Ebola Good News/Bad News Follow-Up

A few weeks ago, I took a break from climate change blogging to voice my concern over the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Since then, some good news and some bad news have developed. I can't ask you in real-time which you want first, so I'm just gonna hit you with the bad news to start...

Dr. Sahr Rogers, one of Sierra Leone's bravest and most influential healthcare workers, has lost a battle with the illness and died. It's hard for us here in the cynical, resource-rich West to appreciate the importance of fearless, knowledgeable leadership when proper medical supplies and facilities are lacking. The people of Sierra Leone have lost one of their finest, most dedicated medical professionals, and someone who undoubtedly helped dispel some of the counterproductive superstition surrounding the sickness.

As of August 28, 2014, the official death toll of this latest epidemic had risen to 1,552 people, though some unofficial reports say that total could be grossly underestimated. Even when cases are reported and Ebola is detected, due to other health complications afflicting some patients at the same time, such as influenza or malaria, it can be difficult to determine the specific cause of death. Needless to say, however, the potent pathogen must have played some role in diminishing health and causing the fatalities.

Unlike his American counterparts, Miguel Pajares, the infected Spanish missionary flown back to Spain for treatment, died, and serves as a sobering reminder that the somewhat mysterious ZMapp drug produced from the tobacco plant, the true efficacy and safety of which has yet to be determined, is no guarantee of recovery, perhaps especially so for older patients. Though cleared by the FDA for urgent or compassionate-use cases only, the medicine is in short supply presently and, to date, does not seem to lend itself to rapid production and deployment.

August 12, 2014 at 8:30 AM - The available supply of ZMapp™ has been exhausted. We have complied with every request for ZMapp™ that had the necessary legal/regulatory authorization. It is the requestors’ decision whether they wish to make public their request, acquisition, or use of the experimental drug. Any decision to use ZMapp™ must be made by the patients’ medical team. Drug has been provided at no cost in all cases.

Another Westerner, a German epidemiologist, has contracted the disease and gone home for treatment, and some countries are recalling their staff.

Despite these disappointing developments, and their troubling implications for successful containment, there is some good news...

Brantly and Writebol, the two Americans flown back to Atlanta, have recovered and been released from Emory Hospital.

Pharmaceutical companies are working with the FDA and government agencies to increase production of ZMapp, so the exhausted supply issue may be corrected soon.

"Mapp and its partners are cooperating with appropriate government agencies to increase production as quickly as possible," LeafBio said in a statement on its website. Currently, it's unclear how long it will take to manufacture more of the serum.

And most encouraging of all, if you ask me, is the fact that the NIH will begin testing an experimental vaccine (not just a drug) on human enrollees next week.

The Vaccine Research Center (VRC) has developed an Ebola vaccine candidate in collaboration with Okairos, a Swiss-Italian biotech company recently acquired by GSK. The investigational vaccine, which was designed by VRC scientists, contains no infectious Ebola virus material. It is a chimpanzee adenovirus vector vaccine into which two Ebola genes have been inserted. This is a non-replicating viral vector, which means the vaccine enters a cell, delivers the gene inserts and does not replicate further. The gene inserts express a protein to which the body makes an immune response. The investigational vaccine has recently shown promise in a primate model. The VRC vaccine will enter into a phase 1 clinical trial, which could start enrollment as early as fall 2014, pending approval by the FDA. The VRC is also in discussions with governmental and non-governmental partners regarding options for advancing this candidate beyond Phase I clinical evaluation.

Initial results may be reported as early as October or November.

That's not just good news, that's great news. Let's keep our fingers crossed for a successful trial.

Simulating Glacier Loss in the Lab

Physicists at Emory University are designing scaled-down models...oops, I forgot...climatology is the only area of scientific research forbidden by deniers to utilize models. They are using simulations to help calculate the size of glacier chunks that break off from larger flows and ice sheets.



I'll go ahead and use this post as an excuse to ask if anyone reading this has seen it yet. I haven't (yeah, yeah, I know, I'm way behind in the times), but I'd be interested in reading a thoughtful review in the comments.

Climate Change? Like, OMG! As If! Whatever! Boring!

I don't even...



OK, lemme start my response by reminding everyone that I'm not a stick in the mud. I get what Veritasium is trying to say here. Settled science can become boring at times to a certain degree, if you have taken the time to digest and immerse yourself in its findings and predictions. You kinda end up twiddling your thumbs and hoping something new comes along to rock the boat, so to speak. And I even think it's a pretty cool YouTube channel with some lively, science-friendly, informative videos.

But, ummmm, see, the problem with declaring climate change boring now is that we are most likely in for one hell of a ride. And I don't think I can stress enough that, as tokodave a contributor over at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog puts it, uncertainty (the kind lukewarmers like Judith Curry like to hang their hats on) is not your friend. In fact, I would even go so far as to say we might prefer a little boredom over the excitement climate change already has delivered and is delivering...









Needless to say, I'm of the opinion that Veritasium has probably chosen the wrong word to describe climate change. Jussayin.

Impressive Renewables Gains Threatened by Shortsighted Policy

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a medium-term market report for renewable energy today. Despite what you may have heard from clueless, arse-backward deniers about renewable power production losing ground/support, the forecast's executive summary detailed some pretty impressive recent gains.

In 2013, renewable power capacity expanded at its fastest pace to date. Renewable power generation continued to grow strongly, reaching almost 22% of the global mix, compared with 21% in 2012 and 18% in 2007. Globally, renewable electricity generation is now on par with that of natural gas, which remained relatively stable in 2013. Investment in new renewable power capacity topped USD 250 billion globally in 2013 and is likely to remain at high levels.

Hydropower deployment reached 41 GW in 2013, partly due to the early commissioning of new capacity in China. But the return of hydro availability to more normal levels in China and the effects of drought in Brazil caused global hydropower generation to expand by less than 2% year-on-year compared to over 4% in 2012. Non-hydropower reewable generation grew rapidly by almost 16% year-on-year, similar to the rate in 2012. New solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity (+39 GW) surged in 2013, led by China and Japan, where deployment is incentivised through attractive feed-in tariffs (FITs).

Though smaller, solar thermal electricity (STE) additions were equivalent to the record level achieved in 2012, and offshore wind was deployed at its highest level to date, with the start of several large projects long under development.

Global biofuels production rose by almost 7% in 2013 to reach over 115 billion litres (L), 3 billion L higher compared with that predicted by MTRMR 2013. In Brazil, ethanol output was boosted by a higher-than-expected sugar cane harvest that led to a 2 billion L additional ethanol production compared to th eprevious forecast. In the United States, ethanol production rose marginally in 2013, as the effect of elevated corn prices resulting from an extensive drought in the previous year was mitigated after the 2013 corn harvest. Biofuels output, adjusted for energy content, accounted for 3.5% of global oil demand for road transport in 2013, versus 3.4% in 2012 and 2.0% in 2007.

However, the IEA analysis warns that unhelpful policy choices will threaten further progress.

Onshore wind additions (+34 GW) were their lowest since 2008, largely due to a drop in new capacity in the United States stemming from policy uncertainty over the renewal of federal tax incentives at the end of 2012.

Meanwhile, the geography of biofuels policy support is shifting; while backing for increased biofuels volumes is waning in several key markets–the United States, the European Union and Brazil–it is expanding in newer non-OECD markets, such as Southeast Asia.

Among renewable power technologies, solar PV is the only source expected to exceed global 2DS targets in 2020, boosted by cost declines and an increasingly rapid scale-up in non-OECD markets. Meanwhile, notable shortfalls may occur in bioenergy for power, onshore wind and hydropower, which are all mature and relatively cost-effective technologies. Policy support for bioenergy has waned in some OECD countries, and developments face the challenge of establishing sustainable feedstock supply chains. Onshore wind can face challenges related to local acceptance, as in some European markets, and requirements for the build-out of the grid and further integration measures to reach higher levels of penetration, as in China and Europe.

It goes on to make the following recommendations.

Nevertheless, this conservative outlook is not inevitable–with certain market and policy enhancements, the most dynamic renewable technologies could grow faster through 2020 than in this report’s baseline case (see "Enhanced Case" below).

Overall, policies will remain vital to stimulating investment in capital-intensive renewables and stimulating greater development.

Broadly speaking, achieving enhanced renewable deployment would require alleviating some of the challenges enumerated above and repeated through this report. These include, but are not limited to, the rapid clarification of policy uncertainties in some markets; the implementation of stable and sustainable policy frameworks that give greater certainty about the long-term revenue streams of renewable projects; greater measures to ensure the grid and system integration of variable renewables; the implementation of fair rules and appropriate electricity rate design for allocating the costs and benefits from fast-growing distributed solar PV; improved reductions in non-economic barriers; and faster-than-expected decreases in renewable technology and generation costs.

And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven had this to say.

"Renewables are a necessary part of energy security. However, just when they are becoming a cost-competitive option in an increasing number of cases, policy and regulatory uncertainty is rising in some key markets. This stems from concerns about the costs of deploying renewables. Governments must distinguish more clearly between the past, present and future, as costs are falling over time. Many renewables no longer need high incentive levels. Rather, given their capital-intensive nature, renewables require a market context that assures a reasonable and predictable return for investors. This calls for a serious reflection on market design needed to achieve a more sustainable world energy mix."

In other words, if policymakers remove their craniums from their posteriors, the growth over the past few years can continue and even improve for some forms of renewable power generation.

Do-Nothing Congress Wets Diapers over Update to Impotent Climate Treaty

By now, you've probably heard that Obama is allegedly planning to circumvent the Constitution, American rule of law, Congress, the White Council, S.H.I.E.L.D., the Justice League, the United Federation of Planets, the Empire, Mt. Olympus, the Illuminati, God, and maybe even Jonathan Goldsmith just so he can, get this, do something...ANYTHING...however pathetically ineffectual about climate change in Paris in 2015.

He's also apparently trying to unseat one rather notorious Al. Al Gore, you say? Pah, small potatoes. With this unprecedented power-grab, Obama's aiming to take the crown of international crime and infamy from the corpse of none other than Al Capone himself.

Dun.

Dun.

Duuuuuunnnnnnnnn!!!!

Mitch McConnell, leader of the rebel resistance, warns...

"Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration's tendency to abide by laws it likes and to disregard laws it doesn't — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree. Whether it's releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, hurting the economy and jobs with their unilateral EPA regulations, 'recess' appointments or Obamacare, this troubling approach does serious damage to the rule of law."

And James Inhofe, fearing for the lives of Bothans everywhere, declares...

"The Senate will not ratify a treaty that binds the United States to a regulatory body at the United Nations, and we will continue to fight the President’s economy crushing domestic greenhouse gas regulations. U.S. economic competitiveness is hanging in the balance, and additional U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will only hurt the United States as other nations like Australia scrap their unsuccessful green dream policies."

See, only problem is, despite the rumors of his newly-discovered, universe-destroying, Sith Lord powers, Obama is not seeking a legally-binding agreement all on his own and lonesome, mostly because he can't do that without a treaty-ratifying, 67-vote threshold in the Senate.

So let's all just take a deep, soothing breath, close our eyes, find our happy place, let the Chicken Little panic subside, exhale, and see if we can figure out what it is he's really gonna try to do.



And, voilà, here's a decent explanation.

Under the "hybrid" climate approach, countries would not be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies. But they would make voluntary pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Progress on those pledges could be tracked and measured in an international system; countries that fall behind would be singled out, Obama’s climate negotiators told the New York Times.

This "naming and shaming" component is similar to the "trade policy review" mechanism used by the World Trade Organization, Joshua Meltzer, a fellow in global economy and development at the Brookings Institution, explained. In the WTO, each country’s trade policy is reviewed by the leadership and other member countries, and policies considered unfair or illegal can be challenged. "No government likes to be held up in front of the world as not meeting any of its commitments," he said.

Whether the Obama strategy can work -- and how well -- hinges on a handful of factors that have yet to be finalized. "The legal form of the treaty … is not the only thing that matters, in terms of effectiveness," Keohane said. "It’s the more boring and technical infrastructure stuff that really counts." That includes developing an accounting system to measure, review and verify emissions reductions, as well as providing incentives for governments to participate and comply with voluntary targets.

There ya have it. Very few legally-binding repercussions of any kind if countries fail to meet their stated emission-lowering goals. No crushing embargoes, no politicians sent to international court and jail, no trampling of American laws and sovereignty, no jackbooted thugs with blue helmets showing up, none of that. Just a review and an announcement of reduction target results, and incentives to meet them.

Of course, the futility of this milk-and-water agreement won't prevent denier politicians running around, hair on fire, wailing away that the president is trying to accomplish something meaningful behind their backs with it (like traction on the greatest threat we face would be a bad thing), and making grandstanding, menacing challenges along the lines of... "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Obama, the more congressional districts that will slip through your fingers!"

Easy Money, Right, My Little Screwy Denier Friends?

And I thought I stuck my neck out and challenged climate change deniers. I got nothing on Dr. Christopher Keating who recently offered $10,000 to anyone who can disprove man-made global warming.

"I'm a scientist and I have to go where the science leads me. I have been studying climate change for a long time and I am certain my money is safe. They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn't real, it would be worth the money."

I mean, geez, why haven't Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard, Dr. Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, et al, and you wingnut denier trolls who constantly crow away on Internet forums that you know better than climatologists already cashed in, hmmmmm? Didn't have the chops AGAIN?! Ah, poor little ineffectual denier loudmouths can't seem to come through when it counts.

Four Political Parties and Only One Lukewarm Denier

First off, I want to apologize to any Kiwi readers I might have for my embarrassing ignorance. Other than your nuclear-free zone and a certain filmmaker who seems bound and determined to ruin the work of a favorite author of mine (anyone who has been paying close attention to my YouTube channel understands I'm not a fan), I know so very little about your country, and even less about its politics.

However, after watching the video below, as an American, I gotta say I am extremely jealous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in New Zealand you may have up to six major political parties to choose from (Green, Labour, National, ACT, NZ First, and Conservative), and only one, ACT, the free market party, appears to be in any sort of troubling denial over climate change. I could carry on at length about why this Jamie Whyte clown is mostly wrong, especially when it comes to his unfortunate ignorance about the maturity of climate science, but the rolling eyes, sheepish grins, and head shaking of his on-stage peers speak volumes about how foolish his statements are. And even he admits there's a scientific consensus behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and really just appears hopelessly married to silly lukewarmer arguments that the effects won't be bad, because his political ties force him to support the archaic notion that protecting the environment is bad for business. Three out of four party representatives not only accept AGW as real, but recognize it as possibly the greatest threat we face, and mostly wrangle over the best policy choices to deal with it.

Wow. Just wow.

You have no idea how favorable your present political climate is to our own here in this country.

Have a watch, my fellow Americans, and see how sensible the political exchange over climate change could be here, if we pulled our collective cranium out of our collective posterior.

The Pontiffs and Their Pontifical Pontifications

A few months ago, the Vatican held a summit focusing on sustainability and the environment.

This led to some post-summit declarations about the climate and human responsibility on the part of workshop participants and the Glorious Pontiff himself.

If current trends continue, this century will witness unprecedented climate changes and ecosystem destruction that will severely impact us all.

"But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: 'I don’t like it!. This is not good!' 'So what do you like?' 'I like myself!' – Here, this is sin! Do you see? Custody of Creation is custody of God’s gift to us and it is also a way of saying thank you to God. I am the master of Creation but to carry it forward I will never destroy your gift. And this should be our attitude towards Creation. Safeguard Creation. Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!"

-Pope Francis

I find this all wholly (holy?) unsatisfying, and I've at least partly explained my dissatisfaction regarding religious people's recent ecological about-face in a previous post. I mean, he can't mention "global warming" or "climate change" outright, and instead pointlessly meanders around the issue with roundabout "liking ourselves too much and destroying God's gift" nonsense? What the hell is that crap? He makes us sound like children unhappy with holiday gifts we just received. How about describing the problem in plain language, Pontiff, and calling out some past and present influential deniers within the religious community? In fact, how about starting off by cleaning up your own house of worship, and clarifying previous statements by the Church and past Popes which seem to conflict with this latest custodial and safeguarding approach to creation, huh?

"First, then, let it be considered as certain and established that neither Leo nor those theologians who have taught under the guidance and authority of the Church have ever denied or questioned the twofold character of ownership, called usually individual or social according as it regards either separate persons or the common good. For they have always unanimously maintained that nature, rather the Creator Himself, has given man the right of private ownership not only that individuals may be able to provide for themselves and their families but also that the goods which the Creator destined for the entire family of mankind may through this institution truly serve this purpose."

-Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 45

"Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to transmit human life — 'increase and multiply' — and to bring nature into their service — 'Fill the earth, and subdue it.' These two commandments are complementary. Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the service of human life."

-Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magister, 196-7

"Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature." Uh huh, rrrrriiiiigggghhhhtttttt. Because, you know, subduing something always leaves it in a natural state of healthy self-preservation.

Ummmmm, wot?

Can't have a cake baked into the shape of your funny hat, and eat it too, your Papaliness. Doesn't work that way.

"In the very first pages of Scripture we read these words: 'Fill the earth and subdue it.'(19) This teaches us that the whole of creation is for man, that he has been charged to give it meaning by his intelligent activity, to complete and perfect it by his own efforts and to his own advantage.

Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: 'God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples.'"

-Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 22

To be sure, some nature-friendly directives — not many — have been issued by subsequent papacies, but no real reversals or corrections of previous prehistoric declarations or ignorant scripture passages. Just more tormented, disappointing spin about their "true" intent, which fools no one. So, uh, Pope Francis, could we have some clarity here rather than deception about what was really meant by those Holy See decrees and Bible verses, and maybe an apology for all the trouble their archaic, backward sentiment may have caused environmentalists over the years, hmmmmm? Would that be so hard, your Papalitude?

And, since you're supposed to be such a great moral and religious leader, and all that, do you think maybe you could devote some time during your next divine missive to lead these wayward idiots back into your sacred, creation-safeguarding flock? I know they're probably Protestants, and therefore maybe not buying the notion that you are Earth's primary conduit to the Supreme Annunciator, and everything, but one might think you could summon the courage to reach out over denominational lines, and deliver some well-needed dope slaps before, like, uh, creation destroys us, ya know? Your words, your Blessed Eminence, not mine. And thanks in advance for finally not beating around ye ole Burning Bush this time.

Risky Climate Business

You may or may not be aware that back in June some radical, fringe climate change activists, who operate with the clear and open goal of communism in mind according to Steven Goddard, released a report on the economic risks of climate change.

Let's see who made it onto Goddard's neo-McCarthyism blacklist this time by way of their participation in the project which led to this report, shall we?

Michael R. Bloomberg, founder Bloomberg L.P.; Republican/Independent Mayor of NYC

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., former CEO Goldman Sachs; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Bush

Thomas F. Steyer, founder Farallon Capital Management LLC

Henry Cisneros, founder and chairman CityView Capital; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Clinton; former Mayor of San Antonio

Gregory Page, former CEO Cargill, Inc.

Robert E. Rubin, co-chairman Council on Foreign Relations; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton

George P. Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State under Reagan; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon; former U.S. Secretary of Labor under Nixon; former director Office of Management and Budget under Nixon; former president Bechtel Group

Donna E. Shalala, president University of Miami; former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services under Clinton

Olympia Snowe, former Republican U.S. Senator representing Maine

Dr. Alfred Sommer, Dean Emeritus, Bloomberg School of Public Health; University Distinguished Service Professor, Johns Hopkins University

Wow. Quite a list of notable communist party members, huh? I mean, geez, Louise, who knew there were so many Marxist-Leninists hiding in plain American capitalist sight?

If you read the report, you will see why I now have no problem bequeathing unto these somewhat unexpected and unlikely politicians, bureaucrats, and financial sector heavy-hitters the label "climate change activists." It's loaded with some unequivocal, take-no-climate-change-denier-prisoners quotes from them.

"Damages from storms, flooding, and heat waves are already costing local economies billions of dollars—we saw that firsthand in New York City with Hurricane Sandy. With the oceans rising and the climate changing, the Risky Business report details the costs of inaction in ways that are easy to understand in dollars and cents—and impossible to ignore."

-Michael Bloomberg

"I know a lot about financial risks—in fact, I spent nearly my whole career managing risks and dealing with financial crisis. Today I see another type of crisis looming: A climate crisis. And while not financial in nature, it threatens our economy just the same."

-Henry Paulson

"Talking about climate change in terms of U.S. averages is like saying, ‘My head is in the refrigerator, and my feet are in the oven, so overall I’m average.’"

-Tom Steyer

"I think we have to begin by recognizing the reality and severity of this threat to our economies, both United States and globally, and really to life on earth more broadly as we know it. We also have to recognize that this problem needs to be dealt with now. We cannot wait because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, once they’re there, remain there for centuries so that every year is greater and more severe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions cumulatively than had been the case the year before."

-Robert Rubin

And some striking passages from the report itself:

The signature effects of human-induced climate change—rising seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent bouts of extreme heat—all have specific, measurable impacts on our nation’s current assets and ongoing economic activity.

Our findings show that, if we continue on our current path, many regions of the U.S. face the prospect of serious economic effects from climate change.

Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total annual price tag for hurricanes and other coastal storms to $35 billion.

A defining characteristic of agriculture in the U.S. is its ability to adapt. But the adaptation challenge going forward for certain farmers in specific counties in the Midwest and South will be significant. Without adaptation, some Midwestern and Southern counties could see a decline in yields of more than 10% over the next 5 to 25 years should they continue to sow corn, wheat, soy and cotton, with a 1-in-20 chance of yield losses of these crops of more than 20%.

Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature will likely necessitate the construction of up to 95 gigawatts of new power generation capacity over the next 5 to 25 years—the equivalent of roughly 200 average coal or natural gas-fired power plants—costing residential and commercial ratepayers up to $12 billion per year.

We are either facing a new Red Threat, the likes of which would make J. Edgar Hoover blanch, as Goddard would have us believe, or a severe climatic and economic disaster of our own making, as this bipartisan study argues.

I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which is the likelier case. Yeah, I know, you're gonna be hard-pressed reaching a conclusion.

Understanding Steven Goddard (Spoiler Alert: Fool's Errand)

A while back, I blogged about an apparent concentrated effort, campaign, or maybe even a veritable crusade on the part of Steven Goddard to devolve into a completely incoherent and irrational disaster before the very eyes of the world. Well, I must admit I drastically underestimated his desire and determination that we all find him utterly incomprehensible.

Today, we had this odd, indecipherable blurb from him:

Understanding The Hiatus

"The global warming hiatus is easy to understand.

It is much harder for NOAA to tamper with post 1979 global data, because we now have satellite data – which restricts the amount of cheating which they can do."

In point of fact, the hiatus is easy to understand...it's the hiatus that wasn't and ain't.

But, wait, Goddard is claiming proof of the "pause" is more dependent on satellite data than surface station data? Huh? Let's look at the data sources behind the so-called "pause," shall we?



NOAA/NCDC: surface stations.

NASA/GISS: surface stations.

CRU/HADCRU: surface stations.

ERAI: surface stations.

Even if it's the case that "pausers" are having a steamier love affair with, say, UAH or RSS satellite data, or numbers drawn from some other NASA satellites or temperature data derivation technique, uh, how exactly is it that these alleged impervious sources have allowed GISS to continue its devious US surface temperature manipulation as Goddard claims is the case? How did those supposed data-shifting shenanigans slip through the hiatus-guaranteeing, tamper-resistant, satellite gauntlet again exactly, hmmmmmmm?

Can anyone figure this Goddard nutjob out? With whom is this cretinous idiot even arguing anymore? Himself?! Has his science denial become so virulent that he even denies his own pseudoscientific conspiracy theories? Anything remotely scientific-sounding (which gives him and his bubbling blog bilge more credit than they deserve) is a target? Or is it just that he has been so roundly and soundly thrashed and humiliated before that he is too afraid to go after anything but his own unscientific garbage now?

What.

The.

Fuck?!

Traits Shared by All Science Deniers

This is a great talk given at TAM 2014 by Donald Prothero about the debilitating mental impairments afflicting most if not all science deniers.

I have only one small quibble. At about 29:25, we get the typical "be nice" or "don't be a dick" speech. This comes, oddly enough, after Prothero shows us an "Indenial Ham" fake movie poster, displays a cartoon calling climate deniers dense, labels some right-wing politicians clowns, etc. Mind you, I personally do not have a problem with these insults, nor do I find them offensive or counterproductive. Quite the contrary, I think they're spot on and helpful. That's just me. However, they do conflict with the stated peace-making purpose. If you think they don't, well, that is exactly the problem. "Don't be a dick" is an appeal based on a subjective standard. We each have different ideas about when someone has crossed the line into dick-dom. Prothero himself makes the point, more or less, that even disagreeing with certain people is a sign, to them, that you are a dick. Therefore concerning ourselves about being dicks is a pointless, tail-chasing exercise. As much as I like this talk, and am a fan of Phil Plait's blog and science advocacy, we waste entirely too much time tiptoeing around screwball, thin-skinned people who at times prove to be irreversibly deluded and unreachable. And, at least as far as climate change is concerned, after decades of explaining the plain, inarguable science to them in as inoffensive a manner as humanly possible and ending up with basically zero meaningful policy, we can all of us but conclude that being nice is about as red a herring as you can throw into the discussion. In fact, it's probably time to go out of our way to purposefully humiliate these nitwit deniers, trample their feelings, and use them as foils as often as possible. Some people (namely those who are offended by mere disagreement) serve no other purpose than to be made examples.

Also, I would point out that the recent secular, rational strides society has made which Prothero mentions did not arise out of the blue, by luck, or because we decided not to be dicks to religious people. Instead, they came about due to the hard work of some very influential and relentless polemicists. One might even go so far as to call them strident. :)

Have a watch.



BTW, you will most likely need to crank up the volume. Audio is somewhat muted for some reason.

Way to Go, America

Image source.

Yeah, that post title was sarcasm, in case you didn't realize. Why? This is why.

A new report from Ipsos MORI includes data on public opinion about the causes of climate change from twenty nations — and the United States led the world in the rate of climate change denial, as assessed by answers to two questions.

The United States and India were tied, at 52%, for agreement with "The climate change we are currently seeing is a natural phenomenon that happens from time to time," with China closely following at 51%. Only 34% of Swedes, 26% of South Koreans, and 22% of Japanese agreed.

The United States was first, at 32%, for disagreement with "The climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activity," with Australia second at 25% and Russia and Great Britain tied for third at 24%. Only 12% of Spaniards, 9% of Argentinians, and 5% of Chinese disagreed.

Here are the detailed results of the two questions from the poll:





If you are gonna be this bloody stupid, my fellow countrymen and women, do those of us who at least try to be informed citizens a favor and DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS, so you can't embarrass the nation to such a face-palming degree. When you're told you should lead the world, that doesn't mean straight into the gutter, you nitwits. Wake up, would ya?

Suspicious 0bservers: Disingenuous and Despicable

Ben Davidson of the YouTube channel Suspicious 0bservers is at it again, spreading complete fabrications about climate science.

Yeah, yeah. I know what you're thinking...

"With all the screwball denier trolls on YouTube, why should I care that one channel misleads its followers?"

Well, maybe you shouldn't. But before you make up your mind, at least read my last Suspicious 0bservers post where I explain why I believe the site's misinformation should not go unanswered.

Anyway, here's Mr. Davidson's latest suspicious climatology observation, and "suspicious" is putting it lightly (click on the still image below to be taken to the relevant point in the video...you can stop it at about 1:31 when this specific climate change part ends, unless you can't help but watch the train wreck run its full course).



Where to begin with this blatant bullshit-fest... First of all, I have no idea where Ben Davidson got the screen capture with that headline, because when I go to the UW-Madison report on the study, I see...



Ben Davidson's misleading headline:

A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?

Versus the actual headline:

Climate conundrum: Conflicting indicators on what preceded human-driven warming

Big difference.

And that brings me to my second point, which is exactly what Ben Davidson of Suspicious 0bservers wants to purposefully misconstrue: when the cooling/warming indicators conflict. They do NOT conflict now, or over the modern observed warming, as Davidson shamelessly and deceitfully tries to dupe his audience into believing. The article and the researchers who conducted the study could not be any clearer on this point.

The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

The conundrum is over what happened before our emissions started warming the planet, and it is a debate over what a pre-Industrial Revolution 20 ppm increase in CO2 caused (cooling or warming), not the 120 ppm increase and undeniable warming that we humans initiated afterward.

Here's how the article states it:

Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.

Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called “hockey stick” on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.

You have got to be a snake oil-selling slimeball of epic proportions to suggest the cooling/warming debate is occurring over what we see happening now.

And that brings me to my final dope slap for Ben Davidson who claims...

"And most who get through the climate change series with an open mind agree our star calls the shots."

Sorry, Little Confused Benny. When it comes to the modern observed warming, the relatively stable nuclear fusion furnace at the center of our solar system has little or nothing to do with it.

More recently, satellite observations of solar activity from space suggest a slight increase in solar activity, but the change can't account for more than 10 percent of the warming trend seen during the past century.

Give the pseudoscience madness a rest, Ben, huh?

It's No Longer ENSO Vs. Climate Change

There are many natural causes deniers like to evoke either to blame the observed modern warming on, pretend that there is no warming and instead we are experiencing global cooling, claim the warming won't be that bad, etc. Yeah, I know, I can't figure these denier screwballs out either. One can only hope they make up their scrambled minds someday, and settle on just one way to be embarrassingly wrong. Nine buh-zillion wrongs don't make a right, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, high on their demented list is El Niño, or ENSO, a periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean.

A powerful ENSO year in 1997-8 (depicted in the NASA/JPL image above), and a distinct ignorance of statistics on the part of deniers are the main reasons why they mistakenly believe there has been a pause in surface temperature increases for the past 16 or so years, when there really hasn't been.

Deniers like to pit ENSO against climate change, like the two are diametrically opposed, competing forces, and if they can just prove it's all ENSO, then all the evidence for anthropogenic warming will magically evaporate.



Why, Bob Tisdale even wrote an entire book expounding upon his undying love for the Great El Niño Excuse-athon.

"In 2012, I published my e-book about the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña. It’s titled Who Turned on the Heat? with the subtitle The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño Southern Oscillation. It is intended for persons (with or without technical backgrounds) interested in learning about El Niño and La Niña processes and in understanding the natural causes of the warming of our global oceans for the past 30 years. It presents how the sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data account for their warming—and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all."

None at all, eh? Oh, brother. I hate to break up such a precious love affair with the crushing news that one partner has been cheating on the other, but the truth seems to be that ENSO and climate change are the ones having the steamier relationship.

Studies have linked catastrophic floods, droughts, disease outbreaks, wildfires and even social unrest to the weather cycle, known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

Yet scientists have struggled to understand whether climate change is altering that cycle. Climate models have produced conflicting results, and reliable instrumental records of ENSO events begin in the early 20th century.

Now a new study, which builds on prior efforts to reconstruct El Niño's past behavior by examining coral growth, suggests that El Niño and La Niña events have become more variable and intense over the past several decades.

Yup, you got it. We may no longer be able to speak about ENSO like it is wholly natural and something separate from the changes we are inflicting on the climate. It may itself now be several decades deep into alterations and intensifications caused by our emissions.

Poor little deniers. Yet another tired canard slipping through their inept fingers, soon to be lost forever thanks to tireless climate research which always seems to prove them wrong.

Regenerative Agriculture

Ya never know. They could save us all.

Science Friday had an eye-opening piece last week about using a regimen of non-industrial farming techniques to reduce atmospheric carbon, and, hold onto your compost rake, increase yields. A couple excerpts...

David Johnson of New Mexico State University...claims that just 11% of the world's cropland could potentially offset all of our current carbon dioxide emissions.

Ira Flatow: "And your production, your output has not suffered from doing it the old-fashioned way?"

Gabe Brown: "No, quite the contrary, our expenses are a fraction of the conventional production model, because we no longer need to use all of the synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides, but also our yield, if you're talking the amount of grain that we're producing per acre, is above the average in my surrounding communities. So we're getting more production at a much lower cost, and in turn we are regenerating the soil which is the important thing."

Wow. Those are some pretty bold statements, eh? Over the next few weeks, I will look for some reliable stats on the amount of carbon this no-till, cover-crop, monoculture-phobic approach can capture, and double-check as best I can Johnson's estimate here. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch and do some number-crunching in the comments below, knock yerself out, and thanks in advance.

For a long time, I've felt that a fossil fuel-intensive, subsidy-dependent agricultural system was counterproductive and ultimately unsustainable. As Gabe Brown, the rancher interviewed in the Science Friday piece, puts it...

"We need to think of it this way, soils under the conventional production model are kind of like a drug addict. They have to be weened slowly, as Kristin said, to build these populations [of helpful microbes]."

But I was not aware of any robust alternatives that could break through the inertia of an arse-backward, oil-based economy which encourages, or just about demands, excessive fossil fuel usage in almost everything we do as a society, especially crop production. This method is quite new to me, and I have to admit I'm having some "too good to be true" knee-jerk reactions here, so I welcome any enlightening input. However, if this regenerative farming is all it's cracked up to be, I will equally welcome the dope slap I've just received, to put it lightly.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if it's as viable as advertised, and we combine regenerative agriculture, space-based solar power, legalization of hemp cultivation, and nuclear power, we have just about solved the entire problem. OK, that's a wrap. Now, get to work editing it all together, everyone. :)

Deniers Left to Squeak Away on Crackpot "News" Shows

(Note: The YouTube video I originally linked to was taken down before I could complete this post. I will keep an eye out for a transcript or video upload and provide the link as soon as it becomes available. Until then, you will have to take my word for the below quotations. Or you could contact Tomi Lahren at her Twitter or YouTube account and request that she or her people upload the video sooner rather than later.)

Whenever a "news network" wants to pretend climate change is controversial, they march out the same sad handful of washed-up denier dopes who no longer publish in their fields (if they ever did), get paid by well-heeled think tanks to impotently nitpick away at active, ongoing research, and who are discovering that their unscientific opinions are welcome in fewer and fewer legitimate reporting outlets each and every day.

Hence the fact that, as of late, you only find them on radical, fringe media stations, and their appearances, quite frankly, are dwindling there as well.

Here's On Point with Tomi Lahren, a completely brainless talk show on a relatively new right-wing network called One America News, acting like we haven't heard Joe Bastardi, Roy Spencer, Jay Lehr, and Patrick Moore babble all this incoherent, oft-rebutted crap before.



It's always the same few denier mopes, because these "news" programs can't find anyone else to shamelessly embarrass themselves like this. No one with a shred of self-respect would so willingly display such an idiotic "understanding" of science.

Let's play along like these weak and tired denier talking points haven't been refuted A MILLION TIMES BEFORE, and address them in turn, shall we?

"A hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, out of every ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, three of them, only three out of ten thousand, were carbon dioxide. Now, after a hundred or two hundred years of carbon dioxide emissions, four out of ten thousand are carbon dioxide. There's very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

-Dr. Roy Spencer

Um, Roy, it'd be about 2.8 vs. 4 CO2 molecules between then and now, but, whatever, not an important correction, because there's less ozone, even in the part of the atmosphere where its concentration is highest. Ozone levels changed to a slighter degree, and we see where that got us. We'll plunk you down on an Earth analog that has less or no ozone at all, see how you fare, and find out if you wanna continue spouting more idiocy about how "insignificant" the changes in concentrations of trace atmospheric gases can be. You have a PhD and you don't understand something so simple.

It.

Is.

Pathetic.

Thankfully, practicing climate scientists know better than to adopt Spencer's childishly cavalier attitude.

"We have record low burnage as far as acreage, yet, if a wildfire occurs, people are gonna say, 'Look at that, wildfires or tornadoes.' The fact that the total global hurricane activity, tropical activity has plummeted the way it has."

-Joe Bastardi

Record low wildfire acreage burned, you say? Uh, that'd be a no, dumb-dumb.

Not sure what "tropical activity" even means or how it has plummeted, but if Bastardi was trying to say something that in English translates to fewer but stronger cyclones, um, that is exactly what is predicted for a warmer climate. What Bastardi won't mention is that while the total number of storms may decrease, their intensity will increase. And an admittedly superficial, thoroughly unscientific tally on my part suggested this is true. This is why no one who produces a legitimate show will have him on. He refuses to correct a misconception that 4th graders don't fall for anymore, and insists on repeating it. In other words, he has transformed himself into a confused, babbling idiot. Congrats, Joe.

"There's now huge money in it. Academia gets 2.7 billion dollars a year in this country alone, and really all over the world. So it's mostly politics, uh, uh, and, and money."

-Jay Lehr

I know, right, Jay? I mean, we should all live in a fantasy world where science doesn't need funding, and where energy industry subsidies don't dwarf it. Anyway, I think we both know why you can't complete this thoroughly hypocritical statement without losing interest in its meaningless stupidity and stuttering away. Nice cheesy, rub-on, George Hamilton tan, by the way, Jay. While we're talking about "huge money," did your huge Heartland checks pay for that, ya big, leathery, know-nothing troll?

The host, Tomi Lahren, chimes in with her own two worthless cents about attending a conference somewhere where someone said something along the lines of only 1% of climate studies in the past few decades mention "human-caused global warming" explicitly. A meeting title, location, date/time, and speaker name would be nice, huh? I guess whatever speaker made this claim at whatever event (if either really ever existed) and this clueless talk show host don't understand that research papers have a bibliography where previous discoveries upon which they are basing their own findings are referenced. That is to say, explicit mention is assumed if it has been stated before and cited. I will bet my very life on the fact that 1% is an absolutely asinine underestimate. Apparently Tomi's peroxide addiction is resulting in some of it seeping through pores in her head, and eating away at essential grey matter necessary for higher cognitive functioning.

As for Patrick Moore, the main interview, do you really think he's gonna express a new or refreshing climate change opinion on this program? It's just gonna be the same unscientific tosh.

Scientists and Advocacy, a Sticky Situation?

"It's important for people who know things not to cede the public sphere to people who don't know things."

-Gavin Schmidt

This is a talk given last year by Gavin Schmidt at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting about how scientific expertise and values should inform public awareness. Schmidt, if you don't know, was recently hired to head NASA GISS, a position previously held by James Hansen. He is a climate modeler, and this previous post may be a good introduction to him and his research, if you've never heard of him before.

Schmidt, as the quote above implies, argues in this video that advocacy, which often has the same effect on scientists that a cross does on a vampire, is not only important, but unavoidable. He further claims that it would be foolish for researchers to not advocate for science itself at a minimum, and that even staunch advocacy opponents inevitably end up promoting their own field and/or their own findings, whether or not they are willing to admit what these actions amount to. If they want continued funding, they must advocate to some degree. We're all human; we all have to go to the mat for ourselves at some point. And scientists are no different.

Schmidt does, however, strongly warn against uninformed or dishonest advocacy, declaring that your results represent a consensus in your field, and assuming that people who disagree with your personal policy choices are uninformed idiots who ignore the science. It's a scientist attempting to educate and persuade other scientists. It's like getting a peek inside the lab, or at least the break room down the hall, and it's good, heady stuff. Have a watch.



I want to follow up on Schmidt's point that people can have very different values and reach very different policy conclusions while accepting the same scientific results with an opinion piece from his GISS predecessor. Hansen advocates very strongly for nuclear power in this video. Notice how he admits that his affinity for the power generation technology is not necessarily shared by post-Fukushima governments and environmentalists who believe, like him, that something must be done to curb our emissions. People who believe in the science of human-caused climate change can and will advocate for different solutions. It's all part of healthy public discourse, not something to be avoided like the plague.

Jennifer Francis 1, Elizabeth Barnes 0

There's a theory in climate science that says a very specific effect of climate change is causing much of the extreme weather in the northern hemisphere we've seen recently, including but not limited to Sandy's bizarre left turn, a heatwave over Alaska last year, the Polar Vortex (personally, I love seeing deniers need a diaper change after being told global warming can cause cold weather in places...poor, wittle, confoozed babies), the record downpours and flooding in the eastern US a couple days ago, and on and on and on. The somewhat nascent climatological idea suggests that a warmer Arctic can cause large, lasting waves to develop in the jet stream, what is called meridionality, and...wait a second, I should let someone explain who has forgotten more about this concept than I'll ever fully comprehend...



Now, I happen to agree with Francis, if for no other reason than Curry disagrees, and we all know what has happened to Judith's credibility lately, but I must admit that this is all still debatable. This is frontier research, rather than established fact, and it would help the discussion tremendously if deniers ever woke up one day and smelled the coffee regarding the difference between the two. Fat chance, I know.

This notion has had its detractors, and perhaps foremost in opposition is Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State University, whose study found no statistically-significant "waviness" in jet stream data over the past few decades. Problem is, the Arctic would have warmed enough to cause this jet stream meridionality only within the past 15 years or so, so looking back 30 years or more does no one any good here.

But as Francis and others point out, the Arctic has only been this warm for a short time. Perhaps the failure to find statistically significant changes is simply due to that.

"It is only in the last 15 years or so that we have been able to see this really starting to kick in," Francis said. "And that's part of the reason that when you do trend analysis, it's hard to detect a trend."

We kinda have to wait and see how the research shakes out before we know whether Francis or Barnes is right. Or maybe we don't, because a new study is saying it's Francis.

I became aware of the paper reading a Phil Plait post today. If you'd like some hearty guffaws at the expense of deniers, I suggest you click on the comment section link for that article. Poor Phil, inundated by ignorant denier impotence. Comments by highly-informed Slate contributors like Sean McCorkle, tokodave, Grenville Cramchild, nomad, TheBlackCat, among others, are very much worth the read, however. And if you'd like to chime in on this topic somewhere where deniers can respond but not flood or Gish-Gallop, then let me have it below. Whenever my comment feature starts being used to a meaningful degree, I'll do my best to keep their discussion-derailing nonsense to a minimum.

Reactions to a Recent Change of Environmental Heart by Churchgoers

My present blogging mood.

It's unfortunate that the higher-ups in a religiously-affiliated org have to apologize to their church-going constituency for their climate change advocacy and tiptoe through an explanation of it (see the 10th vid in the embedded playlist below). It speaks volumes about how religious thought can lead people into lamentable and intractable states of science denial.

That being said, as an atheist, I'm honestly torn about the recent movement within Christianity to take up the environmental stewardship mantle, and to engage in "creation care." I don't know how to process it, after all those years of hate spewed at us environmentalists from the pulpit, and the fact that, sigh, we still have to put up with it today. Should I be happy that they're slowly coming around now, and, well, seeing the light on this issue? Or should I still want to kick them where it counts for all the derogatory nonsense, as has been my instinct/reaction for most of my life?

Take the Eden Reforestation Project, for example. On the one hand, I think the videos below are really informative, and I found the peaceful, verdant background setting to be fitting and soothing while watching them. Also, it's a great cause, so I wouldn't fault anyone for donating. But, I dunno, on the other hand, due to past ecological transgressions on the part of religious zealots, maybe they really deserve to have their funds routed to a more secular-minded preservation/reforestation project. Maybe, if you want to help restore desperate, denuded areas, you should give your money to the Jane Goodall Institute instead, for instance.

One less philosophically-loaded and more technical complaint, there was no playlist for videos obviously intended to be watched as a series. Uh, ERP folks, someone in your org needs to learn how to make YouTube playlists. Till then, you can you use the one I had to make in order to embed these videos into my blog properly. And you're welcome. :)



While watching these vids, I kept thinking of Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity, and the mixed feelings they elicit in me. I think Carter is a great man, and providing the less fortunate with affordable housing is about as noble a cause as one can promote, but do they just have to...?

Our mission is to put God’s love into action by bringing people together to build homes, communities and hope.

You would figure a supreme being is quite capable of putting His own love into action all by Himself, no?

Reforestation really is just such an important issue, however, that, even as an atheist, I'm almost tempted to forgive them for the Biblical reference in their organization's title, and their church affiliation.

Almost. :)

Will the Climate Care If We Stop Eating Meat?

I imagine most of us these days have vegetarian friends trying to convince us to eat less meat and dairy, or none at all. I know I do. Some of the most intelligent people I know argue that I should change my diet to one that is predominantly or wholly plant matter. One friend has a PhD in microbiology, teaches at a university, and has a UNESCO climate change report authorship under his impressively-credentialed belt. Others are extremely talented filmmakers, one of which has won a filmmaking award in his home state. Another still is seeking an advanced philosophy degree. What may distinguish them from your own friends is that they are all animal activists, so their interest in transforming what I stuff into my face is not so much the improvement of my health as the welfare of all those creatures, great and small, out there. Another common trait among these compatriots of mine is that they try to use my concern for a changing climate against me.

Wait a second, with friends like these...

I kid, because they could be a lot worse about it, like, you know, maybe as obnoxious as S. E. Cupp.

Their arguments thankfully are more comprehensive and substantive than hers, go something like this, and, I must admit, have some pretty solid-looking numbers behind them...

Agriculture accounts for about 14% of our global GHG emissions.



If you analyze those GHGs separately, you find that the livestock supply chain accounts for troubling amounts of total anthropogenic CH4 and N2O:

• 3.1 gigatonnes CO2-eq of CH4 per annum, or 44 percent of anthropogenic CH4 emissions (IPCC, 2007)
• 2 gigatonnes CO2-eq of N2O per annum, or 53 percent of anthropogenic N2O emissions (IPCC, 2007)

However, when it comes to CO2, the story is somewhat less distressing:

• 2 gigatonnes CO2-eq of CO2 per annum, or 5 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2007)

They often further argue how much energy and resources we could save and how many more people we could feed, if, rather than stuff grains down the gullets of ruminants and other farm critters, we instead give them to humans.

It's a strong argument on the surface, but even though I personally do not eat anywhere near as much meat as your average American, it's not because these numbers and my friends' appeals have convinced me. I'm not a vegetarian (and I probably won't get the chance to play one on TV), but I can go several meals without eating meat thanks to an appreciation for the satisfying variety of edible plant products. I guess I'm just not as crazy about meat as everyone else. I will admit to one environmentally-disastrous weakness: salmon. I consume it with the eagerness of a grizzly when I can get it, and no one's gonna stop that without a bear of a brawl.

Anyway, though those numbers do suggest something has to change, and while I think that using someone's own beliefs against him or her can be an effective and convincing tactic now and then, there's a problem with decrying the actual act of eating meat, and my animal activist friends often want to strangle me for bringing it up.

Before I explain what I feel is the issue, let me first admit that I sometimes take exception to animal activism, or at least the less scientifically-aware versions of it which conflict with my own environmental sensibilities. I only mention it, so that you, the reader, take it into account when I finally get to my explanation. My personal bias could be influencing me negatively, and I might be wrong! I really have no problem with trying to reduce the unnecessary misery we wittingly and unwittingly unleash on all those animals out there we should share this world with in a less-than-cruel manner, but sometimes it seems I am operating with a different definition of "unnecessary."

The preservation of biodiversity is an issue about which I sometimes feel as strongly as climate change, which has severe implications for it. The fact of the matter is that, like a stable climate, we humans need abundant biological variation to thrive and maybe even to survive. With 7 billion of us on the planet and more on the way, the proper, scientifically-informed management of wild places is our best bet for ensuring the future of threatened and endangered species. I find it frustrating and infuriating at times that animal activists can interfere with wildlife management efforts, such as when they protest the culling of populous coyotes that encroach on the territory of endangered red wolves. Animal activists will rightly argue that both the success of the coyote and the failure of red wolf populations are due to human activity, but unless they have a time machine to travel into the past to change present realities, we need to allow restoration programs to run their course. Another example is protesting managed deer hunts. Sure, humans have wiped out natural predators, and, sure, it sometimes seems like our automobiles and car insurance premiums are what matter most to us, but the fact of the matter is deer are decimating forests, and we can't wish the wolves back into existence or even restore their numbers in time to protect the other species that depend on these remote areas. We have to let wildlife management professionals do their job. PETA regularly protests hunting, and even fishing! Both are revenue-generating activities without which developers or other economic interests would move in and remove the natural lands that they help keep intact.

With that in mind, what I feel is missing from those powerful-seeming numbers above is the fact that they are more indicative of a problematic production system than they are a damning indictment of human dietary behavior that needs to end. Let me see if I can put it more simply. Did flesh-eating dinosaurs raise GHGs millions of years ago by consuming their prey? Do present-day predators do so? Did Native Americans change the climate by hunting bison and other animals before Europeans arrived? Is the Arctic warming because Inuit tribes can have diets that are about 90% animal flesh?

Though I am delighted they have enlightened me, it can be argued that in some ways my animal activist friends have defeated their own purposes by calling attention to agri-business practices intended to reduce slaughter-ready cattle production times from five years to 12-14 months. I, like them, am appalled that we would even attempt to speed up the maturation of livestock so unnecessarily, but I do not see that as incriminating the simple act of eating or preference for meat. Instead, I see it as a condemnation of the production means that factory farms have adopted, and our mindless and demanding consumerism.

If we returned to natural (for lack of a better term), less fossil fuel-intensive farming, longer livestock maturation times, and higher prices, animal activists obviously won't see meat consumption come to a complete stop, but they will see far fewer animals slaughtered and eaten. Unless a personal distaste for the track record of their protests is corrupting my logical faculties here, that's a compromise that promotes good health, a stable climate, and their cruelty-free agenda and principles as well. Unless I'm way off, everybody wins, except people who want to have a cheap steak at every meal.

The Economy Vs. the Climate (Spoiler Alert: NOT Mortal Enemies)

Whatever form you believe climate change policies/solutions should take — technical, economic/regulatory, a mixture, or something else altogether — it's time to drop the prehistoric notion that we can either have a thriving economy OR a healthy environment. The two are not antithetical, incompatible, mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed, etc. Whatever superlative you prefer, the truth is we can have our cake and eat it, too. Here are some very smart people from the Harvard Kennedy School explaining why they've staked their careers on it. I found the discussion about successful cap-and-trade programs, starting at about 28:50 in the video, such as the Reagan administration policy to phase leaded gasoline out of the marketplace, particularly interesting.

Bettman and the NHL Continue Their Communist Ways

Despite having their real Marxist-Leninist agenda unmasked by Steven Goddard, Bettman and the NHL stubbornly and unabashedly persist in their climate change activism.

"Where so many of our great athletes first learned to skate the ponds aren't freezing."

-Gary Bettman, NHL League Comm(unist)issioner

I would like to point out that the CBC reporter draws the same conclusion I do about the league's attempt to minimize its carbon footprint serving more as a beneficial example than a true means of reducing worldwide GHGs. Great communist minds think alike, ya know? And hopefully, whether or not they require winter weather, other sports leagues follow the NHL's lead here.

Ebola: It's Overwhelming the Brave People Fighting It

This blog, obviously, is mostly concerned with climate change. And while the link between a warmer world and the spread of Ebola is becoming increasingly clear...

Ebola: This virus is lethal to humans and other primates, and has no cure. In addition, it is unclear where the disease, which causes fever, vomiting and internal or external bleeding, comes from—though scientists suspect fruit bats. What is clear is that outbreaks tend to follow unusual downpours or droughts in central Africa—a likely result of climate change.

...I am going to set that mantle down in this post in order to talk strictly about the urgency of this most-recent hemorrhagic fever outbreak. If we've all assumed that the sickness is nothing more than a bad Hollywood movie premise or plot device that will never affect us, well then, we better get over that quick. And by "quick" I mean right now.

What Has Changed
Unless your front door opens onto a tunnel that leads to the sheltering seclusion under a giant rock, you've probably heard or read about confirmed and suspected Ebola victims being treated in the US, Canada, and Europe, after getting sick in Africa. Thankfully, their prognoses in modern medical facilities after receiving an experimental treatment are good, but the arrival of the first Ebola victims to our own hospitals should alert you that something is different now. This recent outbreak in West Africa has reportedly taken over 900 lives, and therefore is the deadliest on record. While influenza, HIV, and cholera, among other infectious diseases, can and do claim more lives, it is precisely the location of this latest epidemic that should worry us all equally nonetheless. Starting in Sierra Leone, the virus has expanded into Guinea, Liberia, and Nigeria, which are some of the more densely-populated and underdeveloped countries in all of Africa, and therefore, as far as underdevelopment goes at least, the world, some with vast majorities living under the international poverty line. Hopefully, I need not impress upon anyone too strongly that this is a far from promising situation not entirely conducive to containment.

The Battle
You may or may not remember that here in America we've actually experienced at least two incidents involving Ebola. Luckily, the infected monkeys in both instances carried a strain that does not make humans seriously sick, unlike this latest Zaire strain. And luck was all that prevented what could have been a very serious health crisis.

In Africa, the story has been very different. Since Ebola's discovery in 1976, the various strains of the virus, with mortality rates up to 90%, have claimed over two thousand lives, with recent events nearly doubling the total.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has spearheaded efforts to bring the spread under control, but it is pleading with the international community to help, because it does not have enough resources and funding for effective treatment and containment on its own.

MSF currently has 676 staff working in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, but warns that it has reached its limit in terms of staff, and urges the WHO, health authorities and other organisations to scale up their response.

Over 60 healthcare workers have died from the disease in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. These people should be remembered as heroes who sacrificed everything treating the sick and preventing others from getting sick, but, unfortunately, superstitious beliefs are portraying them as the enemy. I won't belabor the point, but I do believe I've already strongly stated my opinion on the origins of such intellectually-debilitating madness.

MSF is not the only organization which cannot meet the demands of such an intense outbreak alone. The World Health Organization itself lacks the funds to respond properly. For more on that, as well as the challenges involved in the struggle, have a listen to this Science Friday report.

What Can Be Done
One thing on our side thus far is Ebola cannot be as easily contracted as crappy Hollywood movies depict. It's not an airborne virus, or a pathogen like malaria or West Nile that gets spread quickly and far and wide by biting insects. To the best of our knowledge, it can only be passed from host to host by contact with bodily fluids, or contaminated implements, so with correct medical procedures and protocols in place it can be contained, and we can provide ourselves the time required to come up with a cure. However, as the Science Friday piece mentions, implementing those procedures can be prohibitively-expensive and sometimes impossible in Third World nations. But, perhaps more troubling, is the fact that Ebola's location and low death toll relative to other infectious diseases, has led to a systematic shuffling of feet.

Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to pour research and development dollars into curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries. They aren't likely to see a large pay-off at the end — and could stand to lose money.

We've wasted enough time and watched enough people die already. Whatever it takes, even injections of cash, we need to break through this medical industry inertia.

Steven Goddard, the Sad, Sad, Little Troll, Part 2

Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I.

"Two years ago, I caught NSIDC pulling a fast one in their sea ice graphs. A few hours before the Arctic extent line was about to cross the 1979-2000 mean line, they changed their plotting scheme to use a five day trailing average for the current ice and a nine day trailing average for the climatology. This moved the extent line away from the mean line, and narrowly avoided the immediate death of the death spiral.

I pointed out to them they can’t do that because it puts a two day relative shift in the data – and after arguing with me about it they admitted they can’t do that and fixed it the next day."

He caught them pulling a fast one, and told them they couldn't do that, dontchya know?

Some actual references/correspondences showing that this back-and-forth really happened, rather than his hearsay assertion two years later, would be nice (no, I'm not doing him the favor of scouring his archives), but let's cue up the hotshot private investigator music for him, anyway...



Too bad he couldn't catch the Arctic pulling a fast one back in 2012 before it decided to set a sea ice minimum record. But I guess if Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I., weren't on the job policing the NSIDC, the Arctic would have tried to get away with even less sea ice that year, ya know?