"Private Jets for Climate Change"

For some reason, I really enjoy global warming hypocrisy stories, especially when Al Gore is in them:

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Read the whole thing.

Clean Air

Thanks to David for the reminder of our air quality in Great Falls--top four in the country. The rank is based on particles in the air (or lack of them). Good to know. Clean air is healthy. Increasing the particles in the air creates a health risk. The linked article makes a sobering point. The pollution "is generated by combustion, most often from vehicles, manufacturing and coal-fired power plants." (Emphasis added).

Do We Have to "Do" Anything?

I took the time to peruse a summary of the UN (more accurately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report about global warming. It makes a reasonable argument that effects of human activity, when viewed separately from other phenomena, do indeed contribute significantly to global warming, and will continue to do so. (Even though I have residual skepticism because of things like this and this.)

The report does not support the hysteria about the effects. For example, the concerns about ice melt have been played down considerably from what the media tells us. The report indicates that Antarctic ice will actually increase due to more precipitation. When serious consequences, like more severe storms, are predicted, they are with a proviso that "confidence . . . is limited" because the models do not give reliable projections.

Even so, I can accept human causation, as well as environmental effects. What I cannot accept is that we necessarily have to do anything drastic. Changes will come with or without us. We will have to adapt to them over time, no matter what. Evolving in the right direction--less consumption, cleaner burning, alternative fuels, etc, makes sense. Radical changes, at huge cost, will not likely have a great deal of effect on the upcoming changes in our environment, so are they really necessary?

Where'd the Water Go?

Last night I saw dramatic images on the news about the shrinking arctic polar ice cap. I borrowed these photos from an MSNBC story here.

They are supposed to prove the dire predictions about global warming are true. I have never doubted global warming. I am just a skeptic about cause. But now I have to start doubting the effects of warming, too. I thought that when the polar ice melted, New York, LA, and every other coastal city was supposed to disappear under water.

Global Warming Shouting Match

I posted a brief commentary on the lack of scientific principles in the global warming debate. Thanks to GeeGuy for the heads up on several more articles that bring home the point even more.

For example, the article, "Climate scientists feeling the heat." Now, even true scientists, who come down on the side of believing that global warming is caused by human activity (as apposed to the doubters I discussed previously, who are being castigated), now have to worry about their credibility because of their theories being stated as absolutes.

One such scientist interviewed for the article, Roger Pielke, Jr., considers the evidence supporting his view "overwhelming." But worries that "if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake." He has reason to worry if he gives in to the pressure of his "peers." According to the article,

A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

Not surprisingly, this admitted pressure can get far worse. As noted here:

Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) said "rational and open" discussion of climate change science that includes dissenting voices is in danger of being short-circuited, at the expense of sound science and free speech.

Getting back to the concern in my original post, the "science" is being censored, or worse, directed toward predetermined conclusions. Even "environmental activists have expressed exasperation over the amount of 'strings attached to the foundation grants' that reduce their independence."

Science has tried to set itself apart from religion for centuries by relying on reason and facts, developed, proven and tested by constant questioning. "Skeptic" should be the hallmark of a scientist, not a term of derision. In perhaps the most important, certainly the most expensive, scientific debate of our lifetimes, science is losing its credibility. If science cannot weather questions, it is no longer science.