Comments Deborah Byrd has made

a finite planet on an energy binge

David, yes, I agree absolutely with you and with Alex and Sarah.  We're a finite planet on an energy binge.  No amount of purchasing "green products" or "carbon offsets" is going to change that.

What's heartening is that - in the scientific community - more and more research is being conducted around the idea of true well being, hard choices and deep change.

The evidence points to the idea that - while there is a certain level of human comfort required to achieve a sense of well being - having more and more doesn't make a person happier and happier.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

so many voices

I don't think the issue is that we've oversold climate science.  I think the issue is that the world has so many voices now ... it's hard to know who to believe.  On the internet, people are tending to form groups around various niches ... like the one here at Grist.  These various groups have widely different points of view, and the "truth" is different for all of them.  

To us here at Grist, we can question whether climate science is being oversold.  Meanwhile - at the same time, but in another part of the virtual space of the web - people are strongly disputing that climate change is caused by humanity, and that it should be allowed to disrupt "business as usual."

I blogged about this yesterday on the Earth & Sky website, referring to an article by Jeff Jacoby at townhall.com titled "Climate of Fear."  My post was called Climate of fear or climate of folly?

But why should some readers believe me in contrast to Jeff Jacoby ... or vice versa?  I think the real question centers on why people carry the belief systems that they do ... it's a question of values.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

Great Transition

Good morning David,

The people who've written the Great Transition Initiative's new paper series are scholars.  

Their goal is to envision possible futures.  If one of those futures involves a utopian society ... well, that's just one possible future.  They envision some scary futures as well ... a whole range of global scenarios.

There are many, many interesting ideas there.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

The long view

Tom and Jason,

My background was astronomy, so I tend to think in big pictures.

I suspect as this century passes, over the coming few decades especially, we might find our choices somewhat limited with respect to issues like organics vs. monocrops, and so on.  Scientists are working now to try to understand what will work - what CAN work - to feed Earth's growing population.  Nine billion on the planet by 2050.  And 40% of Earth's land surface given over to agriculture now.  If the answer is to grow crops organically, then we will have to do that, to preserve the soil.  If it is to continue to grow monocrops with chemical fertilizers, then - to feed the teeming billions - we will have to continue along that road, or else many will not have enough food to eat.

The problem is that the issues are complex, and scientists don't have the answers either.  But a whole community of scientists from around the world is hard at work trying to figure it out.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

organics around the globe

There's a major discussion going on in the community of scientists concerned with global food production about organic farming vs. the type of high-yield, mono-crop, chemically fertilized farming that's used now to feed the world.

Since 40% of Earth's land surface is currently given over to agriculture in some form (including grazing), and since Earth's population is still increasing, it's imperative that we understand the best techniques for growing food.

The current discussion among scientists centers around the fact that modern farming techniques wear out the land fairly quickly.  Organic farming is being discussed simply because it maintains the land for future crops more effectively.

The problem with organic farming however, according to these scientists, is that organic crops don't have the high yields of the chemically enhanced mono-crops that are so common today.  And high food yields are exactly what the world will need in the coming century.

These issues are complex.  No one has the answers.  Many scientists are working toward answers, as best they can, but they don't have the exact solutions at this time either.

If Walmart wants to sell organic foods, I personally believe that's excellent.  No matter how you feel about Walmart, whether YOU shop there or not, you have to respect the fact that so many people DO shop there.  If Walmart can help to educate people about organic food, and if organic food is figuring into the conversation about how the world will feed itself over the coming century ... then, to me, that's a good thing.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

Inhofe is still dangerous

Let's hope James Inhofe goes quietly.  From a scientific perspective, what he is saying is so wrong as to sound almost warped.  And yet he says it with so much conviction.  I'm sure many people believe him.

I've come to feel that the scientists whose ideas run counter to the scientific mainstream on this subject - those few who do not yet believe that global warming is caused by humans - are simply very conservative.  It's not that they believe that it's NOT caused by humans.  It's more that they feel the verdict isn't in yet.  And scientists are by nature conservative.  They don't like to go out on a limb.  It's a testiment to the courage of those who have finally stood up and said "yes, it's happening, and we humans are causing it," that any of them have spoken out at all.  They wouldn't have done it, I'm sure, if the evidence hadn't become so overwhelming.  It's just not in the nature of scientists to make that sort of leap.

But those on the other side - the global warming skeptics - are seeming to me to be becoming weary as well.  I had an email exchange with well-known global warming skeptic John Christy of Alabama a week ago (he's one of those used in the media for years now, to present the "other side" of the human-caused global warming issue).  He mentioned being "hurt" on account of standing up for his belief that the verdict isn't in yet on human-caused warming ... after being shot down in the media for that.  These guys - these global warming skeptics - are only human, too, after all.  They are trying to be true to their science, and they just don't believe the evidence - or their own data runs counter to the evidence - for human-caused warming.  

Inhofe is another story.  He's using his power and position to, as you've said, Kate, "muddy the waters."  He's using our tax dollars to do it!  It's truly shameful.

Deborah Byrd
Earth & Sky
"A Clear Voice for Science"

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."