Another climate imponderable: Global warming will cause increase in exercise, but exercise increases global
UK Times Flashback 2007: Exercise Causes Global Warming - Walking to the Shops ‘Damages Planet More Than Going By Car' - "Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated. Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby..."The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better."
Science says so: Global warming will make you exercise more in 2099!
Journal Nature study: "We combine our historical estimates with output from 21 climate models and project the possible physical activity effects of future climatic changes by 2050 and 2099. Our projection indicates that warming over the course of this century may increase net recreational physical activity in the United States. Activity may increase most during the winter in northern states and decline most during the summer in southern states."
"Here we conduct an empirical investigation of the relationship between meteorological conditions, physical activity and future climate change."
The study claims to have “proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false,” according to a press statement put out by Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo. Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo — a statistician, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively — released a study claiming to invalidate EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which allowed the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
The early claims of 97% 'consensus': In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades. Summaries of scientific assessments meant to inform decision makers, such as the United Nations’ Summary for Policymakers, largely fail to capture this vibrant and developing science.
Being “pro-science” has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it.
“If the oil and gas industry puts fracking wells in our neighborhoods, threatening our lives and our children’s lives, then don’t we have a moral responsibility to blow up wells and eliminate fracking and workers?” Andrew O’Connor wrote in a letter to the paper’s editors.
UPDATE: Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a “random shooting”. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be “random” occurrence. (Despite my personal defense training, I probably would have struggled to get that tight a “random” cluster with a semi-automatic pistol.) Nothing to see here, move along.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer reacts: "Imagine that Skeptics had a march one weekend at Penn State, past Michael Mann’s office. Then, sometime during that weekend, seven bullets were fired and hit windows and bricks around Mann’s office. How would you have felt about that? The same? And how do the police conclude a “random shooting” after only 6 hours since they were called to the scene?"
Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science? Happer: "We've had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It's not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma."
A MoneySuperMarket report listed Mozambique, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe as having “the most environmentally friendly people in the world,” while ranking Americans as being some of the least eco-friendly people on the planet. That may not be a bad thing, though, given the greenest countries also tend to be poor and run by authoritarian regimes.
"The March for Science should not simply be another way for us to express our opinions. It should not be an effort to pressure scientists and voters to agree with us. The scientific method is the best way we have of engaging in factual disputes."
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl on March For Science: "It's a political event organized by extreme leftists whom I can't respect and it tries to promote various pet causes of these extremists such as the affirmative action as well as junk science such as the climate hysteria to the status of science, and to get money for basically left-wing activists, although they want to pretend it's the money for science."