Blog benefits: understanding climate feedback

One of the best uses of blogs is for scientists to be able to share ideas, early in the research process, rather than wait and hope that a meeting at a conference may lead to interaction: academics are not usually Facebook kinda social networkers, so blogging has a lot of potential to increase interactivity.

This post is a good example, asking whether the approach to feedback mechanisms in climate research has been correct. The drawback? That climate science has become so ideologically polarized that normal scientific exchange is no longer in play.

A second use of blogs, is related and involves the communication of complex scientific ideas in a more generalized form so that non-specialists can understand and appreciate the implications of scientific enquiries.

This post is good example and relates to the same issue of feedback mechanism in climate change.

Finally, a caveat and an answer.
A lot of web material, blogs especially, have a pre-disposed ideology. Some, like this site, outline that ideology: for some it remains implicit and it is left to the reader to filter the message from the dogma. Sadly, there are also web tools that appear to be value neutral, or may be presumed by some to be free of ideology, when they are not. For example, the highly popular wikipedia offers lots of useful information but as an open source resource, it is reflective of the edits of its contributors.

Well now a program has been developed that will at least reveal who has been editing which wikipedia entries: very useful when the topic being edited is subject to radically different ideological interpretations.

Causes of death

Some new data that might appear to be counter-intuitive for some people, or at least contrary to the dogma they have been taught. Here and here, the latest figures from the World Health Organization on causes of death in the world are discussed in the Economist.

 

What the data show is that chronic diseases (heart disease,cancer) are far more significant than infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria) as a cause of death in both the developed and developing world.  Chronic diseases have long been considered the peril of affluence.  Indeed they fall outside the remit of the UN's Millennium Development goals: Combating chronic disease is not part of what the UN calls its "universal framework for development".

 

What the latest data show is that people everywhere are living long enough to contract chronic diseases.  However, poorer countries are less able to combat chronic illnesses and the mortality rates from chronic diseases are higher in developing countries.

 

The data suggest that the present focus solely on infectious diseases in developing countries is both incorrect and insufficient. 

 

Again, the easy part of the equation is describing the problem.  What the most effective policy response is to the situation is open to wide interpretation.

Global warming? Look at the numbers

Lots of places where you can read about the revised "rankings" for warmest years on record, this is one of the more accessible and easily understood of many.  It is important to note several things:

• there is no temperature trend now that the correct figures are being used
• the corrections only came about because of the activities associated with the Climate Audit blog of Steve McIntyre, who previously exposed the myth of the Hockey Stick temperature graph, and
• few (none?) of the usual global warming zealots have had the good grace to acknowledge that the science "does not track", "have the traction" or otherwise fit any of the contemporary public policy buzzwords implying doom and gloom as contended by advocates over the past decade or so.

These data really do represent an Inconvenient Truth: global warming is a myth. 

 

Climate is changing: always has, always will.  Humans are modifying the climate, but not disastrously so and the changes do not constitute a prevailing environmental crisis. Get over it and focus on issues that do constitute a real problem to human survival, like: development; clean drinking water, and; the eradication of diseases such as malaria and AIDS.

 

The difficultly these problem pose is that they are real, and thus actions to mitigate them are measurable and discernable.  Global warming as a non-real issue is perfect for government bureaucracies, advocates and other associated policy actors, as any actions can claim effectiveness as their actual impact can not actually be measured against a non-existent baseline problem. 

 

Ecomyths are nothing if not self-perpetuating, self-justifying and self-aggrandizing for those advocating them.

China's river of life

A number of things make this post interesting. 

 

First, the title reminds me of all those National Geographic articles that were the only glimpse a generation had of other places, other lands, other cultures.  Today, the internet and social networks like Facebook, provide for this generation a far more accessible and unedited glimpse of other cultures. 

 

Second, the post refers to the extinction of the Yangtze river dolphin.  Now hands up: how many of you even knew that there was a dolphin in the Yangtze River before reading this?  In fact, look at a map of China: how many can find the Yangtze River?  I point this out to bring some perspective to the outrage at another lost species.  More importantly, this is only the fourth species of mammal to become extinct since 1500 -- the biodiversity figures most banded about  are (1) grossly inflated, (2) guestimates, not observed, empirical data, and (3) concern the loss of insects and plants most of us wouldn't be able to recognize anyways.  4 lost species in 500 years: not quite as dramatic is it?

 

Last, the article excellently describes the complexities of resource decision making: how to balance the tradeoffs between natural environment and human occupancy.  The Yangtze dolphin has gone: but the river provides a viable livelihood and prosperity for millions  -- prosperity, not subsidence level poverty.

 

Resource decision always involve trade-offs.  Anyone who presents a simple solution usually doesn't have all the information or has an agenda that precludes them from seeing all the perspectives.  Sustainability is change: change that benefits the most people in the most places, most of the time.  It is not about preserving the past or precluding human prosperity.

Trash incineration

August holiday weekend and the family gathered for a visit at my in-laws. As only my mother-in-law could put it 'only 18 for dinner'. Eighteen of us, gathered to eat, chat and hang out. Now everyone pitches in, brings food, drink, towels and chairs but we forgot garbage bags to take our waste home: my brother and sister in law are restricted to one garbage bag per week: challenging for a family of 4, not feasible when you host a clan of 18 for a few days.

Why? Not because garbage actually is that problematic. Lots of landfilling space in Ontario, we could even join the 21st century and incinerate -- but as this editorial describes, support for incineration continues to soften in the heart of Canada.

Waste is a very popular ecomyth. Waste need not be a problem: it is easily disposed of through a range of context-specific options ranging from sanitary landfills (where land is plentiful), to incineration (where it is not, and/or energy costs are high) all the way through to the extended use of goats (where technology is too expensive an option).

So why all the angst in a province like Ontario about garbage? Well trash means consumption. For ideological environmentalists to simply dispose of trash is to legitimize consumption -- the real sin -- thus garbage, household garbage, is another way to attack the "overly" consumptive lifestyle that is destroying the planet.

Force people to deal with, i.e. restrict, their garbage and you force them to face up to their sins of consumption. Don't apply technology (or even common sense) and supply a solution: enforce demand management, constraint and let everyone see in their own homes how bad they are for the planet.

Such hogwash. Especially when the vast majority of what is sorted and organized into municipal recycling efforts, ultimately ends up in the landfill anyway.

Their will be no enlightened trash management in Ontario until first this ideology of eco-poverty is broken. It is perhaps our most prevalent ecomyth.

JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

Well this should be easy. All you have to do is prove that global warming is real and caused by human activity.

Ah, you do have to use science though: but that shouldn't be a problem given the "consensus" and all that.

Can't wait to see the first entry. Any entry come to that. Problem with global warming is the same for all ecomyths: asserting it's so, doesn't make it so.

A lie is a lie: doesn't matter how often or how loudly it is repeated. Saying it is, doesn't mean it is -- especially in science.

No use getting upset with me: write out your proof, send it in and collect $100,000: much more productive and creative. But again, that's another thing about critics -- they don't actually create anything of value.

Side bet: more people criticise the contest (and/or its sponsors) than actually submit entries.

Ideology and the Lessons still unlearned

People sometimes wonder what is meant by ideology and just how does that affect the use of science in public policy. Surely, if we have the science, ideology has nothing to do with things, right?

Sadly, no. Ecomyths are the result of ideology and the continued imposition of beliefs despite the scientific evidence that contradict those beliefs.

A good example is well explained here. It is the situation in Britain where a program was introduced into schools to promote healthy eating by giving kids a free fruit or vegetable serving each day. The follow up evaluation showed the program had no long term influence on the eating habits of children. Yet, despite the data clearly showing the program to be a massive (and expensive) failure, the academics conducting the evaluation recommended that the program be expanded, rather than cancelled.

Their thinking? Everyone knows fruits and veggies are good for you, kids have to eat right and if this program hasn't worked, then we will just double our efforts until it does. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again. (Especially easy when it's the government's money you are spending and you get to be a recipient).

This is ideology, not science. The science has just shown the program to have had no behavioural effect. Moreover, its starting premise also is flawed, as the most well-conducted studies following hundreds of thousands of people for decades continue to show "no relationship between fruits and vegetables and cancer and no statistically significant associations with major chronic disease or cardiovascular disease."

Does this make fruits and vegetables bad? No, of course not. But is does make them much less of an invisible cloak of protection against cancer and disease than they are often portrayed as being, and certainly not a life essential to be foisted on kids at government expense.

The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing you've been doing all along and expect a different result.

Aerosols: heating or cooling?

The standard line in explanations of global warming to explain the disparity between rising carbon dioxide emissions and an absence of temperature increases in the period from 1940 to 1975 is that heating was precluded by the cooling of the atmosphere by aerosols, which when banned in the 1970's resulted in temperature rises.  Oops! it seems the scientific data totally contradict that explanation: a new study shows that aerosols cause temperatures to rise.

 

Now you would think this would be headline material.  Interestingly, the mainstream media has been rather silent about this latest scientific discovery.  Luckily for us Steven Milloy continues to monitor the world of junkscience, much to the continued dismay of his legion of critics.

 

Yet another inconvenient truth.  Can't wait to hear and read the convoluted explanations for this latest nail in the coffin of global warming.

 

At what point do we cease to explain away the litany of exceptions to the hypothesis and move forward to a more robust, accurate explanation of reality?

 

 

A horrendous development

This post was summarized as a horrendous development. Not sure what else to say. It occurs that you will read this proposal and either agree whole heartedly with the post, or seek to find some rationalization or defense for the proposal: this is either protection of personal freedom or its eradication.

And if you are unsure what Britain would look like under such a scheme, I recommend watching V for Vendetta.

Sadly life has started to mimic art, rather than art merely acting as a parody of life's comical aspects. The scope of governmental intrusion into daily life in Britain really is astounding: at what point do people say enough?

The Contrarian View

Promo for another new blog to me, The Contrarian View. I couldn't decide which of several posts for July I wanted to link to, so I'm posting a link to the whole blog with an encouragement to read the series of posts on climate change, environmentalism and politically incorrect questions about nicotine, history and human nature.

Agree or disagree. Doesn't matter.
The point of the blog is to have you consider for yourself, your truth and where it is leading you in your life and why.
Kinda the whole purpose of this whole blogging thing in the first place.