From rational to irrational: just add heat
What is it about global warming that makes so many normally rational people discard ration and start parroting nonsense?
Jellyfish
At the Vancouver Aquarium
A Pacific sea nettle I think.
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Sad day. After 74 years Eastman Kodak has discontinued production of Kodachrome film. While I only used Kodachrome for a brief while (from the time after I started shooting slides to before I discovered Velvia), it was the professional standard for decades. This is the film that the lion’s share of images before the 90s were shot in. And now it is gone. It is the end of an era.
At least we will always have the Paul Simon song:
(h/t Engadget)
Arctic sea ice melting fast, near June all time low
The arctic sea ice is melting fast, currently the area is near that of June 2007, which was the June with the lowest sea ice area on record.
Given all of this, we should expect the deniers who were previously claiming that the sea ice had recovered (and by extension that global warming was bunk) to issue corrections indicating that, in fact, the arctic sea ice had not recovered. Right? I’m waiting…
As Coby Beck points out it is worth remembering that:
This month’s numbers reveal nothing about climate change, of course. It does however reveal something about climate denial.
Obama and nerd cred
Because $9250 per downloaded song isn’t enough
In 2007 Jamie Thomas was found guilty and fined $222,000 for sharing 22 songs ($9,250 per song) over a P2P network. That verdict was thrown out and a retrial was held. Unfortunately for Jamie Thomas the verdict of the retrial was even worse than the $222,000 fine of the original trial.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has lost her retrial against the RIAA and was ordered to pay $1.92 million for 24 songs she shared via Kazaa. The defense had argued that it might have been her children who shared the files instead of Thomas-Rasset, but the jury didn’t buy this and found her guilty.
This is what I wrote after the original verdict:
This is absurd and shows how vastly outdated copyright law has become. Downloading songs is an activity done by millions of people; should such a common activity be punished by financial ruin?
It still stands.
Of course there are more fundamental problems with the verdict as noted by the EFF:
Ice age called off
Everyone can breath a sigh of relief. The upcoming ice age that was predicted by deniers has been called off. The cause of this ice age was a lack of sunspots and a diminished solar output. But:
Sandhill Crane
I photographed this Sandhill Crane today at the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary
War on photography catch-22
In Britain, cops have the power to search you if you take a picture of a "sensitive" area, but they won’t tell you which areas are "sensitive," because they’re so "sensitive."
The British Journal of Photography is trying to use the UK Freedom of Information Act to find out which places in Britain have such precious photons that people who collect them without authorization can have their civil rights violated, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful.
There’s no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks. Indeed, if disclosing the visible features of notable, iconic buildings puts them in danger, we may as well tear them all down now and get it over with, since the whole point of a notable, iconic building is that everybody knows what they look like.
Iranian juxtaposition
A supporter of Iran’s moderate presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi protests in Tehran, June 13, 2009. Via Time.com
He doesn’t look very moderate to me.
In all seriousness, it appears (to the casual observer at least) that the Iranian elections have been stolen by Ahmadinejad and/or the Supreme leader. These protesters are justified in acting un-moderately
Why international climate negotiations haven’t gone anywhere
India wants per capita emissions because it has a growing population. China wants credit for reducing its population and being the workshop of the world. Australia wants credit for being hot. Russia wants credit for being cold. The US argues it is too rich to cut emissions; the Africans that they are too poor. The list goes on.
Carol James and the BC NDP redeem themselves
The BC NDP were rightfully chastised for irrationally opposing the carbon tax introduced by the BC Liberals, and instead proposing a climate change policy that would be both ineffective at reducing GHG and harmful to the economy. This cost the BC NDP most of the support it traditionally enjoyed form environmentalists, and possibly lost them the election.
Thankfully Carol James and the NDP have realized their error and are now taking steps to redeem themselves:
This explains a lot
Humans prefer cockiness to expertise
The research, by Don Moore of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shows that we prefer advice from a confident source, even to the point that we are willing to forgive a poor track record. Moore argues that in competitive situations, this can drive those offering advice to increasingly exaggerate how sure they are. And it spells bad news for scientists who try to be honest about gaps in their knowledge.
Common sense copyright coming to Europe?
Not yet, but hopefully this is the beginning of a trend:
The final returns are still being counted, but Sweden’s Pirate Party (Piratpartiet) has secured at least one seat in today’s elections for the European Parliament. According to Sweden’s election authority, the Pirate Party has crossed the four percent threshold needed for a seat and currently has 7.1 percent of the vote.
Fooling around with my new Camera
Taken in my backyard
The lack of posts here, has been partially due to me (finally!) dropping film and getting my first DSLR. Expect more pictures posted here, and a new site devoted entirely to my photography (hopefully soonish).
UPDATE: And here is a different version (made with a Velvia preset in Lightroom):
More secret documents left behind
Sensitive government documents left behind at a CTV News bureau reveal Ottawa has poured far more money into the aging Chalk River nuclear reactor than the public has been told.
The binder of documents was left nearly a week ago at CTV’s Ottawa bureau by either Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt or one of her aides. Some of the papers are clearly marked "secret."
A reasonably thorough debunking of the ‘more CO2 is good for plants’ talking points
See here for more.
Quote of the day, with comic!
If your explanation for a scientific consensus is vast conspiracy, rather than the outcome of the scientific method, you’re almost certainly engaged in cognitive dissonance rather than rational thinking. -Vikingcoder
A new conservative coalition?
Let’s face it the current conservative coalition between libertarians and social conservatives never made any sense. One wants the government out of our lives, the other wants the government to enforce morality. The two are diametrically opposed on far to many issues.
Is there a better conservative coalition? Perhaps, and it first reared it’s head in the recent BC election:
I applaud the Governor General for not being a hypocrite
I applaud the Governor General for not being a hypocrite, and I denounce much of Europe for being one. I am of course referring to this:
"Neanderthal" and "blood lust" were some of the phrases animal-rights campaigners used today to describe Jean’s cultural encounter in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, in which the Queen’s representative sliced off and sampled a piece of seal heart from the dripping carcass of a freshly slaughtered seal… PETA today likened Jean’s sampling of seal heart to "taking part in the beating of women in the Middle East because it is part of local practice."
a display that a European Union spokeswoman yesterday called "too bizarre to acknowledge".
Yep, Governor General Michaëlle Jean is being criticized for experiencing a part of Canadian Culture first hand. But most of those criticizing Michaëlle Jean are themselves hypocrites. Unless you are a vegetarian (actually vegan, since egg and dairy production are quite cruel) , then you are hypocritical in criticizing the seal hunt.
Quote of the day
A given economic growth rate can be sustainable only if the average impact per unit wealth declines at an equal or greater rate. -Michael Tobis
On the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill
Given that I have highlighted some of the more amusing arguments against the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill (and no, it wont cost American families $3,100 per year) , it is only fair that I state my position. The short answer is best summed up by Paul Krugman in the New York Times:
The legislation now on the table isn’t the bill we’d ideally want, but it’s the bill we can get — and it’s vastly better than no bill at all.
The Science News Cycle
Or why it is so important to read the original reserch:
(h/t The Intersection)
The cap in cap-and-trade is no cap at all
Something most cap and trade proponents don’t seem to get: The cap isn’t really a cap at all.
While the cap in cap-and-trade is entirely virtual, realized only through pricing or administrative actions like penalties, the concrete image of a placing a physical object like a cap over emissions reassures that there is a limit to emissions somewhere. Yet without both a price for emissions and some pretty daunting penalties, the cap hovers in the air without any foundation at all; it remains simply a well-meaning “climate pledge.”
There is no more certainty in emission levels from a cap and trade system then from a carbon tax, unless one implements draconian penalties for emitting without a permit. Given that no one is willing to do such a thing the cap becomes little more than a well-meaning climate pledge. It certainly isn’t a cap, at least not by any normal definition of the term.
Just when you thought deniers couldn’t get stupider
I was pretty sure we hit rock bottom when Rep. John Boehner (R – OH) claimed that “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”, but apparently I was wrong.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) defended his anti-global warming position on C-SPAN by arguing CO2 should not be regulated because it is not a pollutant. He said that since CO2 is in Coca-Cola it is safe for people and should not be regulated.
I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term. … I am creating it as I talk to you. It’s in your Coca-Cola, you’re Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odourless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.
Well if it in Coca-Cola then it must be good for you. Right?
Monckton’s silly graph: Part 4
Here we go again! Via RealClimate we have another silly graph from Monckton:
This is in response to Andy Revkin’s article in the New York Times on how industry scientists in 1995 concluded that ‘impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied’
As RealClimate point out this is amusing because Monckton apparently thinks that;
- trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
- someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
- no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves
It is the last point that is most amusing since I have chronicled a few of Monckon’s dishonest silly graphs, and more so because he was called out on a similar error just a couple of months ago.
Gavin Schmidt explains why Monckton’s Graph is absolute rubbish:
More science troubles for Harper
Harper’s Conservative government has had a troubled relationship with science. From demoting, then removing the National Science Adviser, to appointing a creationist science minister, Harper’s Conservatives have never held science in high regard. Now comes word that Harper is appointing two anti-science climate deniers to important federal scientific bodies. The scientific community is justifiably appalled.
The BC carbon tax referendum says YES! to the tax
Yes I know that there were other important issues that British Columbian’s had to consider when going to the polls yesterday, but that isn’t how that rest of the world saw it. To anyone outside of BC who had any interest in global warming policy the election was little more than a referendum on the palatability of a Carbon Tax.
Thankfully BC voters didn’t disappoint; they gave Gordon Campbell his third straight majority government. They said YES! to the carbon tax (whether they knew it or not), and no to the backwards cap and trade system proposed by the BC NDP.
DeSmogBlog’s Richard Littlemore sums up what this all means:
Another study debunks the blame the sun myth
A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters reinforces what what countless other studies in the past have found: That changes in the sun are not responsible for the global warming in recent decades.
The importance of biodiversity and our failure to recognize it
Barry Gardiner a UK Labour MP has written a great article on the importance of conserving biodiversity and our failure to recognize it.
Over, the last three months, climate change has had 1,382 mentions in British national newspapers.
Yet, during the same period, biodiversity was mentioned just 115 times.
We have ignored the circus and focused on the side show.
Perhaps the reason why biodiversity has been ignored while climate change has been taken progressively more seriously is that the case for biodiversity has often been couched in emotional terms.
Well-intentioned campaigning organisations have fed us with sentimental descriptions of the polar bear, giant panda and blue whale.
However, these arguments for biodiversity have proven to be much less compelling for business leaders than Nicholas Stern’s report that climate change could cost us between 5% and 20% of global GDP by the end of the century.
Yet, the head of Deutsche Bank’s Global Markets predicts that our current rate of biodiversity loss could see 6% of global GDP wiped out as early as 2050.
Climate change does not just lead to biodiversity loss; causality works the other way around too.
That last point about causality is exactly the same point made by Wilson’s Law: “If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.”
Gardiner continues:
