Uncategorized

Who you gonna believe?

I'm currently writing a review of Michael Crichton's new book State of Fear (should be done and published next week, several months after anybody gives a damn). In it, smarty-pants characters who think global warming is a hoax argue against borderline-retarded characters who believe it's a real phenomenon. The smarty-pants cite many scientific papers in support of their view; the borderline-retarded do not.

Setting aside the dubious literary merits of this arrangement, it raises an interesting question I think people ought to discuss more forthrightly: Why do non-scientists believe what they believe about global warming?

(Warning: extended ramble ahead. Click at your own risk.)

Ford u-turns in EV kerfuffle

Following a seven-day protest at a Sacramento dealership, Ford Motor Co. announced today that it will reverse a decision to repossess and scrap any remaining electric-powered Ranger pickup trucks.

Public outcry on the original decision began with California drivers Bill Korthof and Dave and Heather Raboy who had leased the zero-emissions vehicles from Ford during a new-vehicle pilot program and weren't quite ready to give them up to the junkyard. They joined with other supporters who staged a round-the-clock sit-in at the downtown car lot. And, according to a press release from Jumpstart Ford, the protestors plan to stay put until Ford follows through on the deal.

Peer review

The indispens... uh, hang on, let me check my thesaurus ... the necessitous RealClimate has a stellar essay up on the subject of scientific peer review, a topic that anyone who ever talks about climate change ought to know a little something about. They agree with the general sentiment that non-peer reviewed scientific papers shouldn't be taken seriously, but go on to say that peer review is not a magic bullet. It's an important process, but doesn't ensure scientific validity.

The best part is a discussion of some of the many recent peer-reviewed papers that have been hyped as overturning the scientific consensus on anthropocentric global warming. They show how the peer review process breaks down, and more importantly, how even after the scientific community has refuted some of these papers, they go on being hyped by climate change skeptics. Specific examples abound.  Here's the money passage:

More death

Speaking of the death of environmentalism, there's a good post and discussion of the issue over on greenState, which I shall be adding forthwith to our blogroll.

Perchlorate

We get lots and lots of press releases here. Occasionally I like to pass one along.

Earlier this month, virtually every paper in the nation published a story on a National Academy of Sciences report on the rocket-fuel ingredient perchlorate. The report, they claimed, showed that perchlorate is some 20 times safer than U.S. EPA estimates, which could save businessses millions.

But according to the Environmental Working Group, this isn't actually what the report said. Read on:

The Maoist That Roared

China tries to balance need for energy with environmental caution China’s economy, as we report with obsessive regularity, is growing like gangbusters, and with it grows the country’s need for […]

British science adviser harassed by industry lobbyists

Sir David King, the U.K.'s chief scientific adviser, says American fossil-fuel lobbyists are pestering and hectoring him as he goes around the world talking about the impending dangers of global warming. King ticked off some powerful folks last year when he said climate change poses more of a global threat than terrorism and blasted the U.S. for not taking the lead in addressing the problem. Reports The Independent:

Since then, he has given many lectures to international audiences but found individuals among them who are there solely to create the impression that he is presenting biased information.

"They'll be in the audience to stand up and raise questions to get into the audience's mind that I haven't represented a balanced view," he said.

"You have a group of lobbyists, some of whom are chasing me around the planet, which I'm chuffed about because it means they are worrying about what I'm saying, and these lobbyists stand up after I've given an hour's talk and say, 'There are scientists who disagree with you'," Sir David said.

"I always say, 'Which bit of the science that I've just presented to you are you challenging'? I don't get the answer."

Photos of the once-mighty, now-drained Owens Lake

Owens Lake, on the eastern flanks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in southeastern California, was, at its peak, a 200-square-mile perennial lake. Located at the terminus of the Owens River, […]

Near Death Experience

Living in pollution hotspots ups chance of kiddie cancer, study says Many childhood cancers likely have environmental causes, according to a new study from the U.K.’s Birmingham University. Women who […]

Dimming hopes

Let's get one thing straight: Grist was into global dimming before global dimming was cool.

Now: A BBC documentary is pushing, with great hype (not to say hysterics), the notion that efforts to reduce fossil fuel use will reverse global dimming and thus -- irony! -- accelerate global warming. I have already grumpily blogged this once. Now the folks over at RealClimate, about whose site I use the adjective "indispensable" with numbing regularity, have addressed the subject, saying, in effect, Slow down, cowboy! We don't really know that much about dimming.

Now that some perspective has been added to the hype, I'm certain that wingnuts will stop forwarding around the new dimming stories as proof that driving SUVs is a virtue. Right?

Update [2005-1-21 15:17:39 by Dave Roberts]: More from RealClimate.