10:10
http://www.1010uk.org/

Campaign to cut 10% of emissions in 2010, individual people but also companies can sign up.

campaign to sign up people and organisations to sign up to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010

The official site of the 10:10 campaign

By committing to cut your emissions by 10% in 2010, you will join thousands of individuals, schools, hospitals, businesses and organisations all actively helping to combat climate change by making simple changes to their lifestyles, homes and workplaces. More importantly, your voice will help to put pressure on the politicians to cut Britain’s emissions as quickly as the science demands.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.

ne thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

"The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume"

Perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

A brief description on how one senator beleives that the idea of greenhouses gases endangering our environment is a hoax, and our envirnment is really in no danger.

John Rennie (Chefredakteur), Scientific American: Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to | John Rennie, der seit 15 Jahren Chefredakteur bei SciAm ist, geht darin kompakt aber umfassend auf sieben Argumente ein, die man immer wieder findet: 1. CO2 ist nur ein Spurengas, kann gar nichts am Klima ändern; bzw. der Menschenanteil ist zu klein | 2. Der "hockey stick", der den Temperaturanstieg zeigt, ist widerlegt, außerdem war es im Mittelalter wärmer | 3. Seit 10 Jahren ist die Erde nicht wärmer geworden | 4. Sonne oder kosmische Strahlung sind die Ursache der Erwärmung | 5. Klimatologen haben sich verschworen um die Wahrheit zu verstecken | 6. Klimatologen sind nur geldgeil/wollen Achtung | 7. Technologische Anwendungen wie Geoengineering wären viel effektiver als CO2-Reduzierung

a partial list of the contrarians' bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them

"a partial list of the contrarians' bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them."

Found on Giulio's Copenhagen climate conference blog

an excellent, important infographic

A very nice looking graphical summary of the claims and counter-claims of global warming skeptics and the scientific consensus response to all the denier's claims. Very nice bit of work.

hat meets the needs of the present without compro

When a word becomes so popular you begin hearing it everywhere, in all sorts of marginally related or even unrelated contexts, it means one of two things. Either the word has devolved into a meaningless cliché, or it has real conceptual heft. “Green” (or, even worse, “going green”) falls squarely into the first category. But “sustainable,” which at first conjures up a similarly vague sense of environmental virtue, actually belongs in the second. True, you hear it applied to everything from cars to agriculture to economics. But that’s because the concept of sustainability is at its heart so simple that it legitimately applies to all these areas and more. Despite its simplicity, however, sustainability is a concept people have a hard time wrapping their minds around. To help, Scientific American Earth 3.0 has consulted with several experts on the topic to find out what kinds of misconceptions they most often encounter. The result is this take on the top 10 myths about sustainability.

Despite its simplicity, however, sustainability is a concept people have a hard time wrapping their minds around. To help, Scientific American Earth 3.0 has consulted with several experts on the topic to find out what kinds of misconceptions they most often encounter. The result is this take on the top 10 myths about sustainability.

China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to

US physicist Alex Wissner-Gross claims that a typical Google search on a desktop computer produces about 7g CO2. However, these figures were disputed by Google, who say a typical search produced only 0.2g of carbon dioxide.

intereante BBC y Google

A typical Google search produces between 0.2g and 7g of carbon dioxide.

Dr Wissner-Gross's study claims that two Google searches on a desktop computer produces 14g of CO2, which is the roughly the equivalent of boiling an electric kettle.

Research by a Harvard University physicist has sparked debate about the environmental cost of Google searches.

Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross claims that a typical Google search on a desktop computer produces about 7g CO2.

think about it next time you search on google!

Two searches on a desktop computer produce 14g of CO2, equivalent to boiling an electric kettle.

first wildfires, then sea level rise; "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says. This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study. As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists. "We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."

No comments.

get ready for 1000 years of suck

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

even skipping meat one day a week makes an impact

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer

there is an expert here

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

lets hope he gets on with it

Not only is he America's hope for relevance but now he has to save the world too. It would be funny if it were not true. If America doesn't take a leadership role in this too (along with the others who have already stepped forward I might add) then as the great Australian poems reads: "We'll All Be Rooned" said Hanrahan!

conservatives have been better than progressives at exploiting anecdote and emotion to win arguments. Progressives tend to think that giving people the facts and figures will inevitably lead them to the right conclusions. They see anecdotes as inadmissible evidence, and appeals to emotion as wrong.

A well written, middle of the line piece on denialism and why normal people become extremists. Bottom line: they don't like giving up control for things that they can't see the real benefits of. Ie. Vaccines; because people no longer get diseases they are vaccinated by, denialists are prone to suspect if vaccines actually do anything or are they actually tools by a power hungry elite to control us and increase autism levels?

What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial? George Lakoff, a cognitive psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that conservatives have been better than progressives at exploiting anecdote and emotion to win arguments. Progressives tend to think that giving people the facts and figures will inevitably lead them to the right conclusions. They see anecdotes as inadmissible evidence, and appeals to emotion as wrong. The same is true of scientists. But against emotion and anecdote, dry statements of evidence have little power. To make matters worse, scientists usually react to denial with anger and disdain, which makes them seem even more arrogant. Poland has reached a similar conclusion. He has experimented a few times with using anecdote and appeals to emotion when speaking to lay audiences. "I get very positive responses - except from numerates, who see it as emotionally manipulative," he says.

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. ... Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien. ... This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control. ... He calls his opponents "the innumerate" because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion. "People use mental short cuts