Human society being what it is, we live in a world filled with myths.

   
• Count Dracula lives forever and drinks blood.

   
• Monsters hide under the bed.

   
• NASA faked the Apollo missions and the astronauts were actually in a desert film studio rather than on the mooon.

   
• The world's scientists are conspiring to falsify data about the climate.

By doing that list, I just broke the cardinal law of debunking myths:  Don't lead with and (certainly) don't bold the myth because, as per The Familiarity Backfire Effect, this just reinforces the myth.  When done wrong, "debunking reinforces the myths. ... emphasis of debunking should be on the facts not the myth. You goal is to increase people's familiarity with the facts."

Recently put out (and free to download), written by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, is the Debunking Handbook (or here).  As the authors explain

Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, there's no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of myths. The Debunking Handbook boils the research down into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate) who encounter misinformation.

Long concerned about the challenges of dealing with uprooted people's false concepts to help foster more reality-based understanding to enable better decision-making (at all levels), I have to say that Cook and Lewandowsky have done a great job of clearly and succinctly outlining the challenge(s) and providing actionable paths forward to deal with them.  As Brad Johnson put it, the handbook is

a must-read summary of the scientific literature on how to extract pernicious myths from people's minds and restore fact-based knowledge. ... Although the examples used come primarily from the world of climate science, the tools in the Debunking Handbook are key for debunking other myths about science, economics, and society.

While members of Congress are raising h-ll about the Solyndra bankruptcy along with many who are forgetting that they once touted Solyndra as the future, just a little distance away, Solandra technology is powering an absolutely gorgeous home available for public visit for the coming two weeks.

This house, the University of Tennessee's Living Light, is part of one of the nation's most important (and sadly too little discussed) intercollegiate competitions is about to open in Washington, DC: the biennial Solar Decathlon. Opening to the public 23 September, the Decathlon brings together 19 university teams from around the globe to compete across ten categories (thus, "decathlon"). After having reviewed all the Solar Decathlon entries, this post will look more closely at Living Light.

A basic challenge in complex modern society: how does one translate expert opinion on complex issues into broader discussion? This is true for almost every domain of our society, whether discussing nutrition or infrastructure investment requirements or budgetary issues or climate disruption. As for the last, many have been seeking to foster paths for scientists to communicate better with the public.

One of the key challenges: helping the public understand the difference between pseudo-experts and true specialists to help foster an understanding as to who to listen to amid the truthiness- and falsehood-laden discussions seeking to confuse the public about climate disruption threats and climate mitigation opportunities. There are those who seek to train scientists to go on TV talk shows and encourage them to give public lectures. Some people take a different path, such as the rappers below the fold asking -- and answering -- a simple question:

Who's a climate scientist?

"We think what we can be is the canary in the coal mine," Republican Representative Darryl Issa told reporters.

Congressman Issa's words are prophetic -- evidently he and his colleagues  consider themselves to be the 'canaries in the coal mine' since they are taking steps with the newly introduced Continuing Resolution to kill off as many canaries in the coal mine to protect Americans from environmental, safety, and other risks.  For example, the proposal includes a 22 percent reduction in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, massive cuts in basic science research, budgets slashing seeking to essentially eliminate U.S. government research on climate change, ... a true anti-science syndrome agenda.

The recent U.S. snowstorm provide a clear case of outright falsehoods and serial deceit in the service of securing a more polluting and less secure future.

In the face of the winter storm that hit the nation, Texans suffered a series of rolling blackouts as some 50 fossil-fueled power plants (coal and natural gas) shut down due to frozen pipes and other problems. (See: Blacked Out Texas: Seeking understanding or Falsely laying blame?)  In the face of readily available information, including from Texas' own grid-managers (ERCOT), there is a bevy of fossil-foolish commentators falsely asserting that 'greening' efforts are to blame for freezing Texans.  For example,

   
• The Drudge Report has suggested that  the Texas blackouts were "a direct consequence of the Obama administration's agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America."

   
• Rush Limbaugh has put the blame on `federal red tape'.  "It's not just in Texas, that's everywhere. And, folks, let me tell you something: If Obama gets his way, rolling blackouts will be the new norm. What do you think `green energy' is?"

These political motivated and, well, simply false attacks threaten American prosperity and security.

When it comes to the November 2010 elections, few people identify science as the core issue. Economic concerns (JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!), fossil-foolish fueled anger at government, passions over the role of government, and otherwise are among the many reasons why the current vogue is to predict a Republican wave come November.  A hidden element of the election, for most Americans, is that this election is fundamentally about science.

Very simply, while most Americans continue to hold science and scientists in high regard, an increasingly large share of the Republican Party's elite, office holders, candidates, and mouth pieces are taking seriously anti-science positions.

Oh, no you don't!

You're not doing that!

Not-In-My-Back-Yard!!!  

This is perhaps one of the most natural of human reactions.

Sludge plant? I might poop but don't put that upwind of me.

Oil Refinery? I'll drive as much as I want but don't let that cancer-causing behemoth ruin my view or threaten my kids' health.

Prison? Put the bums away, far away from me.

Not-In-My-Back-Yard!!!

Natural and understandable doesn't make NIMBYism right or correct.

Two weeks ago, the "progressive" think tank Center for American Progress issued American Fuel: Developing Natural Gas for Heavy Vehicles.  This misleading and error-prone report strongly supports misguided policy concepts to subsidize heavily transitioning American transportation from one fossil fuel (oil) to a slightly lower polluting alternative (natural gas).  Even though political momentum exists behind this concept, it does not make "T Boone Pickens ... bold plan" a good one.  The report asserts that subsidizing natural gas into transportation offers a path to reducing oil demand by 1.25 million barrels/day by 2035, would not impact the cost of natural gas for other uses, and provides a benefit for carbon reduction.  Putting aside some uncertainty about optimistic assumptions about future natural gas production, choosing to emphasize natural gas for transportation is a far more costly and less effective path to reducing oil demand, controlling natural gas prices, and reducing carbon emissions than a myriad of other option already on the table.

Simply put ... this is a flawed and misguided report supporting a flawed and misguided policy proposal that would send the United States down a flaw, misguided, and reckless path.

front-paged by afew

Scientists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have published a study, Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth, suggesting that climate change can quite literally be measured by treehuggers. Like the average American citizen, American trees look to have had increasingly bulging middles in recent decades.  Having spent their careers quite literally hugging trees, SERC scientists Geoffrey Parker and Sean McMahon have written a study documenting

evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.

For over 20 years, Parker has gone into a set of forests in the mid-Atlantic, tape measure in hand, and giving them a hug to measure their size. Parker's own hugging has been extended with a robust group of volunteers conducting regular measurements of specified trees. (The boy scout to the right, while in a SERC forest, isn't engaged in actual measurements for the study.) Some 250,000 hugs later, he has quite a database in hand.

The results of analyzing hugs surprised these researchers. Based on the data from these 100,000s of hugs, Parker's and McMahon's analysis documents

that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. ... on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year.

Now, there are many things that contribute to plant growth, from soil quality to rainfall to temperatures to CO2 concentrations. Parker and McMahon have concluded that the driver for the bulging middles of the studied groves is best explained through human impacts: the rising levels of CO2 (a nutrition); and the warmer temperatures and extended growing season due to global warming (driven, in no small part, due to the rising CO2 levels).

When it comes to ACCCE, Duke Energy and Alstom Just Did It.

When it comes to the US Chamber of Commerce, PG&E and PNM Resources Just Did It.

When it comes to the US Chamber of Commerce, Nike Just Can't Seem to Do It.

What is "it"?  Reconciling a Corporation's affiliation with scientific understanding of climate change issues and its Corporate affiliations and memberships.

The news in France:  a 14 Euro (tax per ton of carbon to go into effect in 2010. While discussion of a carbon tax has been an item of debate within French society, Prime Minister Fillon's announcement of the actual amount and the parameters of the coming have created what might be an explosive discussion.

In short, the parameters:

   
• Tax on carbon sources, including oil (gasoline, diesel), natural gas, and coal.

   
• Electricity is not included (considering that France is almost entirely 'carbon light' (nuclear 80+%, hydro, and some (growing) wind/solar), this is not surprising)

   
• This is a revenue-neutral program, with reductions in other taxes to balance this revenue source.

   
• Many details yet to be worked out/announced, such as how to deal with helping those less fortunate deal with the additional costs.

   
• This is the first step of a tax that will be gradually increased and spread throughout the economy to help achieve French goals for a 75+% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

On first glance, writ large, this looks to be a positive move, the type of revenue source rebalancing that should be pursued around the globe to help drive moves toward a low-carbon future.

Even so, while "positive", this is causing debate with criticism coming from all directions.

Humanity engages in many outrages, against each other, against ourselves, against the hability of our planet.  Genocide ... hunting species to extinction ... CO2 emissions and global warming/ocean acidificiation ...   And, sadly, there seems to be a tendency toward 'out of sight, out of mind' for many of these, for many of us. We have our lives to live, the problems before us and the pesky inbox often dominate our thinking and our action over the large, serious problems that don't necessarily slap us in the face and stand outside, it seems, our ability to impact.  

When it comes to 'out of sight, out of mind' on energy issues, there is a long list of items.  But, when it comes to raping the environment to feed our wasteful energy habits, North America has two extremely egregious examples: mountain-top removal (MTR) and Canadian Tar Sands.

Now roughly accounting for 10 percent of the United States' oil imports, the processes for transforming tar sands into fuel for America's gas guzzlers makes traditional oil production (even into ANWR) look benign in comparison.  Devastating for the local (water, forests), regional (air pollution, bird), and global (GHG emissions) environment, Tar Sands is the wrong answer to North America's energy challenges.  

Yesterday, in a very interesting session featuring Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sven Teske (Greenpeace), and Joe Romm (Climate Progress), Greenpeace released the latest in their series of Energy [R]evolution analyses.   This high quality report conducted by the German Aerospace Center lays out, using quite conservative estimates, how "the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science-based cuts in global warming pollution - without nuclear power or coal." And, do so not just cost-effectively, but profitably.

Save the planet and make a profit.  Sounds great.  As Senator Sanders said, "We should congradulate Greenpeace for recognizing, as does President Obama, that amid the crisis is a great opportunity."

Even so, perhaps the most striking thing about this excellent study is what is missing.

We wait and watch, with baited breath President Obama's decisions about who will serve in senior positions in the Administration.  

When it comes to the critical issues of climate change and the creation of a clean energy future, some appointments have created great elation, fostering hope for Change toward something better.

Euphoria has, more than once, shifted to confusion with appointees whose devotion to and experience for creating a sensible path forward remain (generously speaking) open to question.

That confusion (dismay even) can shift quickly, as it did today.

Yesterday, we had news of three absolutely stunningly impressive appointments when it comes to the arenas of science, global warming, and energy.  

Today is a day for great elation and Hope.  Let us hope that tomorrow provides reason for more elation.

A few days ago, "Can Organics Save Us from Global Warming?" excitedly brought news of a new study from the Rodale Institute entitled Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming.  After now having taken the time to read this report, it seems worth seconding the excitement ... even if perhaps seeking to dampen it a little bit.

The report lays out a sensible explanation a path toward a far more climate friendly, a much more profitable, and somewhat more productive agriculture system. There long-term research provides quite real and substantive information about productivity implications in the fields; the financial benefits for going 'organic'; the potential large scale benefits; and core challenges to achieving greater results.

Perhaps the greatest challenge arena: knowledge and education:  

Rodale Institute's experience in training thousands of farms from around the world has proven that the shift to regenerative farming practices is both doable and practical. It's the decision to change that's hard.

Promoted with an edit by afew

In South Carolina, the "Democratic Party" candidate is Bob Conley, who must be mentioned was recently a Republican, on a county GOP committee until winning the Democratic Party primay, and Ron Paul supporter.  On the Repulbican side, Lindsey Graham.  In this race, Saturday's debate could well be a telling one for anyone who cares for science and issues of Global Warming.

Conley, in Inhofe-scale like terms, very "firmly proclaimed his denial of global warming science".  In face of a question as to whether Global Warming is real (come off, is this a real question people?), Conley's response:

CONLEY: It really is the arrogance of man to think that we are having any effect.

These are not words of someone interested in reality-based policy making.

Paul Krugman, the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics, penned an article a few months ago: "Know-Nothing Politics".  

the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I've been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the "party of ideas," have become the party of stupid.

For Krugman, the Republican embrace and promotion of Drillusion exemplified how "know-nothingism" had become revered within the Republican Party.  "The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."" ANd, "In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump."  

T Boone Pickens continues his hard sell efforts when it comes to the flawed Pickens' Plan.  Yesterday, a bipartisan group of bloggers had a teleconference with T Boone.  If one listens through 'the call', several points might jump out:

1.  The bloggers seem have an uneven understanding of energy issues based on their comments and questions. In fact, the "right wing" bloggers seem to have basically no knowledge of energy issues. From the "left", several of the bloggers have legitimate claims to be energy/environmental experts.

2.  At the end of the day, T Boone Pickens was able to get away with half-truths and untruths in the session.  

This was part of T Boone's promotion of an "e-rally" to be held before and after the Presidential debate this evening, with Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope joining him, to seek to influence the national debate toward T Boone's problem filled plan.

During the Vice Presidential debate, Sarah "Energy Expert" Palin continued to demonstrate either her fundamental ignorance about energy realities or her fervent desire to mislead as many American voters as possible with half-truths and un-truths.  We'll put aside the whole question of Sarah's dealings with oil companies and the national gas pipeline and the problems of clean-coal discussion at the debate, but lets take a few moments to discuss the implications of Sarah's various words about "energy independence".   Remember, Sarah reminded us that energy is her subject:

"governor of an energy-producing state, and kind of undo in my own area of expertise, and that's energy."

Okay, what did Miss Energy Expert say about energy issues?

Reflective roofing has long seemed one of the best geoengineering options to help turn the rising tides of Global Warming. An opportunity to reduce energy use through reduced cooling demand and longer lasting roofs, to improve urban life (and cut energy requirements) by reducing urban heat island impacts, and to contribute to fighting global warming by reflecting solar radiation back into space.

It seems, however, that this opportunity might be even greater than previously believed. Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2 (pdf) suggests that white roofing of just 100 cities could handle Global Warming temperature increases.