[Vision2020] U of I Argonaut 8/27/2010 "Halfway There: City Council takes more steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions"

[Ted Moffett]

My analysis of anthropogenic climate warming is not an "opinion," in the
sense of a personal belief with great uncertainty that is just as likely to
be valid as someone elses differing opinion on said belief.  To call my
analysis of the science regarding anthropogenic climate warming an
"opinion" is similar to claiming that belief or not in gravity is
an "opinion."

The fact you dismiss the overwhelming body of science that has been ongoing
for over a century, since at least Arrhenius in 1896, that indicates
doubling atmospheric CO2 will significantly increase global average
temperatures (i. e "climate sensitivity"), is very disturbing, especially
considering how widespread in the public is the dismissal of the credibility
of the science on this issue.

This widespread dismissal of this science, science which has been ran
through decades of rigorous skeptical analysis by thousands of scientists in
numerous scientific organizations, both public and private, is placing the
future of our planet and humanity at risk.

It appears that you reject the vast body of science indicating human impacts
are profoundly altering Earth's climate, so the following data is unlikely
to change your mind.

Full text of article referenced lower down at website below:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.full.pdf+html
----------------

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract
Expert credibility in climate change
 Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys
suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of
anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses
substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of
scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate
scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting
researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement
among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC
discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers
and their publication and citation data to show that (*i*) 97–98% of the
climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here
support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and (*ii*) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence
of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the
convinced researchers.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 8/27/10, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted,
>
>
> I'm not going to debate the "facts" from either side.  I think we can agree
> that energy conservation is a good thing, as long as we don't go getting
> penny smart and pound foolish.
>
>
> If you really want my opinion, which is as valid as your opinion, and both
> are OPINIONS, I believe ice ages and warming trends happened long before we
> got here, and they're going to keep happening long after we are gone. I
> think it is arrogant to think humanity can affect such change (or stop it,
> for that matter).
>
>
> Having said that, I respect your opinion, and I hope you are enjoying this
> relatively cooler late summer day as much as I am.
>
>
> Your pal,
>
>
> DC
>
> sent from my magical mystery interwebs phone
>
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 16:27, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Am I to understand you consider the 2010 reports from the National
> Academy of Sciences that indicate, with the caps as on their website,
>  "STRONG EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE UNDERSCORES NEED
> FOR ACTIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS AND BEGIN ADAPTING TO IMPACTS," to be an
> example of people who can "spew" "facts?"
>
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
> ------------------------
>
> There are not two evenly balanced sides to the scientific discussion of
> anthropogenic climate warming, regarding if human impacts are profoundly
> altering Earth's climate.  The qualified climate scientists who address this
> question are about 97 percent answering yes, human impacts are profoundly
> altering Earth's climate, while the other 3 percent who are more skeptical
> are often among the least qualified climate scientists.
>
> If this level of consensus was present regarding many critical questions in
> science, there would not be the level of doubt being spread publicly about
> anthropogenic climate warming, unless there were also billions of dollars of
> profits at stake for entrenched and very powerful corporate interests, not
> to forget the lifestyle of many more humble people, dependent on fossil
> fuels:
>
> Read paper on an assessment of the scientific consensus on human impacts on
> climate at website below:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com>wrote:
>
>>  Ted et al,
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter to me whether someone comes down on one side or the
>> other on the whole anthropogenic global warming thing, my support for this
>> is based on conservation.
>>
>>
>> People can spew "facts" that support their position on one side or the
>> other, but when it comes down to real energy savings I think we are doing
>> right by the taxpayers, since energy savings = $$ savings.
>>
>>
>> Granted, in the short term some changes may be too expensive to make the
>> leap, bit we may be able to pencil it out over the long haul.
>>
>>
>> DC
>>
>> sent from my magical mystery interwebs phone
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2010, at 15:45, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  I'm happy something is being done to lower greenhouse gas emissions in
>> Moscow.  This is a far better attitude than expressed by some anthropogenic
>> climate warming denialists, who argue there is no substantial scientific
>> reason to lower emissions.
>>
>> The "Halfway There" part of the headline means there has been close to a
>> 12 percent reduction in emissions from a 2005 baseline, on the way to 20
>> percent by 2020.
>>
>> The headline might have read ""Not all the way there..." as in a paucity
>> of brain function and/or research, an absence of the most cursory discussion
>> of what the best climate science indicates is a percent reduction in
>> emissions necessary to substantially address anthropogenic climate warming.
>>
>> Total historical CO2 emissions must be considered, given CO2 atmospheric
>> lifespan (read "Storms of My Grandchildren" by NASA climate scientist James
>> Hansen:( <http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/>
>> http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/ );  therefore a 20 percent global
>> emissions reduction from a 2005 baseline will not prevent a high probability
>> of radical climate change.  CO2 would still increase in level in our
>> atmosphere, absent extreme changes in other variables, given a 20 percent
>> reduction from a 2005 level is still above the emission rates from previous
>> decades when CO2 was increasing in atmospheric level.  Some of the CO2
>> molecules my family and I were adding to the atmosphere in the 1950s when
>> gasoline was 28 cents a gallon and we crossed the US numerous times in our
>> gas hog Ford, are still in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.
>>
>> Read about the "Earth Policy Institute" *80 by 2020* plan, where they
>> discuss "worldwide mobilization at wartime speed" to achieve 80 percent
>> global reductions in emissions by 2020:
>>
>>  <http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020notes.pdf>
>> http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020notes.pdf
>> -----------------------
>>  <http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/10557/48:testset/>
>> http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/10557/48:testset/
>>
>> Halfway There
>>   Written by Kristen Whitney - Argonaut     Friday, 27 August 2010
>> *City Council takes more steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions*
>>
>>
>> Jake Barber/Argonaut
>> Moscow City Council is encouraging residents of Moscow to find ways to
>> reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as riding a bike instead of driving,
>> and remembering to turn off lights to conserve electricity.
>>
>> Since the baseline inventory in 2005, Moscow has lowered its green house
>> gas emissions by nearly 12 percent, a significant step toward the goal of 20
>> percent by 2020, according to the Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency
>> Report.
>>
>> “We have a measurable baseline and a very rational approach to save money
>> in addition to reduce our effect on the global climate,” said Mayor Nancy
>> Chaney.  It’s been a long time coming, because this was one of the
>> initiatives I undertook when I first came into office and I had a number of
>> people kind of cranking on my arm saying, ‘Just set the targets.’”
>> The Greenhouse Gas & Energy Efficiency Report, published Aug. 2, outlines
>> the City Council’s current efforts and future plans for lowering greenhouse
>> gas emissions.
>>
>> “I come from a scientific background — my graduate work is environmental
>> science ... so I wanted a measureable baseline,” Chaney said.
>>
>> Included in the Greenhouse Gas & Energy Efficiency Report are plans to
>> upgrade streetlights to be more efficient.
>>
>>  Chaney said each LED retrofitted street light saves the city over $1,000
>> per year.  Each upgraded light saves 629 tons of CO2.
>>
>> Future changes to reduce GHG will include more investment in public
>> transportation and expansion of pedestrian and bike paths.  The
>> Hamilton-Lowe Aquatics Center, one of the city’s top producers of GHG, may
>> also undergo some changes.
>>
>> “We still have designs on making changes out at the swimming pool because
>> that’s one of our big users of natural gas, so conceivably there would be
>> some kind of solar installation — that might be panels, or solar tubes.
>> We’ve looked at some kind of treatment involving the heat absorption of the
>> asphalt,” Chaney said.
>>
>> Brian Henry, the project coordinator for the sustainability club and a
>> graduate student in architecture, said students can do their part to help
>> lower GHG.
>>
>> “Ride a bike instead of driving and conserve energy in your dorm room or
>> apartment by turning off lights and use compact florescent bulbs.  Also plug
>> your TV and DVD player into a power strip and turn the power strip off when
>> you’re not using the TV because even though it says it’s off, it’s still
>> using power,” Henry said.
>>
>> In addition to these ideas, Mayor Chaney recommended weatherizing one’s
>> home, or she said, “If you’re not a property owner, hang some heavy window
>> coverings in the winter time to keep the heat in and the cold out.”
>>
>> “We want to be efficient in our buildings, because buildings are big
>> wasters of energy if they’re not well-insulated — if the windows are not
>> adequately sealed” she said.
>>
>> Throughout the nation other cities have made pledges to lower their GHG.
>> Since levels were tested in 1990, Los Angles aims to lower its GHG 30
>> percent by 2030. Chicago vowed to lower GHG by 25 percent by 2020 and Denver
>> pledged 10 percent by 2012. The U.S government has undertaken the goal of
>> lowering overall emissions 17 percent by 2020, according to the U.S. EPA
>> Website.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100828/2f2b5a4a/attachment-0001.html