Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
I originally found out about Chuck Norris and his crusade for drilling on US land and territory by reading an article on The Chilling Effect. As my frequent readers know, I regularly make fun of celebrities that use their “star status” to promote the reduction of global warming influences (Laurie David, Live Earth, Al Gore). Other blogs have gotten into that act as well commenting on Sheryl Crow (here and here) as well as other superstars. In fact, there is a great list of “supporters” that make one start to question the education of any superstar.READ MORE
FOXNews.com – December 6, 2007
Steven Milroy is the author of Junk Science which is a great site for exploring more information on scientific concepts, particularly on global warming. He also writes a regular column for Fox.
In this column, Steve itemizes the top ten greatest “green” hypocrisies. Personally, I think he is stretching on several of them – especially number 4 since it is impossible with today’s current technology to truly have a worldwide active discussion without physically being co-located. Yes, it is easy to get half a dozen people together online but getting hundreds together is simply a nightmare and not easily handled with today’s bandwidths.READ MORE
San Francisco Chronicle – July 28, 2007
Some say that UN Sec.-Gen. Ban Ki-moon is trying to create a new world order and drag down the US economic dominance by actively talking about global warming and its impact on the world. I don’t think that he is that nefarious and simply think that he is discussing a very important issue. He should keep this up! While he is at it, I do wish he would discuss other important issues that should be on the mind of every citizen of the world (see my posts here: Africa: Live Earth Vs. Africa and VIEW: Live earth, deaf to reality).READ MORE
allAffrica.com – July 11, 2007
I will admit it, I am cynical of Live Earth. Even though I write on global warming daily in this site, I feel there are far more important things that can and should be done to ease human suffering than trying to change our climate trends. The human suffering in parts of the world is pretty extreme and, while global warming will make this worse, there are other things that can be done TODAY to ease much of that suffering.
While I am still in internal debate about the cause of any climate change, I have no doubt that we can save thousands, if not millions, of lives very quickly if we would give simple things like malaria more attention.READ MORE
My interest in this subject came from a lot of talk on the web about replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). Much of this talk is surely driven by the Answer the Call: Make The Commitment campaign that Live Earth is currently promoting. While I was confident that fluorescent was better at producing light for a given amount of energy coming from the socket, the mechanical engineer in me questioned that it was a free lunch.
It didn’t take long for me to start to realize that lunch costs money!
Let’s start with Wikipedia which is always a decent source but sometimes can’t be trusted so we will dig more lower in this post. You can read the full Wikipedia reference here but I will pull out a few key passages and then add my comments.READ MORE
Pakistan Daily Times – July 4, 2007
This is not a news story. Rather it is an op-ed that discusses the various trade-offs that must be made if we are to adopt radical changes for the sake of global warming control. I have made similar comments before (read article here) and I differ from Mr. Lomborg in that I feel that if the case for global warming can be scientifically made, we should invest in solutions. If the definitive case for human induced climate change cannot be made though, it is far better to save lives in some other way.READ MORE
Washington Post – July 8, 2007
I tried to do the math on the big quote from this article and couldn’t make it work. John Buckley of Carbon Footprint says that it would take 100,000 trees to offset the effects of the Live Earth concert from this weekend. While I am not sure on his math, I am sure that it is a big number.
The problem with saying this is that I don’t think carbon offsets are effective. To say that you can buy your way out of pollution by planting trees is, at best, a short term consideration. The trees are barely carbon negative over their entire life and death, even though they can have a big impact in their first years of fast growing.READ MORE
LifeStyleExtra – July 5, 2007
It seems that the organizers of Live Earth are a little closed in their thinking. Methane is one of the largest greenhouse gas components and animal production is one of the largest contributors to methane overproduction. It seems that Live Earth is selling meat products which is sending the wrong message.
Organizers of the Live Earth concerts should not sell burgers or hot dogs at the high profile gigs, an animal rights group claimed
PETA activists said that Wembley should take meat off the menu after a recent UN report found that the meat industry creates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, ships and planes in the world combined.
New site that I just became aware of. Check it out if you are interested in learning about Live Earth and the various musical groups that are supporting or not supporting the effort.
Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.READ MORE
I have no problems with people pledging to do better, I am just cynical that it will happen. Most Americans make “resolutions” each New Years (the most popular are to lose weight and stop smoking) and by the Super Bowl, these pledges are broken.
I do have some concerns about the details of this pledge. By pledging to the first one, 2-7 are pretty much moot. The first item, if implemented, would effectively prevent all the others from ever happening. In the US, to reduce CO2, H2O, and methane by 90% in 18 years (time for the next generation to be born) would be a gigantic burden on the economy. I mention this in a previous post: Wanna Pay $7 a Gallon?READ MORE