Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Never let it be said .....

..... that we don't put both sides of the argument.

This from the International Herald Tribune presents counter arguments to the level of zealousy that some believers in anthropogenic climate change have climbed.

It has quite a hefty dig at Sharon Begley, whose article we featured on this very blog recently.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation."

Valid points both, but I would point out in response that empirically measured scientific data, and not just scientific consensus or hypothesis alone, has already largely concluded that man made global warming is almost certainly a reality.

Maybe the argument will never really be over until millions start dying of flooding and starvation. And, of course, by then, perhaps it may well be way too late?
And according to this from the Salt Lake Tribune, because I worry about climate change and the impact that it may have on my children and grandchildren, then I'm a "global warming fundamentalist" who is "pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud"!

This from another using the NASA data correction argument - data which only applies to the central USA (downgrading some years average temperatures by 0.03 degrees C) - he conveniently ignores the fact that the data (and any extrapolation from it) is still perfectly correct for the rest of the planet. (As explained in The Times - 16/8)

I've been called some things in my time, but never a jihadist!

And, just for the sake of argument - here, from, is some scientific data about Lake Tahoe - especially for those who won't believe that there is any actual empirically measured scientific data.

Recycle your sex toys?

This certainly made me smile, an article about a 'rabbit amnesty' (no, not the cuddly white tailed bunny version!) from

Better than going to landfill I suppose!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Just got my latest issue of The Ecologist. And guess what... there it was! And no reason why not. Hey. we noticed, and shared, it as soon as we stopped giggling. But it does show the mentality all who publish have, and what's going to get exposure ('oh, missus) first these days!

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?