Home > Uncategorized > Bill McKibben’s “Do the Math” Road Show

Bill McKibben’s “Do the Math” Road Show

Post on November 16, 2012 by 18 Comments »

Bill McKibben, well-known author, scholar and advocate for taking action to address climate change, will speak at Duke University on Monday evening. His road tour – Do the Math – explains the terrifying arithmetic of the climate crisis and focuses on building a movement to avoid the most catastrophic effects of a warming planet.  If you need any convincing to get involved, this event will motivate you.  Mike Brune, CEO of the Sierra Club, will join McKibben.

Where: Page Auditorium, Duke University, 402 Chapel Drive, Durham NC

When: Nov. 19th, Doors open at 6 pm, program begins at 7 pm.

Cost: $5 – after you register you’ll be taken to the page where you can buy your tickets.

http://act.350.org/signup/durham-do-the-math/

 

 

 

No related posts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):18

  1. Frank Burns
    November 17, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    How does McKibbon’s brand of alarmism square with the fact that the earth hasn’t warmed in the past 16 years?

  3. Frank Burns
    November 17, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Greg, that was a cartoon. Here is the actual data, courtesy of climategare Phil Jones. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/climate-denier-phil-jones-reports-no-temperature-change-for-sixteen-years/

  4. gregflynn
    November 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    It was real data from the last 40 years. It was animated to make it simpler to understand, though apparently not simple enough for someone who relies on a clown like Goddard. You could find enough data points inside your man cave to prove that the earth is flat but the world outside is round and it’s getting warmer.

  5. Frank Burns
    November 17, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    This graph I presented comes from the Climate Research Center, Phil Jones of the Climategate cabal. Your data comes from some leftwing nutsite who gives you your talking points. Think for youself. My graph is based on worldwide data . I have no idea where your cartoon comes from. I would guess San Francisco.

  6. Doug Gibson
    November 19, 2012 at 9:47 am

    I got this from a leftwing nutsite called The Godard Institute for Space Science. No animation.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    The point of the animated graph at Skeptical Science, by the way, is that deniers like to look at short periods of time and say, “there’s practically no warming trend.” Others look at the long-range trend and say, “Whoah! look at that! The planet’s heating much faster than any other recorded period of geologic history!”

    I live in Asheville, by the way. Using your logic I could drive from Montreat to Candler along I-40 and “prove” to myself that Black Mountain is as high as the Appalachians get, and it’s all rolling hills until you get to the Mississippi. The Balsams would be kind of a rude awakening, but at least no one would get hurt by my ignorance.

  7. Lisa Finaldi
    November 19, 2012 at 10:26 am

    While I do not believe there is evidence to question whether climate change is occurring, the precautionary principle, which is policy in many countries and treaties may help skeptics think this issue through. Then your grandchildren won’t have to ask you why you didn’t heed the warnings.

    The principle states: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” – Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998
    .

  8. Frank Burns
    November 19, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Doug,
    Look at the scale of your graph. It begins in 1880. If you actually expand the scale to go back to the year 1000 or before, you will find no alarming trends. So now tell me who is using a small time scale? In fact you will see this type of cycling of world temperature patterns many times, when there were no CO2 emissions. Even at looking at your graph, it confirms my statement that there has been no warming of the earth for the past 16 years.

  9. Frank Burns
    November 19, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Lisa,
    I presume your precautionary statement would mandate that the US unilaterally reduce its CO2 emissions regardless of the impact to the economy and regardless of the world wide levels of CO2 emissions. Our emissions would go down and the emissions in Red China and India would go up by that amount, so what have we gained? You want us to increase the costs of energy and products to American consumers for an unproven theory? If Galileo had given in to your pressure, we would still be maintaining that the earth was the center of the universe.

  10. gregflynn
    November 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Frank, your lie about the last 16 years is just so blatant that it can’t go unchallenged. The graph posted by Doug clearly shows an increase. The recent fuss about the last 16 years has come after the UK Daily Mail published a misleading article about data released by the Met Office, the UK’s National Weather Service.

    The Met Office issued a response which included the following statement:

    The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

    As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

    Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

  11. david esmay
    November 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Frank, did you just compare Goddard and the idiots at wattsupwiththat to Galileo? Please for the sake of your family and all those who come to NC Policy Watch, seek professional help. Come out of the bunker, pick up the phone and call Berger’s new and improved mental health services, the ACA has made it easier and more accessible than ever.

  12. Frank Burns
    November 19, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Greg,
    The global warming alarmists don’t get to pick the scales and it is most certainly not a lie. The fact is and the MET office confirms it, the world temperatures are shown to be at a plateau, or in other words flat. Even alarmist scientists are changing their outlook: James Lovelock http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

    I refer you to the writings of Fritz Varenholt and Judith Curry.

  13. gregflynn
    November 19, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    What part of “temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period” don’t you understand?

  14. Frank Burns
    November 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    I don’t know what the accuracy of those gauges are but that sounds fairly flat to me.

  15. david esmay
    November 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    I see “alarmist” is Frank’s political lexicon of the week to enhance his new talking points gleaned from Heritage, Heartland, or any one of the right wing nut blogoshere hubs he’s been orbiting. This week we’re substituting scientist with alarmist. Coming soon, we will exchange wingnut for true conservative, climate change denier is now distinguished scientist, up is down, war is peace, ignorance is knowledge.

  16. Frank Burns
    November 19, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    David,
    You should keep in mind the words of Joe Friday, “Just the facts, Maam, Just the facts.” Everything else is just noise.

  17. Doug Gibson
    November 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    The point isn’t that there is only a “0.05 degree” increase. The point is that that’s the increase from a historically high year with identifiable factors that would have made it hotter than usual. The Met Office says that every decade has been higher than the last.

    And let’s do look at the scale since 1000 AD.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

    What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years.

  18. Frank Burns
    November 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Doug,
    Does anyone take that hocky stick graph seriously? I believe science has debunked it. Go back even further if you like. World temperatures have been higher in the past then today.

    tp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-paper-finds-siberian-temperatures.html