Comments xchopp has made

  • Barbara Boxer?

    How on Earth did you miss Barbara Boxer? Or were Californians barred from the contest on the grounds of unfair advantage (wait, isn't Van Jones based in SF?). One of the sweetest moments was Barbs telling Inhofe "you don't do this anymore".On Vote for the top eco-hero of 2008 posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

  • Single reason to be concerned about CO2...

    Ocean acidification. Go google this (scholar channel, if you're serious) yourself. Darn it, I've gone and done it for you. Or ask a marine biologist (uh, you can find their addresses/phone #s on the internets, check out Scripps, Woods Hole, university labs, Sylvia Earle.... know know, the people with "PhD" after their names?). Also here and a bazillion other places. (whoaaa, the scientists all agree? It's a conspiracy I tell you. Not)

    OK?

    Oh and changing the Earth's energy budget: CO2 is a RADIATIVELY ACTIVE gas. Sure there are other forcings but that's the biggie according to the folks who devoted decades to looking at the atmospheric physics rather than relying on their gut feeling, "common sense", Bill O'Reilly, or "ooh, it's cold in Minneapolis today". There are uncertainties, largely around the roles of aerosols and clouds -- but just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know nothing.

    If you are really serious in your desire to learn more:
    (a) take out subscriptions to Science and/or Nature and/or Global Change Biology; and
    (b) get yourself to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union so you can listen to/grill the scientists in person. You'll have a choice of -- oh I don't know -- over 15,000 scientists if the Fall meeting was anything to go by. Be prepared to be totally blown away by the size and scope of the meeting (search the Fall meeting abstract database).

    When you've done even some of these activities, please come back here and relate the story of how you discovered that digging up and burning billions of tonnes of ancient carbon is a problem after all.  

    A third reason to be concerned: there seem to be so many people who appear absolutely convinced, in spite of all available evidence, that CO2 is not a problem -- in a context where a lot of $$ are at stake. Smell fishy to you? It sure does to me.

    P.S. If you are really, really, really serious in your desire to learn more: go back to school and get that PhD for yourself.On Vote for the top eco-hero of 2008 posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

  • Silly statements on scientific organizations

    The article is about whether policy statements published by scientific societies and organizations can be deemed to represent the views of the core of the membership.  The article argues that -- by and large -- they do because otherwise the membership would decline dramatically. In other words, scientists drop their subscriptions if they are not happy with the stated position. The logical conclusion of your view -- in fact, all you seem to be saying -- is that most of the AGU members are mistaken in their view that global warming is a serious and unusual problem (or -- by implication -- that they are too distracted and/or lazy to quit). More likely you didn't want to miss an opportunity to amplify the uncertainties. And I am sorry but "These organisations are not offering any insight into the matters at hand, and merely muddy the water."?  What planet are you on? You don't appear to know that of the 50,000 AGU members, most are actively researching and publishing on that research (have you ever looked at the books of abstracts?). So unless there is a mass departure from the AGU in the coming months, I don't think you'll be able to argue that its statement on Human Impact on Climate is offensive to the majority of members.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • Netherlands

    The point about the Netherlands: a large part of that country was indeed reclaimed from the sea. So why are they now building floating homes? Did they lose their engineering skills or become impoverished? No: it is because they know that SLR (and the ramping up of the hydrologic cycle leading to increased flooding) will be an enormous problem for them. So after centuries of winning the battle with the North Sea, they have finally capitulated. Video at http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=6519 ...

    "Dutch policymakers are figuring on a rise in sea level of around 30 inches in the coming century regardless of the ongoing scientific debate on the causes and likely impact of global warming." -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20689966/

    ...from the people who brought you Edam cheese, windmills, and
    -- more recently -- the Carver: http://www.flytheroad.com/
    On Lomborg misrepresents possible sea-level rise posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses