Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:25 AM GMT on July 27, 2013

Share this Blog
24
+

Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

In the last blog there was a comment by peregrinepickle on the emissions from agriculture. It started:

“It sounds like they may be putting the cart before the workhorse with this study. A 2010 survey of the literature found that too few studies on GHG emissions and the impact of various alternative farming practices have been done in US agricultural regions, including the Great plains Ironically, more research is being done in this vein in China. So it seems premature to appeal to US farmers re: willingness to adopt certain practices before knowing exactly where you are going with it.

Agriculture, compared to other sources, is not a huge contributor to GHGs, relative to the contributions by industry, transportation, and utilities. In the US farming is responsible for 6% of the overall emissions of the six major GHGs. However, farming does contribute about 25% of all CH4 emissions in the US, which is major, as this gas is 21-33 times more potent in warming potential than CO2.”

Back in April and May I wrote two entries on the emissions from agriculture (first entry, second entry). These two entries highlighted both the complexity of calculating the greenhouse emissions related to agriculture as well as suggested some of the controversy associated with the calculation. The controversy is especially high in the calculation associated with livestock.

The amount of direct fossil fuel emissions from use of fuels in machinery and pumps for agriculture is modest, as stated in peregrinepickle’s comment. Those numbers are based on a 2010 inventory by the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is a link to the chapter that details the agricultural inventory. The greenhouse gas emissions compiled in the chapter on agriculture are for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, especially methane and nitrous oxide. For the EPA inventory, the carbon dioxide associated with agriculture is accounted for in the energy inventory. Additional emissions and removal of greenhouse gasses are calculated with land use, land change and forestry. The national forests are part of the Department of Agriculture.

The accounting with soils and forests influences, greatly, the budget of emissions associated with agriculture. Based on soil management agriculture can remove and store substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. In the U.S. agriculture is a mature and extensive enterprise, and we are not aggressively converting forest to agricultural land. In fact, the amount of forest is increasing and, therefore, can be accounted as an agricultural removal of carbon dioxide. This fact of increasing forest land is not the case in much of the world. World-wide, deforestation as forest is converted to agricultural use, especially rangeland, accounts for much of the carbon footprint of agriculture. Phil Robertson in an article to appear in the Encyclopedia of Agriculture estimates the total greenhouse gas footprint of agriculture is between 26 and 36 percent (thank you Professor Robertson). This range seems soundly based in the synthesis of research, and the number I would quote based on the current state of knowledge.

As detailed in Livestock’s Long Shadow and stated in the entirety of peregrinepickle’s comment, the impact of agriculture reaches far beyond the relevance to climate change. Notably there are impacts on water quality and land quality, and, in my opinion, the impact of nitrogen (fertilizer) pollution is one of the most under appreciated sources of environmental degradation. Management of this whole portfolio of environmental impacts is one of the special challenges of the agricultural sector of human activities.

The mix of greenhouse gas emissions, the details of the practice of land use, the role of biological processes, and the potential to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and store them in soil and biomass characterize the climate impact of agriculture. Agriculture is also vulnerable to climate change. Since agriculture is a highly competitive, market-dependent undertaking, market response to weather and climate can amplify weather-related impacts. Agriculture becomes more entangled with the climate problem, when we consider the possibility of biofuels to replace some of our fossil fuels. This complexity complicates the accounting of climate impacts, but also offers some of our best opportunities to improve our management of the environment. Agriculture is no doubt an important player in our management of climate change, and notably absent in President Obama recent speech on climate change.

A primary source of agricultural information is Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. An often cited document is the 2006 documentLivestock’s Long Shadow. There has been much criticism of this report, especially in its calculation of the emissions of the transportation sector. The original authors did modify their specific statements about transportation. As noted in an earlier blog in this series, there is substantial controversy about the impact of agriculture. Therefore, I end here with a set of reference materials that I have used.

EPA National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

PDF of Agriculture Chapter of EPA Inventory of Emissions

Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Chapter 8: Working Group 3: IPCC 2007

Energy Efficiency of Conventional, Organic and Alternative Cropping …

Livestock and Climate Change

and to appear

Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions and their Mitigation, G. Philip Robertson, W.K. Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 863 - 813

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Dr. Antje Lauer: "When global warming continues we will see more cases of Valley fever".

From Mother Jones:

Mystery Lung Fungus: Are You at Risk?

Valley fever is hard to diagnose, even harder to treat, and potentially fatal—and the number of cases is rising dramatically.

By Kiera Butler and Brett Brownell



Karen Deeming was a healthy 48-year-old living in Los Banos, California, and working on her master's degree in anthropology and archaeology. Then, in late 2012, a few weeks after returning from a dig in Mariposa, California, Karen began to feel sick. A chest x-ray turned up bilteral pneumonia and masses in her lungs.

What followed was eight months of debilitating illness. And she's not better yet.

If you suspect that Karen had lung cancer, you're wrong. She had something else—and she isn't alone. Cases of her illness are on the rise: In 1998, there were 2,000. In 2011, there were around 23,000.

To find out what Karen's illness is—and whether you're at risk—watch the video above.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1421
Quoting 857. SouthernIllinois:

I use them with EVERYTHING I link with my data, maps, and forecasts. I hope this isn't true.

It's not. It's another denialist fantasy based on misrepresentation.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 852. MisterPerfect:

That might be the longest content-free post I've seen on this blog. Literally, no content at all. There isn't even anything to rebut. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 845. SouthernIllinois:
Why are we so fixated on the Arctic? That's only a small percentage of the globe. Look at the globe as a WHOLE. The data will tell you it is getting warmer.



We are fixated on the Arctic because the Arctic is best indicator as to what is happening globally with the warming issue... For instance as the globe warms we would expect to see less Arctic Ice extent/mass... No different then pouring warm water or blowing warm air on your cup of ice..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Quoting 852. MisterPerfect:
Global Warming Alarmism Memorably Debunked
August 12, 2013

Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute

Review of Climate Change: Natural or Manmade?, by Joe Fone (Stacey International, 2013), 208 pages, ISBN- 978-1906768959

Author Joe Fone of Christchurch, New Zealand has spent many years researching current and historical data on climate change, with the help of the finest scientists down under. His new book, Climate Change: Natural or Manmade? gives a clear, unbiased view of what is reasonably true and what is clearly incorrect. The book shows his strong intellect and unrestricted effort to find the truth wherever it lay.

Alarmism Devoid of Science
Fone really won me over with Chapter 2, titled %u201CSagan%u2019s Problem Planet,%u201D where he describes Carl Sagan as a science populist rather than the great astronomer of public myth. I have taken Sagan to task on a wide variety of subjects, but Fone usefully concentrates on Sagan%u2019s theories about the atmosphere of Venus, which Sagan used to support his belief in anthropomorphic global warming.

Fone accurately calls global warming today%u2019s cause c%uFFFDl%uFFFDbre, %u201Cpromoted by an army of enthusiasts from scientists and politicians to environmentalists, celebrities and now even theologians, all of whom declare it to be the most pressing issue facing us since the last such scare%u2014the 1970s ice age panic promoted by a similar army.%u201D

Fone aptly describes the global warming movement as a juggernaut of unprecedented proportions, an unstoppable monster threatening to engulf every facet of our lives.

From there, he mounts an impressive 250-year history of the semi-scientific issues that led to the possibility the world might eventually be held hostage by a truly unprovable theory. First among these was the belief in a solar constant, which removed from the equation the reality that solar variance is a major player in the earth%u2019s climate. Fone also provides an excellent analysis of what glaciers have taught us regarding the causes and effects of natural climate fluctuations.

Shortsighted Politics
Fone%u2019s uncovering of the scientific errors that led to and supported the mythical global warming crisis is as detailed as any you will find. The documentation of such scientific errors will be especially interesting to the scientifically trained reader. Fone provides a compelling narrative of how even Margaret Thatcher, the sharp, conservative former British prime minister, bought into the false global warming crisis.

In the early 1980s, Thatcher%u2019s government was beset by union-led coal mine strikes. Thatcher saw an opportunity to undermine the miners and their exceptional demands by joining forces with the global warming alarmists calling for less coal power and more nuclear power. Thatcher%u2019s plan resulted in a short-term political victory over the coal miner%u2019s union, but at the long-term price of rendering Great Britain subject to economically punishing and scientifically unjustified global warming extremism.

Thatcher bought into global warming alarmism for more than 10 years before recognizing that joining forces with socialist environmental activists who sought to dismantle market economies was a big mistake. By then, however, it was far too late to undo the damage she had done.

Shortcomings in IPCC Models
Getting back to the science, Fone adeptly explains the important role clouds play in changing climate conditions. By their very nature, clouds present extremely complex problems to climate modelers. Despite such complex uncertainties, climate modelers with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) always assume clouds will serve as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying any global warming caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Fone demonstrates the faultiness of this assumption, quoting Princeton University physicist Freeman Dyson, who pointed out the failure of IPCC%u2019s climate model assumptions. Fone also quotes dozens of additional climatologists meticulously tearing apart the IPCC models.

Debunking Other Myths
One of his most interesting assessments is his discussion of tipping points. Global warming activists often claim our planet is approaching a tipping point that will cause a rapid acceleration of global warming and global warming impacts. These activists seek to create a sense of fear by selling the idea that we are fast reaching a point of no return where we have sealed our collective doom. Fone presents the overwhelming verdict of science that no such tipping points are likely in the foreseeable future. To the extent future warming may occur, it is likely to continue at its present modest pace. Such modest warming continues to provide net human welfare benefits rather than overall harm.

Fone also does a superb job of debunking the myth that scientists have reached a consensus that humans are creating a global warming crisis. To the extent some scientists claim a consensus exists, they are merely parroting a predetermined agenda. Memorably, Fone quotes MIT atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen saying, %u201CA consensus was reached before the research had even begun.%u201D

The science presented to support global warming alarmism, Fone says, was convincingly debunked well before the formation of the IPCC, even before the Thatcher government poisoned the political well with her brief but damaging alliance with global warming alarmists. Sadly, it was political intervention that encouraged some agenda-driven scientists to manipulate the evidence to support their political masters, who then rewarded them with lucrative research grants. This created the foundations of a corrupt, self-sustaining industry driven by politics and money.

Fone presents a compelling narrative of why the mythical human-caused global warming crisis is a dangerous illusion. I highly recommend this book.

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.


Link


Heartland Institute...lol. Clearly not biased. /sarcasm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
855. yoboi
Quoting 838. Birthmark:

They have not completely changed the historical record. That's BS.



why would NOAA do that??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 851. FLwolverine:
If you go to the Arctic Sea Ice website and use the overlays, you can see (1) how much today's ice extent is below averages for prior decades (hint: a lot) and (2) that Goddard's image does not accurately reproduce the one year comparison you can make on that site (surprise surprise).

Seems to me Goddard's post fits the definition of lying you all were discussing earlier. So does reposting it make CEastwood a liar, or just someone too stupid to know when he's being lied to? Or both?

I think "credulous" would be the better word in this particular instance.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 845. SouthernIllinois:
Why are we so fixated on the Arctic? That's only a small percentage of the globe. Look at the globe as a WHOLE. The data will tell you it is getting warmer.

There are a couple of good reasons to concentrate attention on the Arctic.

1. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than the globe as a whole.

2. There is good reason to believe that lack of Arctic sea ice will have profound effects on weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these effects have already been observed.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Global Warming Alarmism Memorably Debunked
August 12, 2013

Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute

Review of Climate Change: Natural or Manmade?, by Joe Fone (Stacey International, 2013), 208 pages, ISBN- 978-1906768959

Author Joe Fone of Christchurch, New Zealand has spent many years researching current and historical data on climate change, with the help of the finest scientists down under. His new book, Climate Change: Natural or Manmade? gives a clear, unbiased view of what is reasonably true and what is clearly incorrect. The book shows his strong intellect and unrestricted effort to find the truth wherever it lay.

Alarmism Devoid of Science
Fone really won me over with Chapter 2, titled Sagan's Problem Planet, where he describes Carl Sagan as a science populist rather than the great astronomer of public myth. I have taken Sagan to task on a wide variety of subjects, but Fone usefully concentrates on Sagan's theories about the atmosphere of Venus, which Sagan used to support his belief in anthropomorphic global warming.

Fone accurately calls global warming today's cause c%uFFFDl%uFFFDbre, promoted by an army of enthusiasts from scientists and politicians to environmentalists, celebrities and now even theologians, all of whom declare it to be the most pressing issue facing us since the last such scare the 1970s ice age panic promoted by a similar army.

Fone aptly describes the global warming movement as a juggernaut of unprecedented proportions, an unstoppable monster threatening to engulf every facet of our lives.

From there, he mounts an impressive 250-year history of the semi-scientific issues that led to the possibility the world might eventually be held hostage by a truly unprovable theory. First among these was the belief in a solar constant, which removed from the equation the reality that solar variance is a major player in the earth%u2019s climate. Fone also provides an excellent analysis of what glaciers have taught us regarding the causes and effects of natural climate fluctuations.

Shortsighted Politics
Fone's uncovering of the scientific errors that led to and supported the mythical global warming crisis is as detailed as any you will find. The documentation of such scientific errors will be especially interesting to the scientifically trained reader. Fone provides a compelling narrative of how even Margaret Thatcher, the sharp, conservative former British prime minister, bought into the false global warming crisis.

In the early 1980s, Thatcher's government was beset by union-led coal mine strikes. Thatcher saw an opportunity to undermine the miners and their exceptional demands by joining forces with the global warming alarmists calling for less coal power and more nuclear power. Thatcher's plan resulted in a short-term political victory over the coal miners union, but at the long-term price of rendering Great Britain subject to economically punishing and scientifically unjustified global warming extremism.

Thatcher bought into global warming alarmism for more than 10 years before recognizing that joining forces with socialist environmental activists who sought to dismantle market economies was a big mistake. By then, however, it was far too late to undo the damage she had done.

Shortcomings in IPCC Models
Getting back to the science, Fone adeptly explains the important role clouds play in changing climate conditions. By their very nature, clouds present extremely complex problems to climate modelers. Despite such complex uncertainties, climate modelers with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) always assume clouds will serve as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying any global warming caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Fone demonstrates the faultiness of this assumption, quoting Princeton University physicist Freeman Dyson, who pointed out the failure of IPCC's climate model assumptions. Fone also quotes dozens of additional climatologists meticulously tearing apart the IPCC models.

Debunking Other Myths
One of his most interesting assessments is his discussion of tipping points. Global warming activists often claim our planet is approaching a tipping point that will cause a rapid acceleration of global warming and global warming impacts. These activists seek to create a sense of fear by selling the idea that we are fast reaching a point of no return where we have sealed our collective doom. Fone presents the overwhelming verdict of science that no such tipping points are likely in the foreseeable future. To the extent future warming may occur, it is likely to continue at its present modest pace. Such modest warming continues to provide net human welfare benefits rather than overall harm.

Fone also does a superb job of debunking the myth that scientists have reached a consensus that humans are creating a global warming crisis. To the extent some scientists claim a consensus exists, they are merely parroting a predetermined agenda. Memorably, Fone quotes MIT atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen saying, %u201CA consensus was reached before the research had even begun.%u201D

The science presented to support global warming alarmism, Fone says, was convincingly debunked well before the formation of the IPCC, even before the Thatcher government poisoned the political well with her brief but damaging alliance with global warming alarmists. Sadly, it was political intervention that encouraged some agenda-driven scientists to manipulate the evidence to support their political masters, who then rewarded them with lucrative research grants. This created the foundations of a corrupt, self-sustaining industry driven by politics and money.

Fone presents a compelling narrative of why the mythical human-caused global warming crisis is a dangerous illusion. I highly recommend this book.

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 842. Birthmark:

Can you imagine the cacophony of denial that will result if 2013 and 2014 mimic 2008 and 2009? LOL
If you go to the Arctic Sea Ice website and use the overlays, you can see (1) how much today's ice extent is below averages for prior decades (hint: a lot) and (2) that Goddard's image does not accurately reproduce the one year comparison you can make on that site (surprise surprise).

Seems to me Goddard's post fits the definition of lying you all were discussing earlier. So does reposting it make CEastwood a liar, or just someone too stupid to know when he's being lied to? Or both?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2515
Quoting 836. CEastwood:


This is what a recovery looks like:

Link



LOL! I see you like visiting the nice fantasy land of Oz where they think the Arctic Sea ice has had a 50% recovery since last year... Perhaps,the Wizard is causing this recovery but I think your information is coming from those who are still asleep in the poppy fields... Once they wake up from the deep sleep like Dorthy,Scarecrow,Lion and the Tinman did they will come to realization that the recovery is not happening like in their dreams...

They will see this chart that tells them we are in 11th place now and realize the horror of we still have another 30 days of melt left..

What place will be in then? How can this be reversed? What can we do to prevent it? Looks like the Wizard has to come up with one big A/C unit to make more ice for the Arctic....





..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 129 Comments: 20503
Quoting 845. SouthernIllinois:
Why are we so fixated on the Arctic? That's only a small percentage of the globe. Look at the globe as a WHOLE. The data will tell you it is getting warmer.


Well the Arctic is a great natural thermometer, but you are correct, looking at the globe it is quite obvious. And its important that unlike the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that were regional, this is happening planet wide.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
848. yoboi
Quoting 837. CEastwood:
Also, I wasn't banned. I was asked to change my "handle", which I did out of courtesy to another member of the blog, who will remain unnamed. I was formerly known as "NeapolitanFan". As far as lying about information, you AGW proponents should focus your attention elsewhere. Just look at NOAA. They have completely changed the historical temperature record. If that isn't lying, I don't know what you would call it.


can you show me what NOAA did?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
because ice loss in the arctic has a major effect on northern hemispheric weather patterns. you think the jet stream just decided to start getting all loopy on its own accord?

it's very, very important.

Quoting 845. SouthernIllinois:
Why are we so fixated on the Arctic? That's only a small percentage of the globe. Look at the globe as a WHOLE. The data will tell you it is getting warmer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
this is like back in late 2008 when the stock market was melting down. and when the S&P decided to take a one-day break from plummeting people who either couldn't see the overall downward momentum or really needed to believe otherwise would shout 'it's a recovery! there's no crisis here!'.


Quoting 840. Naga5000:


Can you explain how this one year after a record melt is different from 2008, which saw the same "recovery" after a record melt year. Also, please explain how this is evidence to anything regarding climate when climate itself uses a greater than 30 year representative sample. Do you think they are natural regional variations that play a role in year to year differences, or do you expect to see record melt followed by record melt in corresponding years?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 840. Naga5000:


Can you explain how this one year after a record melt is different from 2008, which saw the same "recovery" after a record melt year. Also, please explain how this is evidence to anything regarding climate when climate itself uses a greater than 30 year representative sample. Do you think they are natural regional variations that play a role in year to year differences, or do you expect to see record melt followed by record melt in corresponding years?

Can you imagine the cacophony of denial that will result if 2013 and 2014 mimic 2008 and 2009? LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 836. CEastwood:


This is what a recovery looks like:

Link

Yes, because it doesn't matter whether there is a teaspoon or a tablespoon of peanut butter. It's how much bread it covers that counts, right? LOL

But let's take "triple-point" at his word and assume that extent is up 50%. Now let's look at volume. Eyeballing it, that appears to be about 12%. See if you can figure out what that tells us about thickness.

Enjoy your peanut butter...if you can taste it, that is. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 836. CEastwood:


This is what a recovery looks like:

Link


Can you explain how this one year after a record melt is different from 2008, which saw the same "recovery" after a record melt year. Also, please explain how this is evidence to anything regarding climate when climate itself uses a greater than 30 year representative sample. Do you think they are natural regional variations that play a role in year to year differences, or do you expect to see record melt followed by record melt in corresponding years?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 836. CEastwood:


This is what a recovery looks like:

Link


I have asked you before if you could identify who Steven Goddard actually is. Have you discovered his/her true identity yet?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
Quoting 837. CEastwood:
Also, I wasn't banned. I was asked to change my "handle", which I did out of courtesy to another member of the blog, who will remain unnamed. I was formerly known as "NeapolitanFan". As far as lying about information, you AGW proponents should focus your attention elsewhere. Just look at NOAA. They have completely changed the historical temperature record. If that isn't lying, I don't know what you would call it.

They have not completely changed the historical record. That's BS.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 785. Patrap:
Dana Rohrabacher, GOP House Science Committee Member: 'Global Warming Is A Total Fraud

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."

In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.

"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."

The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens.

"It's step by step by step, more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is that strategy in spades," Rohrabacher said. "Our freedom to make our choices on transportation and everything else? No, that’s gotta be done by a government official who, by the way, probably comes from Nigeria because he’s a UN government official, not a US government official."

Rohrabacher's climate change denialism and misunderstanding of science is well-documented. He's suggested that prehistoric climate change could have been caused by "dinosaur flatulence," and that clear-cutting rainforests would eliminate greenhouse gas production.

Regardless of Rohrabacher's beliefs, California's still-young fire season is expected to be more devastating in 2013 than it has been in years, thanks in part to both climate change and the fact that the state is still awaiting the Santa Ana winds, which typically fuel the blazes. The Associated Press reports:

California fire officials have battled 4,300 wildfires, a stark increase from the yearly average of nearly 3,000 they faced from 2008 to 2012, said Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Until last week, those fires had already burned 111 square miles or more than 71,000 acres, up from 40,000 acres during the same period last year. The annual average for acreage charred in the last five years was 113,000 acres, he said – roughly 177 square miles.

Meanwhile, the congressional body designed to address climate change and its causes has been stacked with Republicans who refuse to consider that a threat exists. Earlier this year, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) was assigned chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, which plays a direct hand in many areas related to climate change. Stewart, like 55 percent of congressional Republicans, including a handful in the House Science Committee, doesn't believe that humans are responsible for rising global temperatures.


When I see headlines like this, I almost don't want to proceed further. To be aware that some of our elected officials that are placed in positions of additional, significant, responsibilities, and continue to repeatedly show dereliction of those duties, is truly infuriating. This has been going on for years now. Whether it's Rohrabacher, Vitter, or any number of others who are on environmental and science committees and subcommittees, they continuously abuse these positions for political gain.

I am not a climatologist, an atmospheric scientist, nor a meteorologist. However, I am a scientist. For years, politicians have been thwarting the general welfare of the US and it's citizens from these positions. Year after year, there are news articles that demonstrate they either 1) do not understand science, or 2) put politics over the science. I actually think it's a combination of both. Statements and opinions that have emanated from those appointed to these committees are an embarrassment. I know how they are perceived by the scientific community at large. I wonder how they are received by the international community?

The climate 'ship' needs to adjust course, this we know. But first we need to right the ship. With politicians denying science, 'news' stations highlighting pseudoscience, websites that look like they contain scientific data promulgating misinformation, and conspiracy theorists seemingly everywhere, how is this going to even be possible?

It should be our elected officials leading in this looming crisis. But as this article shows, some of them have clearly become the problem that needs to be overcome in order to address the issue of AGW. This is not limited solely to AGW, but encompasses other environmental and scientific issues as well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 810. yoboi:


I think eastwood cherry picks data.....but is that the same as lying neap????????


It is when the cherry picked data is intended to hide or dispel the truth to concerns of everyone on this planet.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
lol. only a denier would deny the existence of a set of measurable, quantifiable physical phenomena based on the type of house a particular politician lives in.

hey, i'll bet gore's mansion has 5 bathtubs and a pool! therefore, there is no drought in the western US.

gore also had a steak yesterday, therefore there are no starving kids in africa.

Quoting 831. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


We can pack it up and go home now folks. MisterPerfect has shown us that the AGWT is a failed scientific theory with a single photo shopped image. ... Boy! I'm glad that humans are not so powerful as to be able to change the things around them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
832. yoboi
Quoting 830. Birthmark:
If this is what "recovery" looks like, then "recovery" must be stopped soon!



The full size image may be viewed by clicking here.



How long would it take for volume to increase????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 779. MisterPerfect:
Al Gore chides Reuters for not blaming Alaska fish death on global warming

Posted at 6:14 pm on August 9, 2013

That’s easy. If you ask Gore, everything causes global warming. The proof? Al Gore said so.

The man who wants the world to believe that the oceans will rise due to unnecessary energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels but who lives in a mansion by the ocean and sold out to Big Oil tweeted his displeasure with Reuters today:



Al Gore ✔
@algore

Reuters fails to acknowledge global warming while writing about huge Alaskan heatwave and fish death. More from @NWF: http://ow.ly/nIVGu

4:05 PM - 9 Aug 2013




We can pack it up and go home now folks. MisterPerfect has shown us that the AGWT is a failed scientific theory with a single photo shopped image. ... Boy! I'm glad that humans are not so powerful as to be able to change the things around them.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
If this is what "recovery" looks like, then "recovery" must be stopped soon!



The full size image may be viewed by clicking here.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
you know, people who argue that there's been no warming in 14 years (starting with 1998), ignoring that climatology is at least a 30-year time line, remind me of a kid in july complaining that he hasn't gotten a christmas present in over 6 months.

Quoting 813. Birthmark:

You don't need to go back that far even.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
828. yoboi
Quoting 824. schistkicker:


Since the user in question has used and reused and recycled the same zombie talking points over and over again after they've been called out and debunked time and time again... either said user knows they're putting forth invalid arguments as valid (and thus lying) or not reading what anyone posts in response (and thus not actually participating here and merely trolling).


I don't know eastwood that well....he/she has only 69 comments and joined not to long ago.....but it's been said that this blogger was banned and is using a new name so I am sure you and others know this person better than me.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 810. yoboi:


I think eastwood cherry picks data.....but is that the same as lying neap????????
In this case, yes. As others have stated, it's a lie of omission. Not that he's alone in doing so, mind you; Watts, Goddard, Monckton, Bastardi, and their "see-no-science" kinfolk do the very same thing. And they've made good livings at it.

Of course, perhaps they're all just employing the Jon Kyl (R-Hypocrite) practice of defining something as a lie only when caught--and even then using the defense, "it wasn't intended to be a factual statement" (of which Stephen Colbert said, "You can't call him out for being wrong when he never intended to be right.")
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 774. SouthernIllinois:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. He or she is a relatively new poster. He or she joined a day after I did. We should grant him or her some respect. We should treat him or her like anyone else. He or she does post very relevant climate links and brings great discussion to this blog!

We're all in this together trying to figure out the climate to try to make this a better world. CEastwood is a good person. We cannot gang up on on another and cast one another out just because we do not agree with him/her. That would not be right. We need to all keep an open mind, respect each other and respect CEastwood.


I cannot say this with absolute certainty, but CEastwood has likely been posting to this blog for longer than I have been. I highly suspect that CEastwood has used past handles, such as CAT5Hurricane and NeapolitanFan. CAT5Hurricane has posted on this blog that he has 100 WU accounts and that only about 35 had been perma banned, at that time.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
Quoting 806. yoboi:




If you cherry pick the start year you can account for 17 yrs of no warming.....but if you go back 30 yrs there is a warming trend....


17 years ago would be starting in 1996, if you wish to end with the last full year of data i.e. 2012. from 1996 to now there's clearly a rise in temperature over that timeline.

i mean, i understand that denialists want to deliberately pick the anomalous 1998 as their start year to try to demonstrate 'no warming' (which is funny as even then there's warming).

but every time they do they still get the time span wrong. it's hilarious.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 819. yoboi:


I agree that it would be considered a form of lying but what if the person links cherry picked information without knowing the information is cherry picked???? Should we still consider them lying?????


Since the user in question has used and reused and recycled the same zombie talking points over and over again after they've been called out and debunked time and time again... either said user knows they're putting forth invalid arguments as valid (and thus lying) or not reading what anyone posts in response (and thus not actually participating here and merely trolling).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 819. yoboi:


I agree that it would be considered a form of lying but what if the person links cherry picked information without knowing the information is cherry picked???? Should we still consider them lying?????

Until they are informed that it is cherry-picked (and why), they are blameless. Further posting of the cherry-picked data by that person becomes a lie.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
822. yoboi
Quoting 818. Naga5000:


Willfully misrepresenting data to show an untruth is at the very worst an unethical offense you can be terminated for in the world of science and academia, at the very least is simple lying. After all misrepresent and lie are synonyms. So I would argue yes, but we are entering a really gray area of willful misrepresentation and accidental, uninformed, or parroting misrepresentation.



I think that would be fair questions to ask eastwood....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 819. yoboi:


I agree that it would be considered a form of lying but what if the person links cherry picked information without knowing the information is cherry picked???? Should we still consider them lying?????


No, I wouldn't. Not if they are unaware. I would consider them as being lied to. And this, truly, is a problem. So many people are being directed to these websites that are loaded with faulty information. And how are they to know? A 'talking head' on TV mentions a site, and people go there. Seems legit. Yet it isn't.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 765. yoboi:




Have you ever reached out to eastwood in a positive way??????



Quoting 766. SouthernIllinois:


You know, that is a great question. Because I was wondering the same thing.


You are more than welcome to try to open a line of conversation with CEastwood, but I can tell, with almost certainty, that person will not engage in scientific discussions with you. This person is a drive by, hit and run type that does not even appear to have any idea as to what they are posting. Some of the links he has posted actually countered his own talking points. ... As I said, if you wish to engage CEastwood in conversation on science, be my guest. Please, do not blame us if CEastwood only causes severe migraines by the end of the conversations. Even if you have never had as much as a slight headache before.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4815
819. yoboi
Quoting 816. LAbonbon:


I think it's a fair question. I would consider it more along the lines of 'lying by omission'.

Sort of like the kid who gets a report card with a mix of grades, and tells his parents about the B's he got in history, English and science, but omits he got a D in Spanish and an F in English. He didn't outright lie to his parents, he just highlighted the facts that looked good.

JMO


I agree that it would be considered a form of lying but what if the person links cherry picked information without knowing the information is cherry picked???? Should we still consider them lying?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 815. yoboi:



Maybe you or someone can answer this since neap seems to be on the sidelines with this issue.....Is cherry picking the same as lying?????


Willfully misrepresenting data to show an untruth is at the very worst an unethical offense you can be terminated for in the world of science and academia, at the very least is simple lying. After all misrepresent and lie are synonyms. So I would argue yes, but we are entering a really gray area of willful misrepresentation and accidental, uninformed, or parroting misrepresentation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 815. yoboi:



Maybe you or someone can answer this since neap seems to be on the sidelines with this issue.....Is cherry picking the same as lying?????

Of course. It is deception by misrepresenting the body and using a subset of the evidence in an effort to arrive at a desired conclusion. In the most benign cases, it is lying to oneself. In the vast majority of cases, though, the target is the uninformed reader.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 815. yoboi:



Maybe you or someone can answer this since neap seems to be on the sidelines with this issue.....Is cherry picking the same as lying?????


I think it's a fair question. I would consider it more along the lines of 'lying by omission'.

Sort of like the kid who gets a report card with a mix of grades, and tells his parents about the B's he got in history, English and science, but omits he got a D in Spanish and an F in math. He didn't outright lie to his parents, he just highlighted the facts that looked good.

JMO

Edited
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
815. yoboi
Quoting 813. Birthmark:

You don't need to go back that far even.






Maybe you or someone can answer this since neap seems to be on the sidelines with this issue.....Is cherry picking the same as lying?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 2958
Quoting 812. yoboi:



I said the account for it......

There's no evidence of an "it" to account for.

But it's moot anyway since even if there is an "it" to account for, the "it" has no effect on the data.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 806. yoboi:




If you cherry pick the start year you can account for 17 yrs of no warming.....but if you go back 30 yrs there is a warming trend....

You don't need to go back that far even.



Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 863 - 813

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Overcast
40 °F
Overcast

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.