The Last Frost

Friends of Science My Ass, more like friends of the devil! By devil I mean fossil fuel based energy companies. So these guys have a page on their site listing 10 global warming 'misconceptions', and all 10 are either phrased to mislead or are flat out bullshit… so I'm calling them out.

One myth debunked per-post, for a total of 10 posts. It's like the 12 days of Christmas and the 8 days of Hanukkah… averaged! Anyway, here's part 1 of 10. Read on…

These so called Friends of Science claim that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is incorrect. Well in their own words, "we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change." Alright, so they are against the Kyoto Protocol, yet they acknowledge that climate change is occurring, just that it's not caused by people? Fair enough, they don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, so let's jump right into their bullshit global warming myths.

So Called "Myth" #1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: That there has not been, "any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures" in the last 30 years. Warming has been shown in readings from ground stations, but those readings are invalid because the increase is within the range of natural variation. The ground stations also tend to be placed in areas which are increasing in population and therefore are subject to 'heat island' effects. [Read their original argument here - Myth #1]

The Truth: This is a carefully crafted argument that is designed to guide the reader towards a false conclusion while not actually saying anything false. They argued that there has been no "significant change in the long term RATE of increase". What they say is actually partially true, there hasn't been a significant change in the RATE of warming in the last 30 years, but there HAS been statistically significant warming. Even if the Earth were warming by 10 degrees per year their statement would still be true, that's why it's so misleading and that's why it's bullshit.

They then focus their energy on invalidating ground based data on the basis that they are not uniformly placed across the globe. This also might be a decent argument, but what they fail to recognize is that there is much more data available to climate scientists than just ground based measurements and they all point towards the same conclusion. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. There are ice core samples which help correlate atmospheric composition with past warming trends dating back thousands of years. There is now loads of satellite data rolling in which give us accurate big picture measurements which also point towards the same conclusion.

So pick on ground based measurements all you like, but it's not the whole truth.

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

'Smokey' Joe Barton, a beady eyed rat of a politician that I'm ashamed to share a birthday with, has been a long time proponent that global warming is bullshit. He's entitled to his opinion sure, but when you're a freakin' congressman it might be a good idea to at least attempt to stand up for the truth, but I digress.

Think Progress has recently suggested that part of the reason congress hasn't done a single thing to address global warming is because of Joe Barton and people like him. It's hard to argue that it's not true when you consider some of his statements about the issue.

He is the source of probably the single stupidest statement uttered seriously by a human being, "I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter." I wonder if he considers Mercury, Lead, or Arsenic pollutants, they're all made by god too.

So Barton, just in case you read this, here's an explanation of why your statement is stupid and wrong. Just because C02 occurs in nature doesn't mean it can't hurt us or our climate. There are lots of things in nature that are harmful if there's too much of it or if it's in the wrong place. Don't believe me? Next time you go swimming dive as deep as you can and then inhale as deeply as you can. Then if you survive, you'll understand that even water can be harmful to life. I'm sorry to break it to you like this Joe, but it's true, god isn't just a polluter, he's also trying to drown you.

Here's another gem of wisdom that he uttered in 2001, "as long as I am chairman, (regulating global warming pollution) is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that." Which is basically saying, "I will never consider any argument suggesting global warming is real, ever". What an intelligent and logical position to take! Especially when it's concerning an emerging science, with new data rolling in every day, with implications for the survival of every living thing on our planet.

So where does a human being with no background in climate science, get the nerve to say most of the world's leading climate scientists are wrong? If you're buddy buddy with big oil, I guess the nerve comes in the form a check. Opensecrets.org reports that he has received over a million dollars from oil and gas companies and another million from other energy companies, check out the full breakdown of his recieved contributions here. At least now we know who Joe Barton is really working for.

Barton has been in office since 1985, he's also (unfortunately for humanity) the chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee. He has fought every attempt by congress to acknowledge the existence of and possibly start to remedy the effects of climate change. He has even been accused of harassing and intimidating climate researchers by both the Houston Chronicle and the National Academy of Sciences. Who would have thought that a Republican from Texas could be so backwards?

Joe has worked very diligently to earn this award, Senator Inhofe was a close runner up but he's just a bumbling twit so we let him off the hook this time. If any of you live in Texas, do the world a favor and fire this fool of a man, even if you have to wait until 2008 to do it. It's probably one of the most important things you could do for our country and the world as a whole. If you can't wait or you just want to tell the guy off, contact him here: Contact Joe Barton.

And the article that spawned this rant: 

'Smokey' Joe Barton Calls Global Warming Science ‘Absolute Nonsense,’ Vows To Fight CO2 Caps - [ThinkProgress.org]

A new report developed by the United Nations points out that livestock production produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire human transportation sector. According to the report, here's how much livestock production contributes to the total emissions released by human activities: 9% of all C02 emissions and 37% of all Methane emissions which is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than C02, 23 times more efficient.

There is no sign of this problem getting any better, since people are demanding more and more dairy and meats in their diets. It's just a byproduct of prosperity and yet another reason to go vegetarian.

Livestock gases worse than cars - [United Press International]

A cargo shipping company based in Bremen, Germany is utilizing a new technology to save money on the open seas. By installing a large kite on their boats, they will be able to harness the power of above surface winds which they estimate could save the company up to $1,500 a day on fuel costs. It also reduces harmful emissions which is a wonderful thing for everyone. One boat in their fleet, the "MV Beluga SkySails", is already being fitted with the kite as well as a steering device. They hope the boat will make it's first oceanic trek in the next few months.

The technology has been in testing for the last 4 years so it's actually very late in the development process. The founder of the company that developed the kite technology, SkySails GmbH & Co. KG, had this to say about his project: "It was important for me to prove that you can make money working hand-in-hand with nature and not against it, I think there could be a lot more linking of ecology and economy." [via CNN.com]

High-tech sail to cut costs, emissions - [CNN.com]

TXU, a Texas utility, is planning on building 11 new coal fired power plants that together will release the equivalent pollution of 10 million Cadillac SUV's. Read up my old post if you want more info.

Act For Change, a division of the socially responsible phone company Working Assets, is calling for your help to help stop these coal fired power plants from being built. It's as simple as clicking the link below, and filling out a short form letter which will be sent to the CEO of TXU, John Wilder, as well as a CC to Texas Governor Rick Perry.

It is incredibly important that these plants are not built and it's incredibly irresponsible on the part of TXU to even suggest building them in the face of such overwhelming evidence of global climate change. It's a big corporate slap in the face of science and a slap in the face of humanity as a whole.

Stop Texas Utility from Barbequing The Earth - [Act For Change]

Back in June, I mentioned that the Supreme Court would be hearing a case that could have far reaching implications for global warming. Today the big court will begin hearing arguments on the case.

The argument stems from a disagreement between the EPA and several states. The EPA says the Clean Air Act does not mention tail pipe emissions as a pollutant therefore it does not need to regulate them. The states that have brought this case this far disagree. 

If the EPA loses, the auto industry will be pissed. It will mean the whole industry will have to adhere to strict emissions standards. Not only will it affect the auto industry, it will require the EPA to regulate C02 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants which will have far reaching effects. This will be an important case to follow. 

Does anyone find it ridiculous that the US Environmental Protection Agency is fighting against it's responsibility to Protect the Environment? Perhaps the EPA should be dismantled and replaced with an agency that actually does it's job.

Supreme Court Addresses Tailpipe Emissions - [CNSNews.com]

The folks at Slate Magazine are doing an 8 week long "carbon diet" tutorial on their site. It's already week 6 so there are plenty of ideas already in place.  They cover the basics such as saving energy while traveling by car or plane as well as how to save on home heating costs.

They also have some good suggestions such as eating less meat. They're right about it too because of the old rule of 10. Anyway, it's a good read and you just might learn something unexpected.

Bright ideas for trimming CO2 emissions. - [Slate Magazine]

Here's part II of my previous article on why vegetarianism can help save the world. I ended the last article just as I was about to explain what the power of 10 rule has to do with global warming. So here it is:

Large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by our food industry. I've heard estimates that up to 17% of our fossil fuel use goes towards food production in the US. Vegetable production is no exception, you need all sorts of mostly gas powered vehicles to plow, sow, harvest, and distribute much of the plants we eat.

CO2 is released during the production of crops, although some if not all of it is offset by the plants themselves which remove CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth. Though we still need to transport the fresh plant matter to processing plants or distribution facilities which then create greenhouse gas emissions themselves. Then we can either transport the plants to supermarkets, or we can feed the stuff to animals which will go on to produce our meat in addition to Methane gas among other things which contribute to global warming. Then the animals need to be processed and the food transported yet again to our supermarkets, which we probably drove to in a gas guzzling car. Finally we need to cook the meat which will take even more energy and most likely result in even more greenhouse gas emissions. 

Although it's not perfectly accurate, there's a concept out there that helps to illustrate how a vegetarian diet can help save the world.  I'm not talking about health issues here because that's not the point of this blog. I'll also mention that I'm not a vegetarian myself, although I would love to be. My girlfriend on the other hand is, and maybe one day I'll join her among the ranks of the ultra efficient energy eaters. That being said, if I start to sound preachy I'm not trying to be, I'm just passing the hard truth onto you.

So here's my attempt at an explanation of the power of 10 rule:

Basically, the rule roughly estimates that as you climb the food chain, you only preserve 1/10th of the original energy input. The main energy source on our planet is the sun and some of the sun's energy goes towards growing plants. Some animals eat the plants and some animals eat other animals. The most efficient use of the solar energy, or energy in general, is to eat the sunlight, but hey that's what the plants do. The second most efficient option for us as walking talking creatures is to eat the plants.

Though when we eat the plants, we are unable to make use of 100% of the energy the plant absorbed itself. Some of that energy went towards the plant growing, reproducing, other biological processes, as well as heat emission. Plus our digestive systems are not 100% efficient, thus some of the energy is lost there as well. In the first stage, it is estimated that the plants only make use of 10% of the energy they absorb. Then when we eat the plants, we only make use of 1% of the original energy. Now let's say you get eaten by a crazed carnivorous animal, sucks for you. The creature who was so lucky to have had such a tasty vegetarian for dinner will only make use of .1% of the original energy input from the sun. The energy transfer starts at 100%, plants get 10%, vegetarians get 1%, and carnivores get a measly .1%. 

On and on it goes up the food chain of energy loss. So, let's now put it into a context that's really easy to understand. You can either eat 10 pounds of grain yourself, or you can feed that 10 pounds of grain to a vegetarian creature and net yourself about 1 pound of meat. Which do you think would feed the most people?

It's a grossly simplified analogy and again the math isn't 100% accurate, but the loss is real and significant, and it's good to be conscious of the energy footprint your next meal will have on the world. I won't even go into how many more people our planet could feed if we stopped feeding perfectly edible people food to animals just so we can harvest their meat.

What does this have to do with global warming? Check out part II of this article and I'll explain, I promise.

The California energy commission has released a report stating that greenhouse gas emissions in CA have increased by 14% between 1990 and 2004. The good news is that that's about 50% the national average of growth. California has promised to drop their emissions down to 1990 levels by the year 2020, so in less that 14 years, they need to stop the growth, and then reduce it by a considerable amount to reach that goal.

If any state in the Union can pull it off, California can. Imagine how difficult it will be for the rest of the US to match that though. Especially without the progressive policies that CA has been putting in place for years.

CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions up 14% 1990 - 2004 > [Reuters.com]