My brother is awesome

Exhibit A:


Hypermiling cartoon from john green on Vimeo.

Carbon footprint

Ecological footprint or carbon footprint? Granted, these measures are likely about as accurate as a calorie counter on a treadmill*, but here's a good introduction to the varieties of online carbon-footprint calculators. Even if they're only a rough estimate, they're a good test of what we can cut back on.

*if it's warm enough to run or bike outside, avoid the treadmill. Cut down on energy use.

Help bring farms to Cincinnati

Read the post at Cincinnati Locavore, then sign the petition (Cincinnati residents only).

Snow day

According to Drudge, it snows, thus global warming is fake. Also:

• There was no talking in Buster Keaton's movies. Therefore, he was a mute.
• My house caught on fire today. Therefore, my house will catch on fire tomorrow.
• A group of Muslims attacked the United States. Therefore, all Muslims are dangerous.
• I can't see evolution happen. Therefore, evolution is not real.
  
• Socrates was mortal. All monkeys are mortal. Therefore, Socrates was a monkey.
• One time, a gay man was promiscuous. Therefore, all gay men are promiscuous.
• Nelly Furtado sang a song called "Promiscuous." Therefore, she is gay.
  

Proud to be vegetarian. . .

. . .after seeing this:



(h/t videogum)

I'd love to have an entertaining report, but. . .

So I was all jazzed to give an entertaining update about the great global-warming debate on the cleanmpg forum, but sadly, the moderators took down the best post ever. In short, my interlocutor compared environmentalists to both Nazis and Stalinists. You can get the flavor in some of the posts here and on the next page, where some of us quoted him. Also, here's his bastardization of Martin Niemöller:

"They asked for the gas guzzling SUV's, but I didn't speak up because I didn't drive a gas guzzling SUV.
They asked for the plastic bags, but I didn't speak up because I didn't use plastic bags.
Then they asked for me, and nobody spoke up because there was nobody else left."

I have to admit, I'm more than a little disappointed that they took down his post. Not only was it bizarrely entertaining, he has every right to say what he believes. Comment moderation is important in forums, but he didn't insult anyone there, as far as I can tell. (Other than the Nazi/Communist comparison, which was so far-fetched I didn't take it seriously as an insult.)

My favorite part: he claimed "The 'green left' is the old 'red left' revised." Not only is that a howler, it turns out it's from George Will. I think someone's bowtie is too tight.

Update: Via Coby Beck's site in a roundabout way, here's a great challenge to global warming deniers.

Global warming: dumb arguments

I try not to get into pointless arguments online, but this one started in the forums at cleanmpg.com, a website I like. Strangely enough, a contingent of that site's members think the theory of man-made climate change is a hoax. So when one of the site's moderators linked to an article about a survey of scientists who agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and a danger, some people in the forum started making bad arguments.

I jumped in to respond, with the help of Coby Beck's "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" series. Some of the responses asked the right questions: what about the planet's longer-term climate, what about recent cold weather. These are all, of course, questions scientists have answered, with broad consensus. But even when I've provided answers and links to detailed explanations, I've changed no minds at all. (At least not among the vocal posters.)

The worst part about it, though, is that a couple of the respondants clearly have no idea what they're talking about. They dispute the current scientific consensus by pointing to unverifiable online petitions and cite people who aren't authorities or researchers. They then claim that, in the 1970s, there was scientific consensus that we were headed for an ice age, but they evidence they provide for that claim doesn't present anything even remotely resembling a consensus. Even in the face of evidence that they're wrong, they keep on swinging.

This problem extends well beyond that forum, a place I would expect people to be better aware of climate-change science. Google the words "global warming," and you get a mix of links to science and utter bunk (the latter of which has often been debunked). A google search for "climate change" fares much better, but clearly we need to speak more loudly and directly about the myths and realities around global climate change. Cory Beck's series, linked to above, does a lot of the hard work of debunking frequently cited (and wrong) objections, but I want to emphasize a few based on the experience I'm having in that forum:

• Make clear the difference between weather and climate. "It's cold today" doesn't refute evidence about global warming.
• Make clear the difference between media depictions of science and peer-reviewed articles and research. I've been amazed that the people who call The New York Times a left-wing newspaper cite a single article from the 70s as proof of a "global cooling" consensus. (Especially when the first paragraph of the article says there is a major dispute about whether the planet is cooling or warming.)
  
• Explain what a consensus is. Just because the founder of the Weather Channel disputes global warming doesn't mean there's a lack of consensus. It means that a meteorologist who founded a cable network, did no scientific research on climate change, and holds a B.A., doesn't understand climate science.
• Cite the most recent research you can. If you show a graph of global temperatures that ends in 2004 or 2005, the response will be along the lines of "but what about the last year?"
• Always remain civil. If you can.

That's a start. (And in a great coincidence, I chose the image above the same day as KSK. It isn't planned synergy.)