Solving Global Warming: 2007

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Global Warming and the Shame of Misleading Think Tanks

OK, more than two months have gone by since I began my "crusade" to uncover organizations that want to muddy the waters about Global Warming or, for the politically correct or politically cowardly, "Climate Change," I'd like to point to a resource that lists objective, democratic-sounding (small D) organizations that are trying to calm the storm of how to address Global Warming, and how to address it now. Clearly debate on issues of public importance is to be encouraged, but when is it necessary to debate whether or not the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

There is clearly nothing "wrong" with the concept of "think tanks" in which experts form an organization to investigate political, technological, or other controversial topics of the day. The problem comes when the think tanks are deliberately deceptive in their motives, their actions, and even their names. The BP logo noted below is really an "in your face" depiction of a very environmentally friendly image fronting for a company involved in an industry that is the source of the problem.

When Michael Moore produces a film, only those completely unfamiliar with his work would be surprised at his liberal, pro-labor perspectives. (I personally wasn't quite sure what to make of the connections Moore implied between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family and other friends from Saudi Arabia in Fahrenheit 9/11, but knowing Moore's perspective, I wasn't blind-sided by this portion of his expose and I did not accept them at face value.)

There is a directory of think tanks from a Japanese organization called NIRI, the National Institute for Research which, according to Wikipedia, is "Its objective is to conduct independent research to contribute to the resolution of contemporary complex social issues in many areas, including politics, economics, international affairs, society, new technologies, and administration." It also maintains a list of think tanks around the world including those in the United States from 2005 (suggesting that some think tanks specific to Global Warming or Climate Change may have formed after this directory was published):

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) / Washington, DC, United States
American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) / Washington, DC, United States
American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) / Washington, DC, United States
Asia Society / New York, NY, United States
The Aspen Institute / Washington, DC, United States
Association on Third World Affairs, Inc. (ATWA) / Washington, DC, United States
Atlantic Council of the United States (ACUS) / Washington, DC, United States
Atlas Economic Research Foundation / Fairfax, VA, United States
Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE) / Berkeley, CA, United States
The Brookings Institution / Washington, DC, United States
California Budget Project (CBP) / Sacramento, CA, United States
Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (CCEIA) / New York, NY, United States
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace / Washington, DC, United States
The Carter Center / Atlanta, GA, United States
Cascade Policy Institute / Portland, OR, United States
Cato Institute / Washington, DC, United States
Center for Defense Information (CDI) / Washington, DC, United States
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) / Washington, DC, United States
Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) / Washington, DC, United States
Center for National Policy (CNP) / Washington, DC, United States
Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues-Institute for Public Policy Studies, University of Denver (CPPCI) / Denver, CO, United States
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) / Washington, DC, United States
Center of International Studies, Princeton University (CIS) / Princeton, NJ, United States
The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) / Chicago, IL, United States
Committee for Economic Development (CED) / New York, NY, United States
The Commonwealth Institute / Cambridge, MA, United States
The Consensus Council, Inc. / Bismarck, ND, United States
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) / New York, NY, United States
DEMOKRITOS SOCIETY OF AMERICA (DSA) / Alamo, CA, United States
Discovery Institute / Seattle, WA, United States
Earth Policy Institute / Washington, DC, United States
East-West Center (EWC) / Honolulu, HI, United States
EastWest Institute (EWI) / New York, NY, United States
Economic Growth Center (EGC) / New Haven, CT, United States
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) / Washington, DC, United States
Economic Strategy Institute (ESI) / Washington, DC, United States
The Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University / Washington, DC, United States
Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) / Washington, DC, United States
Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) / Washington, DC, United States
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) / Philadelphia, PA, United States
The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies / Notre Dame, IN, United States
Henry L. Stimson Center / Washington, DC, United States
The Heritage Foundation / Washington, DC, United States
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace / Stanford, CA, United States
Hudson Institute / Washington, DC, United States
The Independent Institute / Oakland, CA, United States
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) / Washington, DC, United States
Institute for the Future (IFTF) / Palo Alto, CA, United States
Institute for International Economics (IIE) / Washington, DC, United States
Institute for Research on Poverty (IPR) / Madison WI, United States
Inter-American Dialogue (IAD) / Washington, DC, United States
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) / Washington, DC, United States
International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development (ICEED) / Boulder, CO, United States
Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies / Notre Dome, IN, United States
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) / Washington, DC, United States
The Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs (MCPA) / Washington, DC, United States
The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation (MMMF) / Washington, DC, United States
Milken Institute / Santa Monica, CA, United States
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) / Cambridge, MA, United States
National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) / Dallas, TX, United States
National Health Policy Forum (NHPF) / Washington, DC, United States
Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development / Berkeley, CA, United States
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government / Albany, NY, United States
New America Foundation / Washington, DC, United States
The Nixon Center / Washington, DC, United States
Northeast-Midwest Institute / Washington, DC, United States
OMB Watch / Washington, DC, United States
Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies / Washington, DC, United States
Population Council / New York, NY, United States
Project for the New American Century (PNAC) / Washington, DC, United States
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) / San Francisco, CA, United States
The RAND Corporation (RAND) / Santa Monica, CA, United States
Regional Research Institute (RRI) / Morgantown, WV, United States
Resources for the Future (RFF) / Washington, DC, United States
The Rockford Institute / Rockford, IL, United States
Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) / New York, NY, United States
Social Science Research Council (SSRC) / New York, NY, United States
The Southern Center for International Studies (SCIS) / Atlanta, GA, United States
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) / San Diego, CA, United States
Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), U.S. Army War College / Carlisle, PA, United States
United States Institute of Peace (USIP) / Washington, DC, United States
The Urban Institute / Washington, DC, United States
US-Japan-China Comparative Policy Research Institute (CPRI) / San Jose, CA, United States
Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies (VIPPS) / Nashville, TN, United States
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy / Washington, DC, United States
Weatherhead East Asian Institute (WEAI) / New York, NY, United States
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy (Weidenbaum Center) / St. Louis, MO, United States
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS) / Washington, DC, United States
World Peace Foundation / Cambridge, MA, United States
World Policy Institute (WPI) / New York, NY, United States
World Resources Institute (WRI) / Washington, DC, United States
Worldwatch Institute / Washington, DC, United States

Accessed 30 December 2007, http://www.nira.go.jp/ice/nwdtt/2005/IDX2/index8.html#UnitedStates, © 2005, National Institute for Research's World Directory of Think Tanks, Japan, ISBN: 4-7955-6024-2 C3002.

When is green really green? Debunking the tricky "think tanks"

As 2007 winds down as the hottest year on record, it's time to rekindle why the conclusion that global warming is occurring and human activity clearly is playing a part in that well-documented phenomenon versus the unexpected (?) maelstrom of discontent that has been ignited ever since Democrat (gasp!) Al Gore was awarded both an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Dispassionate observers have concluded that Gore's breakdown of recent changes in weather patterns or, more cautiously, "climate change" (which somehow makes weather disasters associated with Global Warming more acceptable because they are not "our" (humans) fault) is a slam dunk, a no brainer, yesterday's news. But the scientific investigation into what we are seeing before our various eyes courtesy of television and widespread video documentation of current weather events, has been turned on its head as, fairly portrayed, reactionaries have been successfully turning scientific "fact" into a debate paralleling that of evolution "versus" intelligent design.

Why is this happening? Who stands "win" or somehow believe the status quo is a far better path to take than investing in new technologies that can begin to remove carbon from the air? Why did this "mom and apple pie" story of one year ago suddenly become a, well, a controversy?

Without a dissertation on what British Petroleum is or isn't doing in this arena, their logo is instructive. Rather than showing an oil rig, for example, instead the BP logo invokes images of a sun flower. This is a bit ironic considering that their business involves, in large part, polluting the air by providing the carbon-based fossil fuels that run our millions of motor vehicles, and more. Is this a reincarnation of George Orwell's 1984? Of course, inorganic farming might benefit from pesticides and herbicides derived by petroleum products refined by BP, but is growing sunflowers really that large a portion of BP's business?

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Georgia Asks for National Disaster Declaration Due to Drought

In my own neck of the woods, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue, has just asked President Bush to declare the area north of Georgia including Lake Lanier, a key source of water for the Atlanta metro area, a federal disaster area.

We went from relatively normal soil moisture last winter to a 100-year-drought in a matter of months thanks both to the lack of rain and to the evaporating effects of 10 or so days of sunshine and temperatures over 100. In fact, what's lost in that statement is the weeks of upper 90s F we also experienced this summer. No one seemed to notice how quickly lake levels were dropping, and many probably thought it was a temporary thing. Needless to say, we were hoping for a tropical storm or two to find their way to North Georgia to help alleviate the situation as it has in the recent past. Such was not the case this hurricane season, which technically isn't over.

Global Warming Backlash: Here Are Our Experts

Well, I decided to make this a secondary post to the earlier one. One are there so many names on Wikipedia of Global Warming skeptics? I can see two obvious reasons: 1) to the novice, the sheer number of names at first glance is impressive; 2) this is an easy way for Fox News and the Drudge Report, among many other right-leaning "news" organizations to easily find a skeptic to debunk the latest scientific research on Global Warming; mainstream journalists in the U.S. are trained to offer both sides of an issue on the assumption that citizens are wise enough to see the truth (I ought to know, I'm in a journalism college and have been affiliated one way or another with journalism, since I was 18 years old). So, the mainstream media can go to Wikipedia for sources if they so choose, and if any of those listed are articulate and know how to give a complete yet terse 30-second "sound byte" are far more likely to get on the air than those who don't.

The Lengths Global Warming Skeptics Go to Villify Al Gore

In fairness to Wikipedia (no pun intended), it also has a comprehensive area about Global Warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy. Of course, mainstream scientists might argue that there is no controversy, the issue has been settled. Yet those with a political agenda to "Do Not Disturb" the fossil fuel industry work every day to frame Global Warming as a controversy. The extreme weather all over the globe this year (and it's continuing with severe weather in mid-October in the Midwestern United States where October is usually one of the most beautiful times of the year). Ironically, those who don't want to get into the controversy of Global Warming may very unscientifically look at the weather this year and agree Global Warming is upon us and it's time to do something about it.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Global Warming Skeptics: They Are Taking Names!

Because I am interested in addressing Global Warming, it's good to know who refuses to believe it or actively try to muddy the waters. It's no secret that members of the fossil fuel family, rather than invest in profitable new technologies to reduce emissions and even clear the air, get "hired guns" as is done in higher profile legal proceedings to uses their expertise to cast doubt on, in this case, Global Warming.

Wow! What a surprise. When I did a Google search for

global warming skeptics

I found that Wikipedia is taking names! The address is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics.

Needless to say, out of curiosity I will check on global warming enthusiasts, advocates, experts, I'm not quite sure what the best word to use would be. What is the antonym of skeptic? Well, it is interesting to note that it was not easy to find an antonym for skeptic, but the on I did find seems OK: "believer." We have beliefs, attitudes and behaviors, and belief does seem reasonable. Beliefs are we perceive to be true.

However, when I went to Wikipedia, I found believer is the subject of songs, films, literature. I expected to see things related to religion. Nevertheless, I will attempt to find a list of global warming believers. I could use some help on this one. I suppose the last U.N. summit on the subject would be a good place to look.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

"The Heartland Institute" Cover for "What Global Warming?"

I've taken time today to look for resources about Global Warming. I personally accept the term "Climate Change" to be a political run around the term "Global Warming." Climate change sounds more like an act of God, while environmental scientists agree that the earth is warming and human activity is one of the elements feeding Global Warming. But there are those out there who cannot accept this whether it be to protect the oil and auto industries or because they have framed this as a "Global Warming = Liberal Agenda" political ploy that does not fit their politically conservative view of the world.

The mom and apple pie sounding "The Heartland Institute" has a video on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8 that pans Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Here is a still image from that video (my comments are in white letters, italicized):

It's hard for me to make out what the people (person?) behind "The Heartland Institute" are trying to prove, that Al Gore has a slide showing steam instead of smoke? Hired guns in the video say that the earth heats first, and then that raises CO2 levels. Hmmm..... Maybe those jokers who said we never landed on the moon were right after all.

Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Thanks to checking out the Society of Environmental Journalists' link of the week, I became aware of the new Yale Forum on Climate Change and The Media:

The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media is an online publication and forum to foster dialogue on climate change among scientists, journalists, policymakers, and the public. The Yale Forum is an initiative of the Yale Project on Climate Change, directed by Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Edited by veteran environmental journalist and journalism educator Bud Ward, The Yale Forum seeks to provide print, broadcasting, and online reporters and editors timely and credible information on one of the most important and complicated issues of our time. The Yale Forum will include useful media resources on climate change causes, consequences, and solutions. It will also analyze and discuss the process by which climate change is communicated through traditional and new media.

I suppose this will be seen as a "liberal" site, but I suspect that any news that would seem contrary to the notion of Climate Change will appear here.

Society of Environmental Journalists

This journalism organization is worthy of note. Indeed, they are doing professionally what I'm doing as an evangelist for bringing information about how to resolve global warm (and that still seems to need to get people off the fence and into the field of play). "SEJ members envision an informed society through excellence in environmental journalism.

Mission

"The mission of the Society of Environmental Journalists is to advance public understanding of environmental issues by improving the quality, accuracy, and visibility of environmental reporting."

At this point, I don't know if Matt Drudge could become a member or not.

Know the Enemies of Responding to Global Warming

Happily, I came across a great site that's almost sure to find and publish anyone and everyone who, even if taken out of context, appears to question Global Warming and, more specifically, its cause being human activity. This great reactionary site is http://www.businessandmedia.org/. They trumpet themselves by citing this quotation:

“Finally there is an organized effort to put an end to the embarrassing media bias against the free market – and we can thank the folks at BMI for it. From oil price reality checks to the underreported success of the most recent tax cuts, Business & Media Institute gets it done.”

– Vicki McKenna, host, “Upfront w/Vicki McKenna”
News/Talk 1310 WIBA, Madison, Wis.

WIBA-AM radio in Madison Wisconsin? Vicki McKenna is an unabashedly conservative radio talk show host, hardly a bastion of objectivity. So an obscure conservative radio talk show host is proud of businessandmedia.org. That's the best they can do? What's wrong with this picture. Would you go see a new movie based on a review from WIBA-AM in Madison? No offense to the station (I'm an old radio guy), but this is pretty sad. Nevertheless, this is a great site to monitor to see what the "potential" (I'm being generous in using that word) disinformation promoters are saying to encourage us to laugh off Global Warming, shrug our shoulders, and just accept "Climate Change" as a normal procession of "another day at the office" on Planet Earth.

This site, thankfully, points out another site, Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), "an indispensable on-line source for news as it should be reported – accurate, balanced, and unfiltered." And to show just how interested businessandmedia.org really is in objective news, get this:

TimesWatch, another Web venture of the MRC [right-wing Media Research Council...but you wouldn't know it by its name, eh?], follows The New York Times and exposes inaccuracies and glaring bias in news coverage.

That's a pretty fair objective. I wish the Media Research Council would hold the Washington Times' feet to the same fire. Nevertheless, this is good news. We can see how conservatives (not all conservatives, I'm quite sure) strive to tell us to "don't worry, be happy" when it comes to Global Warming.
So, I'll have to find a way to watch these sites and marvel at their "fair and balanced" view of the world, from the point of view of a right-wing group.

By the way, there's going to be no convincing some people, ever, that either "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" exist and that warming is accelerating faster than even the most dire predictions for it. The belief now is that our political leanings (e.g., reacting cautiously or openly to a political issue) have a genetic basis, according to a May 2005 article in The American Political Science Review and many other sources.

Climate Change Houdinis

May 17, 2006: Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore. This posting on http://thinkprogress.org sums up so well how the fossil fuel industry muddies the waters around the proposition that both global warming is happening and it is caused by human activity, that I am reposting it here as a backup:

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Who is CEI? The Washington Post explains:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a “major donor” largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Exxon documents reveal the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for “global climate change and global climate change outreach.” Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998.

CEI’s general counsel Sam Kazman said, “I think what attracted [Exxon] to us was our position on global warming.” CEI’s position? The Institute believes the dangers of global warming are akin “to that of ‘an alien invasion.’”

Exxon’s spokesperson Tom Cirigliano has explained why the company is so dedicated to funding CEI’s pushback on global warming:

We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate. … There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.

The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.”

For the oil industry, Al Gore’s film exposing the truth is perceived as a threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to distort it.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/, accessed 13 October 2007, © thinkprogress.org Please credit http://mynews.in/ for the image above, acccessed 28 June 2008.

Planet in Peril: Environmental Coverage - Special Reports from CNN.com

FYI, CNN will be presenting documentaries in October 2007 related to the topic of, among others, Global Warming. Fox News has emerged as an unabashedly right-wing commentary rather than a news network. This has encouraged many conservative voices who see the "News" in "Fox News" as proof that it is a "fair and balanced" network to "prove" that CNN is liberally biased. While not a new claim, when compared to Fox News, any other mainstream television news show or network is going to look quite liberal, indeed. Viewers of the BBC know that it has reported on Global Warming for years now, and it clearly does not see any debate left in the issue. Al Gore wisely has positioned "Climate Change" as a moral and ethical issue, not a political one.

I am in the process of trying to find sources that question what conservatives call "Climate Change" (and yes, many liberals have sneaked away from "Global Warming" because "Climate Change" doesn't blame human activity for the unprecedented changes in our environment). Interestingly, all of the projected changes of wild swings in the weather including exceptionally cold periods, are happening. The shocking truth is that even with an updated version of "An Inconvenient Truth", the apparent increases in temperature and even something as "in your face" as record-setting wild fire activity around the world are coming to pass faster than expected, and the pace of that change is accelerating. Incredibly, these changes (including 2007 becoming the hottest year on record) are emerging faster than the most dire predictions that have been made as recently as this year, 2007.

American media have been very slow to accept the Global Warming or even Climate Change premise is a valid one. Video of wild fires and temperatures in the U.S. over 100 degrees in most of the eastern U.S. for about 10 days this past summer have allowed mainstream U.S. media to begin to look at what's going on. Nevertheless, there is a pushback from conservative groups that may or may not constitute themselves under names that may be "objective" as well as others who choose "environmentally friendly" sounding names.

The BP (British Petroleum) logo has "1984" written all over it as the company created a logo that looks about as earth-friendly as any logo you might find. They also have an advertising campaign extolling the virtues of BP in doing something about the impact of the use of its products on the environment. My guess (Klopfenstein © 2007...yes, you are allowed to chuckle) is that BP sees this is more of a marketing ploy to attract customers than great devotion to creating alternative sources of energy (which, as Al Gore kept emphasizing in the 2000 presidential race, could make the energy companies even more money as they invent new ebergy technologies). I hope someone from BP challenges me on this, but that would bring attention to this blog...not a good idea if you are BP.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Global Warming from ScienceDaily

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/ is a web site with nearly daily news about Global Warming. If anyone reading this knows of a site that lists the Global Warming antagonists, I'd like to list them here. Often (always?) they choose names that would allow the reader to "ass"ume that they are just the opposite: sites like this one that assume the global warming debate is over and the only questions are, where do we go from here? I know, for example, that there is a site that I thought might have been backed by BP Oil, not sure, but it talks about the good things Global Warming will and/or is doing for Canada. Surely a warmer Canada must be a good thing as vegetation and animal species continue their march northward. Right? Well, it doesn't take a Ph.D. in ecology to know that the earth is made up of ecosystems, and by definition any warming of Canada will mean a change to its ecosystems. (Moving to Georgia from Ohio has shown me an example of this unrelated to Global Warming: Kudzu (see below).) Speaking of ScienceDaily:

Researchers have long debated the consequences of introducing non-native species into ecosystems. Recently, these debates have centered upon the effects of invasive exotics, and dramatic pictures of grasslands filled with leafy spurge, water pipes clogged by zebra mussels, and forest trees killed by kudzu vines have fostered the public's understanding of the issue. But now, two Canadian scientists are suggesting that even the introduction of some less aggressive species may have far-reaching negative repercussions. Source: ScienceDaily accessed 12 September 2007, originally published 29 October 1999 by the Ecological Society Of America.

Interestingly, it turns out Kudzu (a vine that was introduced in Georgia to help control soil erosion) is falling victim to a new disease that also affects farmers' crops in the southeast United States: Asian Soybean Rust Disease. Note, there is nothing here intended to link this disease to Global Warming, but to publicize the parallel changes in ecosystems as the climate changes.

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Ice Disappearing: Northwest Passage Nearly Open

Source: earthobservatory.nasa.gov:

For over 500 years, Arctic explorers have sought a passage between the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, often called the Northwest Passage, would connect Europe to Asia. Even in modern times, navigating from the Atlantic to the Pacific through Canada’s Arctic islands has been difficult. The summer of 2007, however, melted enough sea ice in Canada’s far north to open up this long-sought passage.

This image shows the islands north of mainland Canada adjacent to Greenland, as observed by the the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite on August 29, 2007. While the usual veil of clouds over the Arctic is visible through the scene, the sea ice pack that normally covers the water between the islands is absent. Areas often choked with ice at this time of year, but free of it in this MODIS scene, include the Parry and McClintock Channels and the McClure Strait. Larsen Sound and Victoria Strait are hidden beneath cloud cover, but they are also largely free of sea ice. This provided a nearly ice-free connection between Baffin Bay (a long body of water between Canada’s Baffin Island and Greenland that is regularly ice-free in summer) and the Arctic Ocean. An ice-free gap between the North American mainland and the Arctic sea, not shown here, extends all the way to the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia, creating a connection almost free of all sea ice from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific.

Environmentally-Friendly GreenPan Cookware Sells Out in Four Hours

You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite the the PRNewswire, © 2007. I have expressed no opinions in this post--Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. It's interesting that this article suggests consumers may be "easily" persuaded to buy "green" products.
I certainly can NOT vouch for this product in any way, shape or form, but here is their news release that sounds good anyway:

Environmentally-Friendly GreenPan Cookware Sells Out in Four Hours During the World Launch Exclusively on HSN
Issue: 08/27/07 | From: Backchannelmedia
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GreenPan(TM) cookware with breakthrough Thermolon(TM) non-stick coating made history on HSN and http://www.HSN.com when it debuted Thursday, July 26th and sold 24,000 pieces in just under 4 hours.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070214/CLW048LOGO-b )

HSN's "Mother of Invention" Joy Mangano and celebrity chef Todd English unveiled GreenPan(TM), the first environmentally-friendly, PTFE-free non-stick cookware, selling out 4 products during the live TV shopping debut. Sold out items included:

-- 6-piece GreenPan(TM) cookware set consisting of an 8 inch Fry Pan, 11

inch round Grill Pan, 11 inch Fry Pan, and 11 inch Steamer Insert

-- 8 inch Fry Pan

-- 12 inch Fry Pan

-- 3-piece Wok Set

"With GreenPan(TM), we are changing the future of cookware. This launch was the culmination of a remarkable year spent developing this incredible technology and applying it to everyday products," said legendary HSN on-air personality Joy Mangano. "Consumer response was heartwarming and encouraging. People are trying to do their part for the environment and thinking towards the future!"

GreenPan(TM) cookware with Thermolon(TM) non-stick coating was developed in partnership between HSN and manufacturing company, GreenPan(TM) LTD. Thermolon(TM) is the first patented, ceramic-based nano non-stick coating that performs at high temperatures without deterioration. It is PTFE-free, and uses no PFOA in manufacturing, making GreenPan(TM) cookware "green" in manufacturing.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Lowest Streamflow in 110 Years Recorded in North Carolina

You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite the the Environment News Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, © 2007. I have expressed no opinions in this post--Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos? Please let email me!

Lowest Streamflow in 110 Years Recorded in North Carolina

RALEIGH, North Carolina, August 31, 2007 (ENS) - The lowest average August streamflow in 110 years of North Carolina recordkeeping was measured last month on the Tar River at Tarboro, in the east-central part of the state.

Streamflow figures released by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, on Friday show that the hot, dry days of August brought record lows to many of the state's rivers and streams amidst worsening drought conditions. People across most of eastern North Carolina are being asked to conserve as much water as they can.

Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-31-091.asp

The USGS and its federal, state, and local cooperators maintain 270 streamgaging stations and 39 monitoring wells throughout North Carolina.

These measurements show that the lowest average August streamflow on record occurred at 12 other monitoring stations in the state, but not compared to a 110 year period as on the Tar River.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Q&A With Al Gore

Here's a very recent interview with Al Gore appearing in Rolling Stone magazine. It still seems fashionable to make light of, if not outright bash Gore. It really does seem like the right person, for the right job, at the right time. I'm not sure how anyone can comment on "An Inconvenient Truth" without seeing it, but they do. I caught even left-leaning comedian Bill Maher literally saying "Al Gore's just to easy to be made fun of." OK, so he said he invented the Internet. Get over it. By now, Gore has the resilience of a prize fighter, I'm sure. At any case, anyone under 60 or with children will experience the effects of Global Warming (someone tell me about the genesis of "Climate Change." I realize it somehow took the wind out of the sails of the anti-Global Warming myth making machine: insert politically conservative organization here).

I want to post a link here to the Rolling Stone recent Rolling Stone article which includes an interview with Vice President Gore.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051572/al_gores_fight_against_the_climate_crisis. Interesting, Al Gore argues that this is not a political issue.)

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The "Global Warming Is a Myth" Crowd

While researching funding sources for my desire to produce an interactive television program about Global Warming, I found this from an independent/liberal web site, http://www.democracynow.org:

A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.

You can go to the site, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256&mode=thread&tid=25, to listen to an archived newscast that includes this discussion.

As is not atypical in U.S. politics, groups choose names that confuse the audience. For example, who do you think is behind http://www.globalwarming.org/? Well, it's certainly not people who are trying to educate the population about Global Warming and what to do about it. Instead, it cleverly has links to resources that challenge the position that we are experiencing Global Warming and that human activity is a major cause of the phenomenon. For an example, see http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/global-warming.html Here is a gem from globalwarming.com:

Consumer Alert
November 11, 2000

The Global Warming Debate [Debate?]

In 1992 the United States and nations from around the world met at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio and agreed to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Rio Treaty was not legally binding and, because reducing emissions would likely cause great economic damage [emphasis added], many nations will not meet the goal.

What a great exercise for rhetoricians. The assumption that "reducing emissions would likely cause great economic damage" should be held up to scrutiny. The mainstream media have been very slow to take-up the Global Warming issue, but if you check English language news sites around the world, Global Warming is not portrayed as a "debate" but rather a problem that we need to address.

The goal of the reactionaries to the science of Global Warming have cleverly cast it as a "debate." This debate would be about the same as the "debate" as to whether the sun rises in the east or rises in the west. Wired magazine ran a story last year about how some scientists are being paid off by "grants" from utilities to offset the "alarmist" Global Warming scientists http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/07/71486

This is discouraging because this site politicizes Global Warming. Is Global Warming really a political issue? The answer would seem to be "yes" to those who assume all the scientists in the world are part of a liberal underground that somehow wants to bring down the U.S. economy in particular by, presumably, taking all the cars and trucks off the highways for starters. What a shame that these otherwise bright people aren't putting their energies into developing profitable technologies that put less greenhouse gases into the air and maybe even remove it. If you are scratching your head about why there are so many skeptics about Global Warming, The Wichita Eagle asks the same question.

My question to the oil and coal industries is why are you so worried that addressing Global Warming is a threat to you? No one is predicting a reduction in the demand for energy globally, quite the contrary. Where is the corporate conscience on this issue? Any energy company that develops new technologies that reduce carbon emissions will be cheered by everyone, especially investors. Oh, well, all the CEOs once told a Congressional hearing that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer.

Image above courtesy of http://www.vincedorse.com/gallery/GlobalWarmingMyth.html.

Al Gore, Stand-up Comedian

There is a web site called http://www.ted.com that calls itself "TED: Ideas worth spreading."

TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader.

The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes). It presently includes a presentation by Al Gore that was created after An Inconvenient Truth. The first half is Al Gore, the stand-up comedian. I was always perplexed at the critics that called his personality to be "wooden." I personally was pleasantly surprised at how animated he was in the 2000 campaign, especially the "debates" (I agree that they are really joint press conferences). You can see an update to his famous PowerPoint presentation at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/1.

The site says

About this Talk

With the same humor and humanity he exuded in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore spells out 15 ways we can address climate change, from buying a hybrid car to inventing a hotter brand name for global warming. First, though, comes a hilarious set of stories from The New Gore, who turns out to be a stand-up comedian. The former Vice President has plenty of joke material, and he's funnier than you've ever seen him. Then he gets down to grittier matters with a list of actions ordinary people can take to stem the tide of global warming. His message: Doing something is easier than you think.

Sounds like a winner to me.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions

From the highly respected Pew Research Center for the People and the Press comes a research article from January 2007 showing that a large majority of Americans (77% and more) report they believe the earth is warming, but under half believe it is due to human activity. The information about this article comes from The Pew Research Center.

Ironically, the article begins by noting the unusual weather that had preceded its publication in the winter of 2006-2007 and before the incredible summer weather we are experiencing from serious flooding in the midwest to unprecedented heat in a very larger portion of the central and southern U.S. Amazingly, "global warming" ranked dead last in a list of 23 items about which the respondents were polled. Only the Chinese in an earlier study expressed less concern than U.S. citizens. That's alarming when you consider that the U.S. and China are at the very top of the list of polluters contributing to global warming.

In addition, the Pew Research Center found that conservatives are far less concerned about global warming than liberals. Although it comes as no surprise, when I consider it I would like to better understand why conservatives are far more sanguine about global warming than liberals. Some probable answers are the misperceptions that addressing global warming means more government spending and, therefore, an issue conservatives would rather ignore or, perhaps worse, discredit. As I recall Al Gore explaining when he ran for president in 2000, the irony here is that there is money to be made in the private sector by companies that work on technologies to "fight" global warming such as any technologies that reduce the introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and technologies (including plants) that will help suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. I invite the experts to comment here on technologies to lower carbon emissions, and the one elephant in the living room are the oceans that cover 2/3 of the earth. Perhaps they hold the key, but I won't pretend to be an expert on oceans and CO2. I plan to become one, however.

All images are courtesy of Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and were accessed from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/282/global-warming-a-divide-on-causes-and-solutions. on 27 August 2007.

Gore-backed group will spend big to convince Americans climate change is real

Greetings and salutations from Atlanta where we seem to have put an end to the 2 weeks or more of 100 degree plus temperatures. We're now in the mid-90s, nearly 15 degrees above normal. Certainly any give day's weather is not necessarily an indication of climate change (or calling a spade a spade, Global Warming), but I'll bet there are plenty of farmers in the U.S. who have to wonder if 2008 will be the next year to break the string of hottest years on record that we have seen in the last decade.

In an article published over a year ago, Amanda Griscom Little wrote from

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/19/gore/index.html:

Think you've been hearing a lot about global warming lately? If a new climate-focused group hatched by Al Gore has its way, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

After nine months of behind-the-scenes planning and wrangling, the Alliance for Climate Protection is now nearly ready for prime time. Gore spoke about the alliance in an exclusive interview with Muckraker. He said the group aims to raise big bucks for a single goal: "To move the United States past a tipping point on climate change, beyond which the majority of the people will demand of the political leaders in both parties that they compete to offer genuinely meaningful solutions to the crisis."

It is my personal desire to "get certified" as an expert on "climate change" but the last I checked, the Gore folks had been overwhelmed with recruits and they weren't taking any more. I will see if I can climb about the train anyway (and remember, it's always better to climb on board the train than to get run over by it).

Sunday, August 26, 2007

So what if the earth warns a degree or two, right?

Source: http://www.ethicurean.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/global_warming_predictions_map_2.jpg

Source: http://www.ethicurean.com

Whenever an expert on Global Warming comes on television, for example, and tells the interviewer that "we can expect global temperates to increase 1 degree Fahrenheit every x number of years if we continue on our current path," the average Jo will say, "What? A degree? Who cares! That means it will be 74 instead of 73. Big deal!" I confess when I was perhaps a teenager and some foresighted scientists such as the ones measuring increasing carbon levels from high atop a mountain in Hawaii, far away from local polluters may have made this warning, I probably thought the same thing. Those of us who lived in the north probably thought "Good! Less snow!" (I happen to like snow, so I would not have been as enthusiastic.)

I've discovered a way to explain this to even the most doubting of Thomases:

Your job is to increase annual world temperatures by 1 degree Celsius in three years. How are you going to do it?

Give me feedback on this, let me know if this explanation works, because what it shows the army of Doubting Thomases is that to increase global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius (or Fahernheit, but Celsius is a little more dramatic) would require an outrageous amount of energy. Next, add up just how much energy would be required to raise global temperatures 1 degree C. If you even try to get your mind around this, I think you can understand that this is a tremendous amont of energy in our atmosphere and it clearly will lead to dramatic changes in the weather. Hurricanes may get most of the attention, and they should because they are nature's way of venting heat energy from the ocean back into the atmosphere.

The Weather Naysayers Meet the Doomsayer

I found it almost comical that a group including local television weathercasters came out a few years ago with a strong statement that global warming didn't exist, we were just experiencing normal fluctuations in the weather. Uh....yeah. It seemed to me these folks were saying "We're the experts around here. And since so many non-experts are talking about Global Warming, we're going to chip in and say "It doesn't exist!" Yes, you've seen the certificate of approval that Jo Weathercaster is "endorsed" by the American Meteorological Society.

(cue the music)

Well, they have changed their tune. In their 2007 report, Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html accessed 26 August 2007), here is one example of the 180 degree change: "Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years, with the six warmest years since 1860 occurring in the last decade." (Anecdotally or if you have been watching the weather including the dramatically large number of wild fires around the earth, 2007 will be the hottest year on record.) In addition, this paragraph comes in the very beginning of the report:

"Why is climate changing?"
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

I've mentioned earlier my personal criticism of The Weather Channel as a huge player in the Global Warming discourse that has also been extremely cautious about "climate change." Now they are running "Storm Stories" that include mini-documentaries about climate change. This is good news.

I'll bet Bob Reiss got a lot of negative feedback when he had the courage (?!) to publish his book "way back" in 2001, The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future (Hyperion. 2001. 323 pages.) This is amazing coming about 7 years ago:

Journalist Reiss takes us to the front lines of some of the decade's most destructive storms and describes global warming through the eyes of those most involved—researchers, meteorologists, and the families that have been affected. A frightening, enlightening, and fascinating portrait of climate changes and its impacts. Check price/buy book.

Source: World Future Society Book Store, http://www.wfs.org/bkblurbs.htm#malthus, accessed 26 August 2007.

I posted this because I was on the WFS web site, but it's probably a better idea to post books that try to discount or refute global warming, because those authors and their followers are unlikely to pursue lifestyle changes that all of us need to proactively begin to change.

Arctic Warming: Scenarios for 2040

In the current issue of The Futurist (September/October 2007), there is a cover story called Thinking About the Arctic's Future: scenario for 2040:

The warming in the Arctic could mean more circumpolar transportation but also an increased likelihood of overexploited natural resources. An Arctic researcher explores the challenges and opportunities of this key region.

The article is available for purchase at http://www.wfs.org/Sept-Oct07%20files/FuturecontSO07.htm but this publication should be available even in local public libraries. It's worth noting that The World Future Society has no stake in forecasting global warming one way or another, but it's very responsive to what's happening. Of all the people on earth, futurists are surely among those most concerned with global warming because they understand its possible implications for the future. In fact, a search of "global warming" in the search box provided at http://www.wfs.org/ produces a plethora of articles from The Futurist. If you're serious about doing something about Global Warming, The World Future Society is an appropriate group to join (understand that Global Warming is not its focus, but it's so important that it is a very hot topic (no pun intended) for this group).

Among the many resources at is a bookshelf with titles such as The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook by Godo Stoyke. New Society Publishers. 2006. 170 pages. The following breif overview of the book is incliuded:

Paperback. Stoyke, president of Carbon Busters Inc., systematically analyzes energy costs and evaluates which measures yield the highest returns for the environment and the pocketbook. The book provides answers to questions such as: Which measure is more effective, putting solar panels on your roof or buying a hybrid car? Where do I need to invest first: in high-efficiency shower heads or solar tubes? Is a $500 fridge that uses 800 kWh of power per year a good buy? The goal of the handbook is to enable readers to dramatically reduce their carbon emissions. Check price/buy book.

Friday, August 24, 2007

More-Fertile Forests Can Fight Greenhouse Effect

Increasing the growth of trees in forests through intensive
fertilization may increase the amount of carbon that the forest
absorbs, thus helping to slow global warming.

Experiments in a spruce forest by the Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences show that the forest could triple its growth if
the trees have access to all plant nutrients, particularly nitrogen.
This extra growth offers not only an improved carbon sink, but also an alternative source of fuel to replace fossil fuels, which would also
help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the researchers note.

SOURCE: Swedish Research Council, http://www.vr.se/english/

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Welcome to Solving Global Warming

Greetings and welcome to my blog on solving global warming. I am a professor of telecommunications at the University of Georgia, although this blog has no connection to my employer. Along with Dr. Henah Hannah, we are looking for success stories in attacking the global warming issue. This blog picks up where Vice President Gore's award-winning "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary on "climate change" ends. "Climate change" is a term that has been adopted by some (emphasis on "some") members the conservative community who can not handle the concept of "global warming" which somehow seems to do a better job placing "blame" on human activity, whereas "climate change" sounds more like an act of God. Personally, I prefer global warming because of the mountains of evidence including what we are seeing in the United States this summer with floods in some areas of the country and drought with record-breaking heat in other areas.

I would like to add a personal thanks to the Weather Channel who took far too long to address "climate change." You were far too timid, my friends, but you are making up for it now with occasional mini-documentaries on "climate change" (hey, the Weather Channel has to pay attention to the satellite, cable and advertising industries that are its bread and butter).

I would like to extend a welcoming hand to the coal and oil industries that have the financial resources to commit to research to reverse the trend of evermore carbon in the atmosphere. If anyone sees this blog and can point us to enlightened energy industry executives, we want to call attention to them, highlight their contributions, and, we hope, inspire others to consider alternatives to where their profits are now going.

In addition, welcome to the automobile industry that burns the oil that contrbutes to global warming. We would like to publicize efforts not just by the major car companies but by student engineering competitions in which students are asked to present alternative forms of transportation that do not use as much or perhaps any fossil fuels to operate.

Click to enlarge.

Source: http://www.soumu.go.jp

Welcome to the The Telework Association, The Telework Coalition, Telework Trendlines, the Canadian Telework Association, The Telework Association, The Telework Coalition, and all other organizations that promote teleworking. I happen to live near Atlanta which has so much automobile air pollution that it has affected weather patterns around the city. Teleworking is one very important way in which we could cut emissions dramatically if only companies would have the will to look at the research supporting the notion that those who work at home are even more productive than those who face rush hour traffic twice a day.

Want proof? Really? OK, this took .5 second to find:

A new productivity survey by consultancy Hudson finds that while only 23 percent of U.S. employees work from home or are given that option, the majority of the workforce (59 percent) believes that telecommuting at least part time is the ideal work situation.

There remains quite a bit of resistance to telecommuting on employers’ parts, though, some of which outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas CEO John Challenger traces to "a century of workplace habits that involve going into the office and having a supervisor who sits over our shoulder and makes sure we work." Managers seem to think there is loss of control if workers put in time without going to and from the company workplace. Calling that kind of monitoring outdated, Challenger recently explained to The Christian Science Monitor that companies now measure performance much more objectively, with performance-based pay and "metrics-based" measurements of performance. Source: http://news.thomasnet.com/

Source: http://www.bts.gov

For example (this just popped up and is not an example of a serious effort to find studies on teleworking or teleworking productivity):

Telework Trendlines
A report by WorldatWork based on data collected by The Dieringer Research Group

Key findings: Employers Are Expanding Teleworking Opportunities

Number of "At Least Once Per Year" Teleworkers Remains Steady
Frequency of Teleworking is Growing
Broadband Use Rises Sharply for Home-Based Teleworkers
Teleworkers Are Far More Prevalent Users of Wireless
Workers Increasingly Working from Anywhere [Starbucks?]

The telework data in this report were commissioned by special arrangement of WorldatWork through the "2006 American Interactive Consumer Survey" conducted by The Dieringer Research Group, Inc. WorldatWork wrote this survey report and is responsible for its content. Data for all U.S. adults in the survey (n=1,001) is considered reliable at the 95% confidence interval to within +/- 3.1 %. Any data or tables taken from this summary for other purposes should be referenced as "WorldatWork 2006 Telework Trendlines™ commissioned from The Dieringer Research Group." Source: Telework Trendlines for 2006

Congratulations to the U.S. government agencies of The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the General Services Administration (GSA) who have established a joint web site on Telework to provide access to guidance issued by both agencies. Here you will find information for employees who think they might like to telework (or are already doing so), for managers and supervisors who supervise teleworkers, and for agency telework coordinators.