What's the motive?

One of the most proliferated rumors in the field of climate science is that the scientists are only presenting research that proves the widespread assumption that climate change is real, and hiding any evidence to the contrary (link, link, link, I could keep this up all day). It has even been suggested that we are being paid off to perpetuate the global warming 'hoax'. This is not only is this insulting to me and my field, it implies as grave misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific research (at least in the area of climate science). Let me explain:

1. We don't get paid more to prove or disprove anything

When a researcher gets a grant, the money is used to fund an investigation with a necessarily uncertain outcome. If the outcome was known, there would be no study (naturally). What this means is the money is given BEFORE the study is published, not as a result of a desired outcome. For example, with my current project, I am hoping to understand the climate of Southern Mexico. It may have been warmer or colder, wetter or drier. I will not know until I get my data. Furthermore, the study will be just as likely to be published if I find that the Mexico was substantially warmer 500 years ago, and has been cooling dramatically since then (maybe even more so!).

2. There is money passed around, but not received by us!

One of the most ironic things about the idea that climate scientists are being paid off to support climate change is that the exact opposite is happening - people are being paid by Exxon Mobile and others to create confusion about climate change to slow legislation. This is a very scary operation termed the "manufactured doubt industry", which I will hopefully address in a longer post. For now, here is a little synopsis.

Essentially, what happens is big corporations that have incentive to keep the public misinformed about climate change (like oil companies, car companies, power companies, etc.) give money to institutes that put out bogus science, or give false testimony at climate hearings. A few examples of such groups are the George C. Marshall institute (financed by Exxon Mobil), The Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon, Ford Motor Company fund, and Pfizer) and the infamous Heartland Institute (with countless donors). These groups somehow get called in as the 'credible experts' by media outlets for contrary opinion, because controversy sells over science (heartland, competitive enterprise, george marshall).

3. We geologists could make more money if we switched sides

When I thought about my career path, I knew that I would be taking a substantial pay cut to be a climate scientist. My background in geology would make me well-suited to a very profitable career in the oil and mineral resources industry, which has the highest starting salary of ANY field in the country; it actually blows the rest out of the water. I will probably never be poor when I get my PhD, but with a university or government job, I'm never going to be filthy rich either. My point is that the geologists who realize early on that they could make a lot of money in industry, and then go on to research climate change are pretty respectable people. We aren't after money, and are not being paid off; all we want to do is provide the best possible science to understand this enormous global problem. Please consider this when you see statements by the American Geophysical Union or the Geological Society of America (the two largest academic geological societies), strongly asserting the reality of human induced climate change.

To sum up: What do we have to gain by publishing papers that confirm anthropogenic climate change?

Far less than we have to gain by confusing the public so that our present CO2-emitting activities need not change.

A plan to save the world

I am tired of this waffling and 'dithering' on a real climate plan. Dick Cheney accused Obama of dithering on Afghanistan after he thought about the issue for 3 months. What do you call it when you won't address a problem for 21 years (see the first senate hearing on the subject in 1988)?

Last week I did out a little math on how much it would cost us to actually replace our fossil fuel power plants with renewables. It was quite simple really, just took a bit of looking up on the Energy Information Administration website, which has everything you ever wanted to know about power in this country. The next step was to find out how much power plants cost, and I used a base calculation for a 500MW plant:

• Geothermal plants are relatively cheap: ~$575-1,500 million or so
• Wind Power plants may be a little cheaper, at $1000/kw installed, or $500 million/500MW

I could go further, but I'll stick with just these two, because wind alone has to capability to power the whole country (see this map). For my calculations, and ease of reading I've used a conservative ballpark estimate for the cost of one 500MW plant, $1 billion.

Now for the part about how much power we need to generate:

I got this info from the EIA, and did my calculations in terms of 500MW plants. In total, we currently have the equivalent of 627.682 coal plants, 116.596 petroleum plants, and 815.06 natural gas 500MW plants in this country. Mind you, this is our total capacity, not what we actually use. Bottom line, if we wanted to replace all of our fossil fuel plants we would need 1559.338 new 500MW plants.

Now let's think first about the space it would take up. Wind power would obviously be the more expansive option, so at an average footprint of 2.02 km per plant (based on upper estimate of what is necessary for 1000 turbines), we would need to cover 3155 square km's (1218 square miles) or roughly the size of just 1.7% of North Dakota, one of the most promising states for windpower.

The more important consideration will of course be the price tag. At $1 billion dollars a plant, the whole plan would cost us $1.559 trillion dollars. Granted, this is a lot of money, so I should provide some scale. Let's compare this amount to how much we are about to spend in Afghanistan. At ~$1 million/soldier/year over there, the new surge is going to raise total cost $30 billion to ~$100 billion/year. If we can spend $100 billion on that unpopular war, what is to stop us from spending the same amount building renewable power plants? At that annual cost, we could build enough plants to replace all fossil fuels in 15.59 years.

Now here there are two big bonuses, which are how this could actually be passed.

1. This would create a ton of jobs, especially in the midwestern and southwestern states (wind and geothermal resources respectively) and would be the equivalent of a massive stimulus. Wind plants could also be placed along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, so most states could get a piece of the action if they wanted to.

2. Unlike war, renewable energy pays itself back, and then some. Wind power plants break even (generating as much total revenue as the cost to build them) in about 7 years, and geothermal plants would be only slightly longer. Thus, if the government subsidized this project next year at with same Afghanistan budget we could be carbon neutral with regard to electricity, and fully paid off by 2030. After 2030, the renewable plants would be providing net revenue to the country, eventually doubling the initial investment. I know this is a bit of a pipe dream to think that we would actually start right now, but hey, don't say that we can't. I am so tired of hearing people say that the cost of a switch to renewables is unimaginable or unrealistic. I have imagined it, and it is completely realistic. We just need to set priorities. One of them might not be spending as much as the rest of the world combined on our military (~$680 billion/year). Seriously, the war in Iraq has already surpassed $1 trillion, and will eventually get to $3 trillion by the time we actually finish up there. It sounds like hyperbole, but with that budget, we could replace all of our fossil fuel power plants twice.

“A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.” - Mark Twain

This article provides great summary of a topic that always concerns me - the control that the media has on the climate change 'debate'. I highly recommend it in full, but here is a good clip:

"It’s much more difficult to have a story in the newspaper or a TV news segment, explaining the latest study in Nature or Science, than it is to have an unqualified scientist or “spokesman” offer a pithy, controversial quote or sound bite not necessarily grounded in fact.

This reality has given the fossil-fuel lobby a major leg up, writes James Hoggan, co-author of a Climate Cover-Up and founder of DeSmogBlog.com. Hoggan’s must-read book describes in disturbing detail the well-oiled campaign to confuse the public and confound the science, creating enough doubt to thwart meaningful action and protect a world economic order built around the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas."

Another problem that this article doesn't address enough is the need for the global media to give balance by providing 'both sides' of the story. I can see where they are coming from, that the media is supposed to facilitate public debate and let people decide for themselves the true nature of a story, but in the case of science, I think it may be best to allow real working scientists provide much of the dialogue. With some 95% of climate scientists providing data in support of human-induced climate change, they should not be given the same airtime as (often unqualified) contrarians. (a few examples: here, here, here). I mean, if 95% of scientists suggested that a particular medicine was dangerous, would they be given equal airtime to the 5% that thought it was safe? Well, maybe if the pharmaceutical industry paid them to...but i digress.

The REAL christmas victims

It began pretty early this year, the right has come out swinging at the supposed 'attack on Christmas'. In this case, I'm referring to their recent boycott of GAP for their 'anti-Christmas' ad. Of course, anyone who has seen the ad would no doubt see that they were simply trying to portray the holidays in a more inclusive light and not, comparing Christmas "to pagan "Solstice" holiday" as the American Family Association claims. The funniest thing about this is that basically all major Christmas traditions are of pagan decent (the tree, many of the songs, gift giving...). Oh, if they only knew.

The really sad thing is that this trend where the majority thinks that they are actually the victims is everywhere. You see the same sentiment all the with things like gay marriage or atheism's secular agenda (both clearly acting oppressors). Why this happens is for another post, but my working hypothesis is that it comes down to money. A TV program can reach their biggest audience if they play to the majority and ignore the minority view.

An 'unfortunate' cool spot

The news is now out that this year had the warmest June-October on record, it is a little sad that the one cool spot is over the US. Had we been in the ultra-red area that the rest of the world appears to be in, maybe the US would grasp that the world is warming! It isn't really fair to use the logic that one year makes a huge difference, because it is the overall trend that counts, but still, people only seem to understand the problem when it is in their face. They only perceive the world warming when it's hot outside.

It only takes a few bad eggs

So I was thinking this morning, when I saw the newest musings from the one and only Glenn Beck: how can a few crazy people be so influential? It isn't like they use reason to make their arguments, or even that they are somehow more informed. They are simply given a platform to be louder than everyone else (a la Stephen Colbert's persona). Then, I see this article, courtesy of Nate Silver: apparently the Protect Marriage campaign (i.e. anti gay marriage) has gotten 83% of it's funding from two donors:

This is because Stand for Marriage Maine is exceptionally dependent on just two large donors: the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, from which it has received $1,622,152, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (ME), from which it has received $529,666. Collectively, these two group's represent 83 percent of Yes on 1's fundraising. In addition, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland accounts for 81 percent of its in-state fundraising; without its contributions, Stand for Marriage Maine would have received just $127,218 in contributions from Mainers.

Pretty appalling, but I don't see any clear answers. It is just way too easy to get the masses to respond to the suggestion that they are somehow disenfranchised. Unfortunately you can't call the loud voices out on their unfounded view like the white house tried to do, or the rest of the media will cry foul. We're just stuck with a system of those with the voice (and/or the money) pushing the country where they want it to go.

A reality check for climate scientists

We are NOT getting through to people. A new poll from Pew states this quite clearly. Apparently, the number of people that believe that the earth is warming has dropped from 71% to 57% in the past year. That's right, despite the fact that major changes have not occurred in climate science, and climate scientists are even MORE sure after another year of research, public acceptance climate change is decreasing. This is pretty scary actually, considering that urgent action is needed very soon, if humans are to slow (or even adapt) to the warming

Why the disdain for environmentalists?

As an unabashed environmentalist, I see this sentiment echoed pretty often. It just so happens that I saw two cases of it in the past few days. First, there is the Alabama congressmen who said, quote:

"We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition."

But worse than that was Limbaugh's newest response to a study promoting sustainabilty through better access to contraceptives to prevent "70 percent of unwanted pregnancies". First of all, why would anyone be for unwanted pregnancies. Second, why the extreme language over something that seems like a pretty common-sense idea. Limbaugh's actual response to the reporter from the NYT's who reported the article:

"The environmentalist wackos are the same way [as terrorists, from earlier]. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth -- Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?"

The thing is, environmentalists feel just as strongly about protecting the country as the far right - they just have different ideas on how to go about it. I hope that once we get over this conspiracy theorizing about the far left's desire to destroy all that 'real Americans' hold dear, we'll also realize that environmentalists are people too.

A new direction...

I realized today that I really dropped the ball on this blog. I started it as an outlet for political and cultural commentary, where I am others would be able to post stories without cluttering Facebook pages with preachy comments, in other words, keeping my preachy here. It turns out, I just lost the urge to write my preachy comments altogether, or so I thought. In actuality, I think what happened is that I never really had the desire to write long treatises a la Frank Rich's Sunday column. Rather I just wanted to have a quick 2 minute rant with a link to the article that set me off. In light of this new spirit, I present my first post for the Viva Sealand blog... see next post

Song of the Day: Fairytale

This song has two of the qualities I most appreciate in music; namely, it conveys sincere emotion and it's just a lot of fun. Also, I have a soft spot for music with an Eastern European flare. The guys doing backflips in the background are pretty entertaining, too ;)

Eurovision winner 2009: Alexander Rybak with Fairytale

I may need to pay more attention to Eurovision in the future.

Guerilla gardeners could harvest more than a statement

The goal is commendable. The enthusiasm is inspiring. But could it be that popular worldwide movement “Guerrilla Gardening” has possibly life threatening consequences?

According to Toxic Metals in Soil-Plant Systems, “toxic metals in our environment, especially in soilplant systems, are of concern in recent years in view of their potential for transfer to human beings and consequent effects.” Nicole Willner reports in her article for Planet Green that “typically found heavy metals such as lead and mercury or arsenic and petroleum can be found in soil where old homes, buildings, landfills or heavily trafficked highways once stood or still stand.”

Consider for a moment what it means to work the land, to grow plants, to consume the food produced by these plants. It means coming into physical contact with the soil and its contents. It means taking into the body all the things those plants absorbed from the soil.

By gardening unknown land, these guerrilla gardeners take the risk of exposing themselves, their children, their neighbors, and their pets to toxic, contaminated soil. Consider the locations often chosen for guerrilla gardens: unwanted, otherwise unused, urban land. One has to ask oneself why this land goes unused in the first place. Without known history by virtue of long term ownership or accurate scientific testing, is it worth taking the risk for a statement garden?

An All-Star Pitch

The Midsummer Classic of America's pastime is tonight in the heartland. There are few things more poetic. The much debated "this once counts" approach to the All-Star game aside, it should prove to be a great night for baseball in St. Louis. In an effort to promote community service, President Obama will be tossing the first pitch at the game. He will be the first president to do so since Gerald Ford did it in the 1976 All-Star game. In addition, he'll be in the FOX booth at some point during the game to provide commentary and will appear with all the living presidents in a pre-game video. As I wrote in my undergraduate thesis, there is no other sport that connects so deeply with American heart and history than baseball, and tonight should prove to further strengthen that bond.


President Obama's enthusiasm for sports, just as everything else about him, is well reported. From his bowling score of 37 during last year's campaign, nationally televised March Madness bracket, correct pick of the Lakers, and oft-cited general infatuation with watching and playing basketball, the public has come to understand that the president is a sporty guy. He may have snubbed his hometown Blackhawks during their unlikely playoff surge by confessing his adoration for Alexander Ovechkin, but the guy can't be a big fan of every sport, right? But tonight's appearance, amid the glitz and gaiety of sports, comes at an apex for the President's administration. While still in the positives for approval rating, his numbers are dipping, now at 57% approval, 32% disapproval, according to a CBS poll. The same poll shows a disillusioned American public is losing faith in his economic policy; he now holds only a +4% approval margin on his handling of the economy, an 18% drop from just one month ago. Only 21% belive that the stimulus package has had a positive impact on the country and a slightly smaller percentage believe it has actually made it worse.

In addition, American political ideology is shifting toward the right, according to Gallup. For those who discount the Republican party, for all its problems, a quick resurgence is not out of the ballpark, so to speak. Play ball!

James Hansen should be what Al Gore is

I saw James Hansen's piece today in the huffington post and confirmed again my desire to pass over the cultural battle on climate change to his capable hands. Hansen is a climate scientist, but also an outspoken critic on current climate policies and heads NASA's Goddard research center. He was censored by the white house during the Bush years, and understands the corruption of the political system. Most importantly, he is not a polarizing figure in the way that Al Gore is. Half (or rather a little less than half) of Americans voted against Gore in 2000, and still don't particularly like to hear him talk. Try typing Al Gore Global warming into youtube and check out the results - it seems like a fair number of conservatives actually think that Gore invented global warming for profit and political gain. Who we need in the forefront of this is a quality scientist like Hansen.  

Here is a good clip from his editorial where he rips into the controversial Waxmen/Markley bill then proposes an alternative. Coincidentally, this is the alternative option I support as well:

For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."
• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the "fee-and-dividend" version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

The Fox global warming propaganda

Following climate news is a serious hobby for me. It is also part of my job as a climate change researcher. As a result, I am more irritated than most when I see pundits  saying that believing in climate change is just following Obama and Gore's propaganda. They are relentless in this, even suggesting that those who believe in global warming are akin to holocaust deniers. Who are their credible experts? Unfortunately, they have no qualifications whatsoever with regard to climate science, such as Bernie Goldberg (a political writer) in the link above.

 Imagine a comparable scenario..... 

Lipitor has designed a new cholesterol medication, but before it can be distributed to the general public, scientists are required to test it for safety. After years of testing, 99% of scientists agree that the medication is dangerous and will likely kill a large percentage of users. The medication is deemed unsafe for the public. Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Lipitor spends millions of dollars to convince the public and also congressmen that their drug is perfectly fine, defaming the researchers and questioning the science. Conservatives get behind Lipitor's campaign, claiming that the government wants to control what you consume, that scientists verdict is part of plan to raise money for other comparable drugs. Average Joe political writers are asks for comments and take some strong stands on the issue (without any qualifications of their own). In the end, the drug is released, because the public is convinced, not by the science, but by Lipitor's campaign. 

The fact is, very nearly all climate researchers are reaching the same conclusion, that climate change is real, and is happening fast. The best example of this is the IPCC, or the intergovernmental panel on climate change. From their website:

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

In other words, the IPCC simply summarized the scientific literature on the subject. They are not biased, and report on the work of thousands of scientists. There is no better source for a summary on climate change than the IPCC, because no other group provides such an extensive review of available material. The IPCC reports require years of work from thousands of scientists and take every effort represent the full spectrum of available data. Here is a small excerpt from the most recent 2007 report, to get a taste, though I would recommend reading all of AR4, available free on the website if you want more info:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level"

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005 of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}"

With this understanding, it is hard to contest the key elements of their reports. When conservatives, like in the clip above (also here, and here, and here, and here) attempt to write off the reports, they are not rejecting the rhetoric of Gore and Obama, they are rejecting the work of the researchers whom have dedicated their lives to studying the issue. 

Song of the day

Haven't heard of this guy before, but heard his track 'Animal' on the BBC today. Sounds vaguely animal collective with a catchy beat, not bad. 

We're not in last any more!

Just saw this report from the G8 and the WWF which actually rates Canada below the US for climate policy and emissions trends. That's right, the US has moved out of the cellar! Next we need to work on moving away from the 'poor' section on their chart. 

A story I should have heard about

I decided to do a little research on political parties today, official stances and such. Mostly it was a response to frustration with both parties at the moment (nearly the same sentiment echoed by Bill Maher last week. So I found myself on the homepage for the green party, where they had a story about a ship full of 20 aid workers that are being held at bay by the Israeli military. Among the crew are green party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and nobel laureate Mairead Maguire. According to the article, the boat was out to deliver humanitarian aid to the wartorn Gaza strip when they were detained by the military, despite staying in international waters. How do stories like this go largely unreported? 

The article left me wondering something else though: why is the green party so politically irrelevant that a presidential candidate being detained doesn't make news? Imagine if it was Sarah Palin on that boat! She challenges Obama to a footrace and makes news. Unfortunately, the last thing most Americans heard about the green party was that they cost the democrats the 2004 election. This is really too bad. The democratic party, contrary to what Foxnews or many repubublican reps may say, is not terribly liberal right now, and it is certainly not socialist, at least no more than public education or social security, or medicare is socialist. There is really no option to go left of Obama right now something the green party could actually provide. More on this later...