Earth From Above Photography

Those of you who know me well, know I spend an inordinate part of my time wandering around the Huffington Post, looking for a row. I had never heard of Yann Arthus-Bertrand, before I found this story.

Yann is an Environmentalist artist, that travels the world photographing Nature, and is opening a Gallery Show in New York of the destruction man has committed on the Planet Earth.

And he does it, from inside a helicopter! Yann takes these pictures from inside of an EC120B helicopter. That aircraft is a marvel of modern technology, and has a fuel thank that holds over four hundred liters of aviation grade fuel, and has an average duration of four hours. Which means he is spewing 485 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, for every hour he is up there.

These are very pretty pictures, but at what cost to the Earth? Without the industry he loathes, there would be no Eurocopters; without his Eurocopter none of his art would be possible.

I took issue with that. Imagine my surprise, when a blogger who claims to be Yann, actually responded to my remark.

"my work has "zero carbon footprint". Every gram of CO2 released in the air during our photographing and filming sessions are "reimbursed" by planting trees. My collaborators and myself have also set up a fund which buys "efficient ovens" for Africans. The efficient ovens which we send to Africa enable people to cook, heat their homes, etc... without using wood anymore. ...Therefore, Timmy, our carbon footprint while taking photographs is erased. Lastly, many pictures are taken from hot air balloons."

Unfortunately, a hot air balloon burns twenty to thirty gallons of propane for a one hour flight. A gallon of propane when burned will produce 12.7 lbs of CO2. So an hour in a balloon about puts almost as much CO2 into the atmosphere, as a helicopter.

He might need to plant a few more trees.

Stay tuned to this one...

entire post

An Insincere Challenge

I ran across this video clip recently. The author claims that he has a argument that "even the most hardened skeptic and the most panicked activist both can agree on."

He also said the he's putting it out there, to check if his" reasoning is dellusional. Because frankly, no one [he's] shown it to so far, has been able to poke a hole in it."

But there's nothing I adore more than a challenge






Really? If it is so airtight, then why are the comments over at YouTube closed? Why is it impossible to post a video response to his argument? Apparently, like Al Gore, the Debate is Over before it even started. It is really easy to win a debate when you shut out the opposition

Here's a couple holes I found: First, he's exaggerating trmendously. I think he said it best himself, when describing a post-climate-changed world, he said "This is a world straight out of Science Fiction."

I couldn't agree more. Because the scenario he mentioned IS fiction. As a mater of fact it seemed to resemble some science fiction thrillers like the Day after Tomorrow , and An Inconvenient Truth , much more than actual science. He not only said that Global warming would cause more storms, he invoked Katrina. The truth is, no reputable Scientist is claiming that Global Warming will cause storms.

According to Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the IPCC:

Despite this enhanced activity, there is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land.

In fairness Kevin did say that there is a possible link to Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming. This is because his paper was published in 2005, right after Kerry Emanuel, published a paper finding a link. But that was three years ago.

Today Dr. Emanuel realizes he was completely wrong:

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel ... suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

Finally, from the latest report of the IPCC:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms.

So it seems that we don't have to worry about SUVs starting storms.

But my biggest concern, is that if we take action to curb Co2 emissions, it causes a worldwide Depression. He brings this up and suggests that the trade off would be worth the risk. But what if the actions we take, have no effect on CO2. In that case we're stuck with a warmer world AND a Depression.

There is no evidence, scientific or historic, that treaties, taxes, or carbon caps have any effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Look at what's happening to Food Prices right now, because we tried to substitute Ethanol for Petroleum. There are actually food riots going on worldwide, and there has been no measurable reduction of atmospheric CO2.

Finally he claims that the only downside of an Economic Depression is the actual Depression, whereas Global Warming will cause Political Breakdown, Social Upheaval, Wars, Environmental Destruction, and Health Consequences. But all those things usually happen during a Depression as well.

The last Depression caused every one of those things to occur. So here's the real choice: Do we want a World Wide Depressoion for no reason, or do we want to have a good economy, in case we will need to fund relief efforts from a Global Warming catastrophe.

I think THAT answer is obvious.

entire post

More Hype

So what's the latest threat to humanity that Scientists are linking to Global Warming? Over on Jerry Agar's Blog I take a big chomp out of the latest ridiculous claim.

"Apparently, referring to Global Warming is the scientific equivalent of getting out of a limousine with a skirt and no underwear."

entire post

Dodgeball Analyzed

After posting my Dodgeball Routine The Great Orac arose from his slumber. He posted it over at his site so all his scientist buddies could hurl a couple rubber balls back at me. I’m resisting the urge to point out how many of them still throw like girls.

So now that the Science has weighed in, the consensus clearly demonstrates, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that I am a comedian. So perhaps I should try and explain my bit as it were a thesis, which is the level so many scientists want to argue with it.

Remember I'm in the Entertainment Business, and if I were to start reading scientific papers every night, I would be completely out of the business. I would be as broke a a scientist without a grant, and as lonely as a game of Dungeons and Dragons. The nature of Comedy requires that I omit some of the fine details to keep the routine light and fast moving.

If I had to turn this routine into a thesis, my premise was not that Global Warming isn’t happening, but that the consensus is insufficient to warrant legislative action. As I have been told on numerous occasions, there is no reason to debate Global Warming; it is already settled. Global Warming is happening, and it is man made. Those who have called me a denier are not only fabricating a straw man, they are also coming dangerously close to violating the rule against invoking Nazis. There is a big difference between denying a historical fact like the Holocaust, and being skeptical about the consequences of a theory.

My first bit compares Al Gore to Pat Robertson, who both have blamed hurricanes on the activities of humans. While most scientists agree that Pat Robertson is being goofy, not many recognize that Al Gore is being goofy as well. There is no scientific agreement that Hurricanes are caused by Homosexuals or Global Warming; so giving one man trophies, while laughing at the other is nothing more than zealous bigotry. It’s like Catholics laughing at Buddhists for praying to a statue.

Next, we move on to the strength of a consensus. By using examples of historic scientific consensus, that turned out to be wrong, I illustrate how meaningless a consensus can be. Orac loves to point this out as a gotcha, since a failure of science in the past is no indication of it’s current veracity. In fact “The Science Has Been Wrong Before” is a well documented fallacy .

Right now, consensus only gives a 90% chance of a anthropomorphic signal in the observed warming to date. In horse racing terms, that translates to 9 to 1. So betting against future Global Warming catastrophes is a long shot for sure, but not improbable. And if I were betting on a horse with roughly those odds, I might point out to a handicapper, that Seabiscuit in his first race at Aqueduct came in at 26 to 1. That is what I did here. I pointed out that betting on the scientists isn’t always a sure thing, and sometimes it pays off to back a long shot.

Proposals for reducing human impact on the climate include higher taxes, and more expensive energy technologies. Which means that the economy will impacted negatively. Already the small increase in energy costs over the past year is slowing growth, and raising food prices. And if, gas at three bucks a gallon, hasn’t decreased the demand, taxes would have to get that price a lot higher before CO2 levels start decreasing. So we know that any solution to the “crisis” is 100% certain to impact our economy negatively. You don’t put forth legislation that is 100% certain to slow the economy for a theory that is only 90% probable. It is a really bad bet.

Next, I point out that much of what Al Gore says, just apocalyptic rhetoric, because only bad things are predicted to come about from Global Warming. The DVD recorder skipped here so a lot of the point I made didn’t get recorded. Certainly there should be some benefits to Global Warming, and in fact there is science to indicate that warmer weather is good for humanity. I like warm weather. Which is why I personally think we should encourage Global Warming.

Rather than taking a balanced look at the possible outcomes of a warmer climate, many just point to the bad. It is impossible for every result of Global Warming to be harmful. Nature doesn’t care if something is good for humanity or bad for humanity. In fact, Nature has done everything in it’s power to try and eliminate humanity from the face of the earth, and in a victory of Evolution, we survived. (Our use of petroluem is one reason we won the fight.) To say petroleum consumption will result in more human suffering is just moralizing. Which isn’t science, it’s religion.

There is such a rush to scare people, that every disaster gets blamed on global warming. This sometimes causes humorous contradictions, and occasionally a completely ridiculous claim. The diapered astronaut being blamed on AGW was a joke of exaggeration. But that doesn’t mean that equally ridiculous claims are not made: The Secretary General of the United Nations actually blamed Global Warming for the genocide in Darfur. With a straight face.

Well then, if there is no certainty that Global Warming is catastrophic, why would anyone insist that we need things like a carbon tax? Here is where I lose most of the scientists (the Dodgeball Routine). I chronicle the dramatic descent of a smart young boy into the perdition of Socialism. I speculate that there is envy and a desire to control within the hearts of some scientists. Not all scientists, just enough to give my argument some weight. I have met many highly educated people who believe a persons wealth should be in proportion to his education. They claim there’s something wrong with this country, when a guy like Bill Gates could drop out of college and become the world’s wealthiest man. These are the people to whom this bit is dedicated.

Often people without money or power, resent those who have it. Socialism attracts people wrought with envy and impotence. And just like alcoholics often find themselves working in a bar, Socialists often find cover within the environmental movement. The regulations and confiscatory taxation often proposed as environmental solutions, are virtually indistinguishable from Socialism.

And I’m not buying that science supported Al Gore claiming 20 feet. If the 20 foot rise is possible, then why did the IPCC settle on 23 inches by 2100? According to the IPCC: ”Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level" Which means it "might" go higher, but there is no consensus on when the 20 foot rise would occur, or if it ever will. If you are arguing from the authority of the consensus, you have to go with 23 inches figure. Which is what I did.

When Gore demonstrated the impact on the world, he used a current map of population centers. That indicated he believed that the twenty-foot rise was imminent. Which was a clearly a scare tactic. Populations can move quite a bit over decades, there is no way anyone is going to sit in one spot as the ocean rises over their heads. New Orleans lost half its population after the last deluge, I can’t imagine that many would stick around if it happens again. Perhaps in another 100 years, the French Quarter will be a really cool dive site. The history of the world is full of population migrations, and I don’t think that’s ever going to change, whether we pass Kyoto or not.

Since Most scientists agree that Global Warming doesn’t cause Hurricanes, there is a 10% possibility that they’re wrong (again), some are just responding to envy and a lust for power, and any ocean rise will be small and gradual; the consensus on Global Warming is insufficient to pass any legislation at this time.

Now where’s my Grant money?

11/4: Corrected math error. Odds are actually only 9 to 1 in favor of Global Warming.

entire post

Dodgeball

In honor of America's newest Nobel Prize Recipient:



Here it is.

for those of you who followed the Orac Controversy, and are still here, I've decided to post a video of the bit in question, so readers can decide for themselves whether or not it's funny.

entire post

Good vs. Evil

Polarization. It's the remaining essence of any argument, after all the nuance has been boiled out. Good and Evil. Black and White. Cowboys and Indians. Most often, Liberals accuse the right of having a such a World view. Unless it involves something close to their hearts. Like Global Warming.




The talking points are, that all the noble Scientists, (who are good hearted, open minded, and intelligent) believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. On the other side are the incredible scientists, whom the evil corporations have paid off, to construct lies and obfuscation.

There's no nuance when the fate of the world is at stake. Either you agree with the Consensus, or you are a Denier. You're either an Intellectual, or a Patsy for the Oil Corporations. Academic or Propagandist. Enlightened or Bought Off. Intellectual or Whore.

One of the most honorable men to the Left is Dr. James Hansen, chief climate scientist over at NASA. Dr. Hansen has been boldly standing up to the Bush Administration, who repeatedly tries to censor this whistle-blower. The order for the President to tone down Dr. Hansen's rhetoric comes straight from the oil corporations, according to Liberal dogma.

It is believed Hansen is above reproach, and no sum would be sufficient for him to alter his opinion. But it turns out, he CAN be bought off. In Monday's Investors Business Daily comes this juicy tidbit: The George Soros funded Open Society Institute, has given $720 000 to Dr. Hansen. Apparently, not all the science whores are in the pockets of oil companies.

Of course, supporters of Hansen would attest that the good Dr. has ALWAYS been a proponent of Global Warming, and the payoff from Soros was an Honorarium rather than a bribe.

But it turns out, that wasn't the case. Thirty six years ago, when the Global Temperatures were falling, Dr. Hansen didn't believe in Global Warming. Back then, his famous computer models were churning out numbers 180 degrees from todays prognostications.

And What about CO2 you ask? Well back in 1971, Hansen and his partner in crime didn't think it was relevant. "They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide that fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Washington Post report said.

Furthermore it was recently discovered that the stalwart Dr. Hansen had made an error in his calculations, and the oft repeated statistic that 1998 was the warmest year in US history was wrong. Once the numbers were corrected, it turns out that 1934 was the warmest.

Is it possible that George Soros, with all his money could convince Dr. Hansen to fudge numbers? Why that would be an Indecent Proposal wouldn't it?

entire post

Environmental Fashion Plates

I said it over a year ago. According to an article by Robert Samuelson yesterday, the popularity of the Toyota Prius has nothing to do with the environment:

“Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. “

Why the disappointing sales figures? Well, the Hybrid Civic, looks just like a regular Civic. What sense is there in paying all that extra money for the high tech, if nobody knows you have it? Saving the planet, is just a side benefit; impressing your friends and neighbors is Job One. Today the average Prius is only driven around 7000 miles per year. So it seems that they're not really being purchased for transportation. It reminds me of my college days, when you could tell how much a guy paid for his stereo, by the size of his speakers.
Samuelson apparently concurs with my speculation that Priuses (Prion? Prii?) are fashion statements. As I said in 2006: "If you want to sell a Hybrid, you need to make it look like a Hybrid, so it's easier to pick up the vegan chicks." Back then, it was Ford Motor that reported disappointing sales of Hybrid SUVs. Now it seems Honda is stricken with the same plight.
The photo above is an idea for a possible option that Honda should offer. An attached flashing neon sign, that telegraphs your environmental awareness to the world. They certainly need something, to spare the Hybrid Civic from the same fate as the Hybrid Accord, which was recently discontinued.

entire post