can claim that the thousands who attend these concerts are showing their concern about GW. Right. And how nice to know that Gore and co. won't be able to use the Capitol grounds for their political rally.

H/T Planet Gore

That's the question Bill Hobbs looks into, and makes a pretty good case that it may be an "inconvenient truth" behind Gore's activism.

H/T Planet Gore

...not As I Do.

Another fine example is Al Gore, who according to this post on the Planet Gore blog (referring to an item from the Tennesee Center for Policy Research), uses more than 20 times the national average in electricity. One assumes that at least some of that is not from renewable sources.

Ah, but according to Greenhouse Gasbag Al, the rest of us plebes must conserve, conserve, conserve if we are to avoid the dire calamities of global warming.

Thanks for the warning, Al. And for doing your part.

UPDATE:
This post, via Instapundit, is not only a devastating takedown of Gore's exuses for his energy gluttony, but also highlights an unexpected "inconvenient truth" for Al...his 2000 opponent, George W. Bush, has a model of environmental responsibility in his Crawford, TX ranch. Naturally, the media's completely ignored this information.

Climate scientist Roy W. Spencer discusses in the NY Post the uncertainties involved in our current understanding of climate, and the relative "sharpness" of climate models as predictors of future global warming. A worthwhile read.

H/T - Planet Gore blog