Author Archive

Six degrees to annihilation

Sunday, August 29th, 2010

Below is a news feature as appears on page 14 of this weekend’s Sunday Tribune. Given that global emissions are and will continue to run at or perhaps beyond the IPCC’s ‘worst-case’ (A1F1) scenario, I felt it useful to try to translate likely real-world impacts into a language that is more widely understood. The degree-by-degree structure broadly follows the model of Mark Lynas’ excellent ‘Six Degrees’…

Climate, wrote Oscar Wilde, “is what you expect. Weather is what you get”. And weather is a chaotic beast. In the last 12 months alone, Ireland has endured some of the worst flooding in a century, followed by the hardest freeze in four decades, and, in recent months, near-drought conditions.

With both environmental activists and climate change deniers attempting to use one extreme weather event or the other to ‘prove’ their completely contradictory positions, small wonder that the public and large sections of the media do not know who or what to believe.

Amid all this apparent confusion, the underlying trends are crystal clear. The planet is running a dangerous fever. The first six months of 2010 (which includes the prolonged cold snap in Europe and parts of the US) is now officially the hottest half-year since records began. In fact, the 11 hottest years since accurate global recording began in 1880 have all been in the last 13 years.

Last month’s ‘State of the Climate’ report from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that global warming is, quite simply “undeniable”.

If at this stage you find yourself still doubting climate science, you may also want to re-think whether evolution, plate tectonics and atomic theory may also be elaborate hoaxes, since these too are scientific theories developed, tested, challenged and reappraised by thousands of professionals in the field over decades.

Still, what harm could a couple of degrees centigrade possibly do? To answer this question, think of your own body. No matter what the weather is like, your average internal temperature is maintained at a steady 37˚C. Were that temperature to rise by just 10 per cent – to around 41˚C – you would fall dangerously ill, and unless that fever were controlled, you would suffer organ failure and worse within hours.

The Earth’s average surface temperature is around 14.5˚C, and, despite wide variations from the poles to the tropics, this average temperature has remained virtually unchanged since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years or so ago. This is our planet’s “body temperature”, and it is held in constant balance by a highly sophisticated climate system, a system whose complexity – and sensitivity – we are only now beginning to fully grasp. This is why scientists have warned repeatedly about the 2˚C “red line” that we must at all costs avoid crossing.

So where are we headed? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a range of temperature rise scenarios for the 21st Century. These run from 1.8˚ C to 6.4˚ C. The lower figures are only possible if drastic, urgent steps are taken to cut emissions worldwide by at least 80 per cent, while the higher end reflects the business-as-usual path. The latter is the path humanity, in its wisdom, has decided to follow.

Given that we now are bang on target for at least a 6˚C global average temperature increase this century, we ought to know what that actually means. Here’s a degree-by-degree guide to the decades ahead, based on a summary of the best available peer-reviewed scientific guidance. Brace yourself for a bumpy ride:

ONE DEGREE: There is little or no wiggle room here, as greenhouse gas emissions have already pushed up the dial an average of 0.8˚C since the pre-industrial era, with more already “in the pipeline” due to what’s known as climate inertia. As the world reaches the first full degree centigrade (the equivalent of pushing up global average temperatures by around 6.5 per cent) the effects are being felt most acutely at the poles. The Arctic ice pack is already under full-scale assault, and virtually every glacier on the planet is in headlong retreat. Even the mighty Greenland shelf is already feeling the heat. That one degree is destabilising natural systems in a million different ways, some obvious, many subtle, but almost none helpful. The reduction in the number of winter frost days in Canada has led to an explosive increase in pine beetle attacks. In British Colombia alone, an area larger than England is under attack from these beetles, and many of these great forests are now starting to emit, instead of absorb, carbon as a consequence.

TWO DEGREES:  According to the EU, this is the line we must, at all costs, avoid crossing. Warming is now accelerating much more quickly, especially in the high latitudes. At this temperature, the world’s great glaciers are committed to destruction and the fracturing of the edges of the Greenland ice shelf is underway in earnest. The Arctic ice pack has disappeared and the region is now open ocean for much of the year, leading to a huge increase in solar energy absorption and a further quickening of the warming trend. Globally, extreme weather events roll in with ever-increasing regularity. In a warmer world, precipitation increases, leading to more flooding. However, shifts in rainfall patterns lead to a dramatic increase in desertification, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. The outlook for the world’s oceans at two degrees is ominous. Huge increases in absorbed CO2 are leading to ocean acidification, while coral bleaching and die-off from warmer water temperatures becomes widespread. Global food production is down by a quarter, as a result of severe weather events and the effects of prolonged high temperatures.

THREE DEGREES: Our fate is sealed. Global starvation from the near-collapse in agricultural production has led to widespread political instability, with many regimes collapsing as starvation and panic spreads. Globalised trade has been sharply reduced, with many of the countries we in the ‘First World’ currently import our produce from either unwilling or unable to supply us. In a three degree world, the seven million square kilometre Amazon rain forest is in flames, emitting many billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The whole Amazon region becomes a smouldering desert, with far-reaching consequences for the global climate system. Meanwhile, sea levels have begun to rise much more quickly, as a consequence both of thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) and the melting of land-based ice. Greenland is now in full collapse. It will, over time, add seven metres to global sea levels, but already the world’s great cities, almost all of which are located on the coastlines, have been abandoned. At three degrees, the vast permafrost zones in northern Canada and Siberia are breaking down, and the methane trapped for millennia in this once-frozen landscape is now pouring into the atmosphere. Methane is, molecule for molecule, over 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so the effect of billions of tonnes of methane seeping into the atmosphere is to ratchet up the cycle of runaway heating still further.

FOUR DEGREES: The last time Earth was 4˚C warmer than today was 40 million years ago, and at that time, the planet was ice-free from pole to pole. While Antarctica is so vast that it will take time for its complete destruction, in a four degree world, western Antarctica has followed Greenland into collapse, adding another 5-7 metres to global sea levels over time. Coastal inundation and more severe storms fuelled by hotter ocean temperatures are forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee inlands. Vast amount of infrastructure is abandoned. Food production has been severely hit, and famine conditions are spreading from the poorer countries right into the heart of Europe and the US. The good news, such as it is, for Ireland, is that our maritime location and latitude will shield us from the most severe effects for longer than many other countries. However, just how Ireland will be able to prevent millions of desperate climate refugees from mainland Europe seeking sanctuary in “Lifeboat Ireland” is another matter. At four degrees, the global economy has essentially ceased to function; every country, perhaps every family, is now fending for themselves. In this new world, the IPCC projects “worldwide agricultural drought”. It’s 1845 again, but this time, there is no New World to escape to.

FIVE DEGREES: The world is by now a place barely recognisable to today’s denizens. There are no rainforests; inland temperatures have risen by perhaps 10˚C, leaving vast continental areas uninhabitable and much of what used to be the coastlines are now under several metres of water. The effect on the natural world has been apocalyptic, with species disappearing in their tens of thousands. The web of complex life on Earth is rapidly unravelling. Humanity, from its apex in the early 21st Century of just over seven billion, has plummeted, due to starvation and warfare, into just millions. Desperate governments are trying to relocate survivors to the far north. Countries with military wherewithal grab their neighbours’ territory; expect the US to invade Canada while China annexes much of Siberia. However, much of the potentially productive land is lost to forest fires, which rage in a hotter, CO2-heavy climate. “A drastic reduction in human populations is unambiguously the most likely outcome of a rise of global temperatures towards five degrees”, is how author Mark Lynas expressed it. The above scenario is bad, but unfortunately, it can get worse, much worse…

SIX DEGREES: Hell has been unleashed. The world’s oceans are lifeless and toxic, as super storms and tsunamis batter the survivors on land. Deep sea heating, most likely in the shallower Arctic ocean, destabilises billions of tonnes of once-frozen methane clathrate deposits, which rush to the surface and explode on impact with the atmosphere, triggering the equivalent of a global nuclear holocaust. This happened at least once before, around a quarter of billion years ago, when a 6˚C temperature spike led to the kill-off of well over 90 per cent of all life on the planet. An average temperature rise of this magnitude would be akin to your own body temperature hitting 50˚C – of course that could never happen, as you would be long since dead. “So far as we know, this is the only planet in the entire universe which has summoned forth life in all its brilliance and variety”, wrote Mark Lynas. “To knowingly cut this flowering short is undoubtedly a crime, one more unspeakable even than the cruellest genocide or most destructive war. If each person is uniquely valuable, each species is surely more so…and ignorance is no defence”.

This bears repeating: the scenarios above are based on science facts; the only fantasy is to believe that the world’s scientists have taken leave of their collective senses, that the laws of physics no longer apply and that we can persist in pumping out billions of tonnes of climate-altering emissions while at the same time destroying the natural world and not expect negative consequences. We are not yet helpless, and with drastic, deep and permanent cuts in emissions intensity – and a lot of luck – we may yet manage to keep the heating this century to just below 3˚C, low enough to give the next generation some chance of adjusting to life on a damaged, but still largely habitable planet. Or we can choose to ignore the evidence, sneer at the messengers – and submit meekly to our fate as Earth’s final generation.

For whom the (Angelus) bell tolls

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Now here’s a genuinely novel idea. “Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. In my state of Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorised a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee”.

The bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying that the mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s. “Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric”.

So writes Lawrence Krauss in the current edition of Scientific American. “I don’t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo. To do so risks being branded as intolerant of religion”, he continues.

The US National Science Board publishes a report every two years designed to assess the public’s understanding of science issues. This year, the Board chose not to publish the findings in this area, arguing that the questions were flawed indicators of science knowledge because “responses conflated knowledge and beliefs”. Translated into English, it’s best not to highlight the fact that people’s religious beliefs cause them to flatly reject scientific facts. This is no trivial matter.

When presented with the statement: “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45% of US respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the equivalent scores in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%) and South Korea (64%). Only 33% of Americans agreed that “the universe began with a big explosion.”

Add in the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31% of US adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” When responses are sorted by levels of religious activity, it suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55%), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49%).

“Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children”, concludes Krauss’s article. Ireland and the US have both suffered badly – and continue to suffer – at the hands of religious zealots. The Murphy and Ryan reports expose an indelible stain on the first century of our new Republic, when this State allowed one religion to gain a stranglehold on both education and health, and to wield political power without accountability – the classic recipe for corruption.

Thankfully, this grip has been loosened as the tidal wave of clerical crimes and cover-ups too sickening and pervasive to be explained away have come to light and we finally begin to evolve towards the vision of a tolerant, secular Republic that respects all faiths and none equally. In the US, tragically, the reverse seems to be happening.

The pact between the Republican Party and the religious right has deepened that party’s schism with science. The consequences of this Faustian bargain are almost unfathomably grave. There was a time when most reasonable people agreed on the immutable scientific facts, while differing widely on interpretation.

That was then. The toxic politicisation of science understanding in the last two decades has ended that uneasy truce. Now, as a rule, the great majority of Republicans reject out of hand any and all scientific findings that don’t fit with their ideologically tinted world-view. Gemma Hussey once famously talked about turkeys voting for Christmas; she could have had these same Republicans in mind.

Anyone who claims to follow US politics and still clings to the notion that the climate crisis is in any way capable of putting a dent in the business-as-usual paradigm has simply not been paying attention. In the heel of the hunt, we are not an especially rational species, despite our pretentions to the contrary. The iron grip of religions (in all their splendid contradictions and irrationality, not to mention just plain silliness) on the minds of so many underlines this.

Once upon a time, our clinging to arcane and illogical belief systems and rejection of empirical evidence was of interest mainly to anthropologists. Now, it’s the existential issue that is set to define the limits of our success and, in time, the nemesis of our species.

A safer future? Don’t bank on it

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

“Disaster myopia” was a new phrase to enter the lexicon of Irish political life this week. This condition manifests itself in an “increasing tendency to discount the probability of a disaster occurring, the longer the interval of time that has elapsed since a disaster last occurred”.

Disaster myopia is, we also learned, reinforced by competitive pressure: “Dealing with the threat from competitors and defending or increasing market share is real, but disaster is an abstraction until it breaks.”

“Was the scale of risk-taking such as to be reckless? Looking back from a point in the middle of the wreckage, recklessness seems like a reasonable word to use but, of course, this is hindsight bias at work.” At the time the future looked different. …Undoubtedly the sceptics could have and, with the benefit of hindsight, should have, articulated their doubts much more consistently.

“Whether this would have made much difference is something we will never know, but it is a matter of profound personal regret to me that I wasn’t more forceful in setting out the contrarian view and didn’t work harder at analysing its implications.”

The above epiphany comes courtesy of Jim O’Leary, a former director of AIB and offers a piercing insight into how groupthink, self-interest and chronic short-termism all conspired to create the circumstances in which the financial bubble-and-bust disaster not only was likely to occur, but in fact became almost inevitable. It also calls to mind the great JK Galbraith’s injunction not to confuse insight and intelligence with the possession of large amounts of money.

Regulars to ThinkorSwim will no doubt have spotted where this argument is headed, given that some disasters are, well, more disastrous than others.

The US National Academy of Sciences yesterday issued a 180-page report entitled ‘Stabilisation Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases’. It could have been sub-titled: “How to know when your Goose is Cooked”. A small flavour below:

The Earth is now entering a new geological epoch, sometimes called the Anthropocene, during which the evolution of the planet’s environment will be largely controlled by the effects of human activities, notably emissions of carbon dioxide. Actions taken during this century will determine whether the Anthropocene climate anomaly will be a relatively short term and minor deviation from the Holocene climate, or an extreme deviation extending over many thousands of years.”

In summary, the National Academy report (these are the heaviest of hitters in the field, with more Nobel laureates can you can shake a doctorate at) sets out the stark conclusion that (a) we’re in the last-chance cafe; (b) it’s five to midnight and; (c) last orders have just been called…

A man who understood disaster myopia – and climate science itself – better than almost anyone else on the planet was Stanford University climatologist, Dr Stephen H. Schneider, who died suddenly on Monday, aged 65. I met and recorded a 35-minute video interview with Dr Schneider in March 2008. I found him a genial host, generous with his time and his expertise, and patient in filling in the many gaps in this interviewer’s knowledge on complex issues.

Dr Schneider has been the victim of a concerted hate campaign for having the temerity to try to alert the public to the extreme hazards atmospheric destabilisation poses to all life on Earth. A comment of his on the anti-science lobbying campaign funded by corporations sums it up well: “Can democracy survive complexity?”.

An FBI investigation recently found he was named on a neo-Nazi “death list,” and Dr Schneider was bombarded with hundreds of hate e-mails a day. “What do I do? Learn to shoot a magnum? Wear a bulletproof jacket?” Dr. Schneider said in a recent interview in the US. “I have now had extra alarms fitted at my home, and my address is unlisted. I get scared that we’re now in a new Weimar Republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists.”

He had a wonderful line for the deniers: “When somebody says ‘I don’t believe in global warming,’ I ask, ‘Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?’ ”

Our sympathies to his wife, biologist Dr Terry Root. Her loss is our loss too.

Dear Willie: when in a hole, stop digging

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Well hallelujah! We’ve been waiting years to read something bordering on sensible from UCC’s ‘Public Awareness of Science’ officer and Irish Times columnist William Reville on the subject of climate change and by golly, this week’s offering was very, very nearly there.

Reville did a review/critique of sorts of Duncan Stewart’s excellent recent RTE documentary, ‘A Burning Question‘ (though he didn’t actually manage to get the title right). Regarding Climategate, Reville has had little short of an epiphany. Today he writes: “…it soon became clear that most of the suspicious e-mail content was just insider jargon and “macho” posturing and did not weaken the overall scientific case for climate change”.

What a fascinating volte face from the ‘Public Awareness of Science’ expert! In the same column in the same paper last December, Reville was, well, revelling in the exposure of the great climate swindle: “The e-mails appear to reveal scientists on the majority side of the debate massaging data to suit their anthropic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, dragging their heels on freedom of information requests, and conspiring to block scientists who oppose AGW from publishing their results”. This was, he breathlessly reported, an “explosive development”. (more…)

Ming shows our bogs no mercy

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”. So wrote novelist Upton Sinclair, and boy, did he have a clear understanding of human nature.

Last Thursday’ PrimeTime on RTE featured a report on what it called ‘Turf Wars’, the latest skirmish in the ongoing east-west battle to define what country we really are, and perhaps, what century we see ourselves in. I wrote about this at length last August – one para from that article is below:

“Ireland doesn’t have any significant coal deposits to burn. What we have instead are some of the world’s most important bogs. Peatlands comprise almost a fifth of Ireland’s land cover, and lock away a massive 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon. They are also home to around half our endangered bird species and around a quarter of endangered plant species. Peat bogs are amazingly efficient carbon sponges. A healthy bog typically stores 10 times more carbon per hectare than any other system, including forests. Peatland protection, according to the UN Environment Programme is “among the most cost-effective options for mitigating climate change”. Damage to peat bogs is now producing the equivalent of over a tenth of total global fossil-fuel emissions.” (more…)

A burning question

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Fair play to Duncan Stewart. He was in combative form on Saturday’s Marian Finucane Show on RTE radio. The subject of his interview was the one hour documentary film special, ‘A Burning Question’, which airs this Tuesday (29th) at 10.10pm on RTE 1 and featuring many of the great and the good in the field, from the UN’s Ban Ki Moon to Mary Robinson, Prof John Sweeney and economist and late eco-convert David McWilliams (I’m in there somewhere among the interviewees). Click here to view the film online (in two parts).

The documentary promises to take a forensic look at the ever-expanding chasm between what the science of climate change is telling us and how this critical issue is being presented (and misrepresented) via the media. (more…)

Sunday Times shows its hand. Again.

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Last April, I gave a lecture to the Met Society of Ireland in Glasnevin. A Sunday Times reporter was in the audience, though she did not make herself known to me, ask any questions or attempt to speak to me afterwards. However, five days later I got a call from said reporter, picking up on some choice observations on my part about the, em, quality of journalism on display post-Climategate/Copenhagen and the winter cold snap.

It must have been a veeery slow week, because two days later, a whopper of a ‘news’ article appeared in the ST, covering around two thirds of page 3 (appropriately enough, for a Murdoch title). I covered this incident on this blog back in April.

And now they’re back. From outer space. Those irrepressible Sunday Times hacks, ever eager to please their billionaire publisher, just couldn’t  wait for another juicy ‘climate’ scandal story, they just galloped ahead and made up their own! (more…)

Peak oil – what happens next?

Friday, May 28th, 2010

Wednesday night last saw an interesting session to kick off several days of the 15th Convergence Sustainable Living Festival, organised by Cultivate.

The two-hour session was entitled: ‘Planning our retreat from fossil fuels: exploring the ramifications of Peak Oil’ and featured a panel of three speakers, David Korowicz of Feasta (and author earlier this year of the jaw-dropping report, ‘Tipping Point‘), Richard O’Rourke, director of the Irish branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and Green Minister of State, Ciaran Cuffe. (more…)

Can industrial civilisation and the biosphere both be saved?

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010

Even when you don’t agree with him, Monbiot remains essential reading. Whether you regard the Dark Mountain Project as a bunch of  dystopian doomers, or simply realists probably depends on how you feel about peak oil (in the shorter term) and (in the medium term) just exactly what might happen when we do indeed succeed in doubling concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from their pre-industrial levels and usher in, as predicted, a brave new climatic order for the next few millennia… (more…)

Exposed: climate change doubter with PhD only in spin

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Looking to a statistician or economist for expert guidance on complex scientific matters makes about as much sense as consulting a neurosurgeon or a hairdresser for advice on investing in some arcane corner of the derivatives market.

However, when it comes to climate science, this is exactly what has been happening. A small band of people operating in fields entirely beyond their training or competence have, largely thanks to their skill in gaming the media, emerged as de facto international experts, advising politicians and shaping policy, with a patina of science jargon glossing over a hard core of ideology. (more…)

Ireland among most vulnerable to peak oil

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

HERE’S A conundrum: restarting global economic growth will, by definition, push up energy costs. Rising energy costs will in turn choke off that economic recovery, leading to a fall in energy prices. Try to restart growth again, and the brick wall of energy costs magically reappears. Repeat ad infinitum.

It is hard to overstate the extent to which our daily lives are subsidised by cheap, plentiful oil. Every 24 hours, Ireland burns around 200,000 barrels. That’s the daily equivalent of the muscle power of 2.4 million men, each working for a full year.

Our entire way of life depends on abundant, inexpensive oil. This era is now drawing to a close. Five years ago, the Hirsch report published by the US department of energy concluded that the world has “never faced a problem” as difficult as peak oil, adding that: “without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary”. Oil peaking will be, it warned, “abrupt and revolutionary”. (more…)

Heavy weather for climate science

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

You would think that people whose business is the weather would be pretty informed about climate change. The reality is a great deal more complex. In the US, weathermen, for many the very public, trusted face of science, are split down the middle, with a prominent rump speaking out vociferously against human forcings driving climate change (assuming they even accept it’s occurring in the first place).

John Coleman is one of the most trusted faces on US television. He founded The Weather Channel back in the early ’80s and is something of an institution. Therefore, when Coleman in November 2007 blogged: “It is the greatest scam in history,” he began. “I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming: It is a SCAM”, he became an instant (septuagenarian) poster boy for the climate denier lobby. (more…)

Doing our best versus doing what’s required

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Yesterday afternoon, I was one of a panel of four from the ‘environmental’ field who met under the ageis of Common Purpose with a group of around 25-30 senior figures from the world of business, finance, the semi-state sector and beyond. The topic of the closed session was “exploring the ability of environmental leaders to effect change by inspiring others”.

The meeting is covered by the Charter House Rules (i.e. what’s said in the room stays in the room) but it was a useful opportunity to shoot the breeze with a spectrum of people well beyond the types who might usually find themselves discussing environment, energy and sustainability issues in Dublin on a Tuesday afternoon. On the positive side, there was a good deal less scepticism/hostility to climate science than has been portrayed in our media in recent weeks. (more…)

Attack on climate science has its OJ Simpson moment

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Bill McKibben has been at the forefront of efforts to alert the public to the dangers of climate change for more than two decades. Today he fronts 350.org, a website dedicated to setting a global CO2 ceiling of 350ppm. Below, he turns his considerable talents to an in-depth analysis of the concerted attack on science, specifically climate science, in recent months, a campaign which has, he writes, been “enormously clever, and enormously effective”.

__________________________________________________

Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal.  It was a mixed and judicious appraisal.  “The subject,” the reviewer said, “is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly.”  And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first president Bush announced that he planned to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.” (more…)

Do you believe in miracles?

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Bill Gates is for many the Dr Evil of the corporate world. His Microsoft behemoth has had a stranglehold on the world’s personal computer market for the last two decades, and wrung hundreds of billions out of users in the process. All of which makes Mr Gates ridiculously rich.

So rich in fact that his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is now possibly the world’s largest private charity. It recently pledged a staggering $10 billion to help develop and deliver vaccines for children in the so-called developing world. However, Mr Gates may have had something of an epiphany recently, in terms of his understanding of where the real threats lie. (more…)