Climate Change Anyone?

No one single weather event can ever be evidence for global climate change but it's still important to note the increasing frequency of extreme weather events--like, say, hurricanes. JOANNA M. FOSTER has a great blog post at the NYT on the predicted frequency of hurricanes this year.

Fighting Science Pt. 2

Saw this post on the NYT green blog by FELICITY BARRINGER. It seems certain climate change deniers don't think enough polar bears are drowning to justify the concern the media and scientists give them.

As a result, Ms. Barringer reports that lead scientist Dr. Monnett was:

placed on administrative leave two weeks ago by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and was informed that his integrity was in question.

My favourite part is this description of Dr. Monnett's conversation with the investigators about his calculations:

One of the more lively moments in this transcript is the back-and-forth between the investigators and an increasingly exasperated Dr. Monnett over how to structure the mathematical calculations representing polar-bear mortality. He indicated, with consistent acidic references to “fifth grade” equations on percentages, that the investigators or their informants needed remedial work on their mathematics.

Don't miss the last paragraph of the blog where Ms. Barringer reports on two other environmental scientists whose work and integrity is being questioned.

I think this is becoming a regular tactic of climate-change deniers. I expect to see more stories like these in the news (but I don't expect to read in the news when these scientists are exonerated).

Fighting Science

Everyone, I'm sure, remembers when climate scientists at the University of East Anglia had their emails stolen and then those emails were used by climate change deniers to accuse them of wrong doing. This controversy gave climate change deniers some credibility, destroyed the credibility of the scientists involved, and, in my opinion, derailed any momentum that might have been generated by COP15 in Denmark later in the year.

To be honest, I still don't think the green movement worldwide has recovered.

But did you know that the scientists were exonerated over a year ago?

And, interestingly, last month those same scientists released all the raw data (via Andy Coghlan at New Scientist) that they analyzed to conclude that global temperatures were rising over time.

But I don't know anyone talking about that. And I doubt the green movement is about to take off again.

Like wildlife don't have enough to worry about...

Now it seems organized crime has taken to poaching. Jennifer Viegas of Discovery News writes:

While the criminals are becoming wealthier, the poor global economy has weakened conservation groups' ability to counter the crimes.

In these poor economic times we can't forget how badly environmental advocacy groups need our support.

Climate Change Anyone?

Is it me or does no one talk about climate change anymore. It's like it's a bad word or something.

Well, here's one recent article at least about receding permafrost in Russia posted on Discovery News.

Is Wi-Fi dangerous? Pt. 2

I don't envy Elizabeth May.

A couple of tweets and she's getting it from everywhere. Sarah Boesveld of the National Post has covered the so-called wi-fi tweetstorm. So has DANIEL LEBLANC of the Globe and Mail. And many, many others.

But I think Ms. May understands coverage and criticism from the mainstream media. She might be a little surprised by how relevant the mainstream media finds her now that she's made history as Canada's first elected Green MP but she's learning.

But all that isn't the reason I don't envy her.

She's posted a thoughtful nuanced piece about her thoughts on wi-fi. It hasn't really gotten the same coverage as her 140 character tweets but at least they're out there and anyone, even green supporters, can check them out. Except it seems green supporters are her most vicious critics. Check out these lengthy, (lengthy), posts (one, two) by Sudbury Steve (Be warned, they're lengthy).

Debate is healthy in a democracy but are you really this angry about a couple tweets, Steve?

The population problem Pt. 2

Some more more background on the population problem.

This by Gilbert Chin, Tara Marathe, Leslie Roberts published in Science.

Also this by JUSTIN GILLIS and CELIA W. DUGGER of the New York Times.

What makes oil ethical? Pt. 2

Prejudices, stereotypes, and just any hateful language can make is so hard to have a thoughtful discussion on a topic. Consider my ethical oil post from yesterday.

In many respects the so-called ethical oil campaign created by Alykhan Velshi uses stereotypes and prejudices about people and governments in the  middle east and south america promote Canadian oil.

In turn, a small number of commenters at the Globe and Mail used prejudices, stereotypes, and hateful language about Albertans (and their government) in an attempt to criticize the ad campaign.

Consider this comment by someone named con hack PM down in flames:

“When petroleum reserves were deposited around the world, it is unfortunate that they were all given to the world’s bastards,”

Not bad. Described the Alberta con hack loser government to a T.

This article was linked to by the conservative site, Small Dead Animals, and the commenters there have focused exclusively on this type of negative comment.

Now the commenters there believe that any criticism of the ethical oil campaign is rooted in unseemly anti-Albertan prejudice. As progressives we have to remember to conduct ourselves in accordance with our values.

The population problem

Science has just published a special issue on "the opportunities and challenges created by demographic changes around the world."

Some of the articles are free while others might (wink, wink) be found on Google Scholar or by visiting the websites of the authors who wrote them.

JUSTIN GILLIS of The New York Times has a great little review of an article by Wolfgang Lutz and Samir KC. I like this article because rather than proposing morally reprehensible solutions like billions must die or restricitng the reproductive rights women, the authors present evidence that educating people (and especially women) can significantly curb worldwide population growth.

Justin wrote:

The paper offered the most convincing calculation I have seen of just how much the population curve could be bent by a more intensive global attack on the problem. If schools could be built and children educated at a rapid clip in all fast-growing countries, the global population in 2050 would hit 8.8 billion, the demographers projected.

Under a far more pessimistic scenario in which education lags, the population in that year would likely approach 10 billion, they found.

What makes oil ethical?

Thought provoking ad campaign by ex-conservative ministerial aide, Alykhan Velshi.

My first impression is that the simple ads he's created are too simple. The oil industry of Canada isn't all good while the rest of the world's is all bad. Often they are the same companies!

Slide 4 seems particularly misleading. It implies that the oil sands project is positive for the environment. Check out this previous post for a dissenting view on the impact of Canada's oil industry on Canada's environment.

COLIN FREEZE of the Globe and Mail adds some interesting info on Mr. Velshi's past and his motivations.

She's awesome

Claudia is one of the smartest, most committed and passionate people I know. She's running for the president of the Green Party of Canada. They'd be lucky to have her as president.

Check out what she has to say here and support her if you can.

More on those birds

WeLoveBirds.org
Send a message to stop the tar sands pipeline here.

On Eating Local

Great post by Katie Gibbs on eating local; the difficulties and the benefits. Also check out all of Dave Bagler's blog. He's got some great stuff.

They're just birds, right?

Wendy Gordon from the states speaking up for birds and against the tar sands. Posted on huffpo.

About time. And Canadians should speak up too.

Awesome

Although I wish it wasn't necessary, I love seeing this kind of stuff.

via: huffpo and youtube

Conservation is Conservative? Of course!

PHILIP ELLIOTT writing for the Associated Press (and reposted on the Huffington Post) quotes Jon Huntsman as believing that "Conservation is conservative."

In case you don't know, he's running for the Republican presidential nomination and Republicans (these days) tend not to acknowledge the value of conservation. Huntsman goes even further saying, "I also believe that science should be driving our discussions on climate change."

Bravo. He just upset a large portion of the people he's asking to nominate him but he's not afraid to stand behind what he believes.

I don't know what his other beliefs are but I definitely support this one.

Is Wi-Fi dangerous?

Great and very detailed piece by EMay on her concern about wi-fi and other forms of radiation we are all exposed to everyday.

Long story short: it's not the green party's top priority (not even close) but it's something that should continued to be studied. Pretending that there is absolutely zero reason to be concerned is reckless.