Comments for Timberati

Comment on Forests and Climate Change, Not Clearcut by Clearcutting, Climate Change, and the Center for Biological Diversity « Timberati

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:34:23 +0000

[...] Perception trumps truth and the California Air Resources Board has caved to political pressure from CBD and its ilk, reversing its earlier decisions on carbon protocols. We should not be skipping and [...]

Comment on The Wisdom of Zero-Cut by Green Giant Politics « Timberati

Green Giant Politics « Timberati — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:49:58 +0000

[...] The Wisdom of Zero-Cut TimberatiA heretical environmentalist questioning green dogmaCommentsBy EmailRSS Posts [...]

Comment on Environmental Story Trends to Watch: Climate Change by Timberati

Timberati — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:37:58 +0000

K, This might interest you. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

Comment on Environmental Story Trends to Watch: Climate Change by Katharine

Katharine — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:05:13 +0000

Hi Norm
the reason I have some faith in the models used to predict warming trends is that I’ve seen them accurately model the past. So I trust that the parameters, relationships, feedback, etc could give realistic outputs. Geoengineering would play with elements of that and couldn’t be proven until it was done. So it seems far riskier. Which doesn’t mean it won’t or shouldn’t be tried of course. But I’m convinced we should address our unsustainable lifestyles too. The summary of Brand misses that point: even if we can’t find meaningful alternatives to fossil fuels, we can reduce our use of them.

Anyway, just as an aside, have you seen this website? As someone clued up about climate matters the debates about recent research might interest you.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Comment on Cyanide: Technology’s Other Carbon Footprint by Yolando Czachor

Yolando Czachor — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:14:16 +0000

Definitely agree with what you stated. Your explanation was certainly the easiest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irked when folks discuss issues that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail right on the head and explained out everything without complication. Maybe, people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Comment on Cyanide: Technology’s Other Carbon Footprint by Diana Flory

Diana Flory — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:26:55 +0000

Nice post and i should totally comply with you on this post right here. Its hillarious, thats what i should say concerning this. Because this is what the whole internet is all about right? Keep on doing a great job!

Comment on Environmental Story Trends to Watch: Climate Change by Timberati

Timberati — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:18:30 +0000

Katharine, to expand on the geo-engineering, a number of respected greens such as Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog think that it will come to that. I found a review of Brand's new book Whole Earth Discipline where "[Brand argues] that we may well end up doing geo-engineering, whose potential power he admires. I think he’s saying that we won’t do meaningful alternatives to fossil fuels so we’re going to need to fix the system with cloud-making (or whatever)."

Comment on Cyanide: Technology’s Other Carbon Footprint by White Flood

White Flood — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:40:13 +0000

Hey – nice blog and impressive article… Thanks!

Comment on Environmental Story Trends to Watch: Climate Change by Timberati

Timberati — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:14:15 +0000

Hi Katharine, thanks for commenting. I love the Bohr quote too. Some say he said he was quoting or paraphrasing Mark Twain. I agree that the planet is warming and we should be prudent in our use of resources. These are laudatory goals. I disagree with the dire Armageddonesque assertions. Has science sufficiently established the sensitivity of our planet’s climate system to justify a Draconian response, given other pressing problems, particularly poverty? I don’t think so. We can help the people affected by a warmer climate by dealing with their problems directly and not indirectly by lowering the CO2 output as the only method. My point was to show that we're not going to be able to make eviscerating cuts to our CO2 (and the GhG equivalents). If one puts enormous faith in the present climate models and their predictions, then one ought to be just as comfortable with putting their faith in the techno-solutions. I prefer the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s approach to “promote the use of sound economic science to make sure that with limited resources, we achieve the most good for people and the planet.”

Comment on Environmental Story Trends to Watch: Climate Change by Katharine

Katharine — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:55:34 +0000

I love the quote from Bohr, not so sure about Plimer though. As with investing in stocks and shares, climate science is an area where past performance is no guarantee of anything. This is the first time that human activity has had such a huge impact on the climate, and even if we stopped emitting GHGs now, the climate would take 50 years to recover from the damage. We have no way of saying for certain that the climate, or humans, can handle that, let alone continuing emissions.

As you know, I’m a flood forecaster, which means I only have to do predictions on short timescales – hours or days ahead. I know a little about weather and climate though and regardless of what any international panels or more learned scientists than me may think, I’d prefer to take a low risk approach to this investment. Which means me cutting my emissions and using my vote to make my opinions heard. Relying on techno-fixes and being able to spend our way out of trouble sounds too risky to me. Just the opinion of one individual.