If you guessed an overgrown leprechaun after losing a water balloon fight, then go to the back of the class. The answer is actually the oldest living organism on Earth, Posidonia oceanica.

Posidonia oceanica is a seagrass found as low as 100 feet deep in the Mediterranean Sea where, according to Australian scientists, it has kept on keepin’ on between 12,000 and 200,000 years, though scientists believe the plant to be at least be 100,000 years old. One of the scientists who sequenced the seagrass’ DNA told The Telegraph that the reason the plant was so long in life was due to its ability to clone itself through asexual reproduction. +15 Charisma awarded to seagrass for making comic book science a real life science!

While all of this is very awesome, there is a black cloud looming over this otherwise sunny story: Posidonia oceanica may not be around my longer. Yes, thanks to changes in the climate the seagrass has started to decline.

“The seagrass in the Mediterranean is already in clear decline due to shoreline construction and declining water quality and this decline has been exacerbated by climate change,” Professor Carlos Duarte told The Telegraph. “As the water warms, the organisms move slowly to higher altitudes.”

Great. Just great, humanity. Thanks to us, we’re about to kill off the OLDEST living thing on our planet. I can barely comprehend what a lifetime of 100,00 years for a plant must be like, but it’s still profoundly annoying that even something so elegantly ancient as Posidonia oceanica is not immune to the environmental apocalypse wrought by our globe-warming asses.

According to Stein, the bad news came after reps for the agency asked him his views on global warming. Stein says he told them he was not certain that global warming was a man-made phenomenon. He also told them that, as a matter of religious belief, he believed that God, not man, controlled the weather.

Stein says that Kyocera soon withdrew its offer and got someone else to play a Stein-ish character in its commercials instead.

Some folks think Stein got a raw deal.

In a Reuters/Ipsos poll [PDF] conducted in September of last year, it was revealed that more Americans than ever believe the planet is warming. In 2010, 75% of Americans said they thought the world’s temperature had been going up in the past 100 years. In 2011, 82.5% said they thought it had. And, it’s a bipartisan stance. The number of Democrat converts went from 87% to 91%. But Republicans went from 60% to 66%. That’s a 1% higher increase than Democrats.

The big question, of course, is, “Why?”

In that same poll, an interesting thing happened. Overall, belief that global warming is human-caused only went down 4% (6.5% among Dems; 0.3% among Repubs). Belief in “natural causes” went up 3% in the year the poll covered, mostly due to Republicans. They had an 11% increase in the “natural causes” category. Democrats, on the other hand, swung to the “both equally” category by almost 10%. 5% of Independents left the “human causes” and went almost exclusively to the “natural causes” camp.

Of course, this is a study of the Average Joe’s opinions, and the fact that they change. According to Wikipedia scientists overwhelmingly believe that the globe is warming and that it is caused mainly by human activity. On the other hand Petition.org has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don’t believe in manmade global warming. And then there are the “climategate” emails which made public manipulation of the data by the scientists credited with creating the infamous controversial “hocky stick” graph. That’s the graph that was pointed to as proving man caused global warming. There are scientific opinions on both sides of the issue of whether man has actually caused global warming and even whether global warming is still occurring. This certainly indicates that the science isn’t settled as some have claimed and that an opinion on either side should not be the basis of employment.

But, Ben Stein is not a scientist. He is pretty much an Average Joe (albeit an actor) and he is entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. The biggest disturbing thing was that such an opinion question was asked, and that someone had the temerity to fire him after he couched his answer in terms of his faith.

If the whole thing came down to whether Kyocera and its representatives thought someone who did not believe climate change was exclusively man-made was worthy of being associated with their name, then they are going to have a real problem with 71.66% of their customer base.

Now, a big batch of thousands of new emails has come out. The Telegraph’s James Delingpole pulls some snippets “he likes” out of the batch:

/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

The CRU says it has no evidence of a recent breach, and suggests that “if genuine” these are just more from the original batch that were withheld. They also point out the timing of this recent round as being interesting, as the UN is getting ready for climate talks in South Africa on November 28.

The CRU put out the following statement:

While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the University and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so.

Emphasis CRU’s.

The emails and programming code notes clearly show that the science of anthropological global warming has been a fraud from the beginning. The CRU has routinely adjusted their own algorithm in order to provide the desired temperature result during certain time periods. View and search the raw emails here.

Within the global warming algorithm various programmers have written notes (which is pretty normal in programming code) that detail the deception. Here are some examples:

=====

; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

– Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have

;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

====

>>> Note that all of the above text including the bold text is all actual notes from CRU programmers.

The emails also show a pattern of deception at the highest levels of CRU scientists and illustrate their methods of discrediting other scientists who disagree with their warming orthodoxy. To top it all off the CRU scientists have only now admitted deleting all of their original data leaving just their massaged results which makes peer review impossible. 

Amazingly, the U.S. mainstream media including CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post have hardly mentioned any of this! This lack of coverage by the MSM lets the Obama administration ignore the issue entirely and continue to push cap and trade legislation that is based on the accuracy of this very data. A week after the data fudging evidence was uncovered President Obama’s climate czar, Carol M. Browner stated the Administrations position. "[The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has] been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real." 

Fortunately, the Internet media from Twitter to independent  news sites like Politico and RealClearPolitics are covering the issue with the vigor it deserves. The mainstream media has been displaced by the Internet as the discoverer of truth. Of course, the Internet includes mainstream media but it is not controlled by it, and thus no coverups will stay covered for long. 

(Update) The head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Phil Jones is stepping down pending an investigation by the University of East Anglia.

- Read Statement -

(Update) Man caused global warming may be nothing more than a hoax. The actual temperature readings have been deleted by the CRU making review impossible. A leading academic has now condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. Here’s more on that story…

Still no mention of this controversy on the evening news of the major broadcast networks. It’s ironic that these same news organizations are in Washington right now discussing the Internet’s impact on their business model while they continue not to cover news that the Internet media is covering. For years the major networks have covered global warming as fact — but now no coverage when there is significant evidence that global warming caused by humans is fiction. Interesting….

(Update) A complete PDF has been produced that succinctly explains Climategate: PDF Doc.

Apparently, the BBC was first to receive the climate files from a whistleblower in the CRU. They actually held the files for a month and did nothing. The whistleblower then uploaded the files to a small Internet board based in the United States which exposed the "fudging" of the data to obtain their desired political result. Amazingly, the Internet Media is still the main source for coverage of this world warming scandal.

Stewart continued, "It’s nothing, he was just using a trick .. to hide the decline. It’s just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to … trick you … into not knowing about  … the decline.

But here’s what’s great about science, in disagreements we go back and look at the raw data (clip showing data destroyed) … Oh for fxxxks sake! Why would you throw out raw data from the 80′s … I still have Penthouses from the 70′s!

The Internet world however has opened up new doors where one can reduce their footprint significantly and offset that which cannot be eliminated. As we at Beanstalk have constantly strived to reduce our footprint and have just recently purchased carbon offsets to “zero out” that which we cannot eliminate, I thought it well-timed to write an article on the ease and relative low cost of doing this in hopes that other businesses would follow suit.

First, let’s take a look at a problem.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that global warming is an issue. In case you need more information on this you simply need to watch the news. But that’s not the problem, that’s the symptom – the problem is pollution and the rapid production of greenhouse gases. Or is that a symptom too? I would present to you that perhaps the production of greenhouse gases is in itself a symptom of another problem, a problem we all succumb to too often – the problem being that the issues seem to large to fix.

When one looks at the issue of global warming one can’t help but think of the issue as too large to be tackled. The problem is similar to recycling (also important). What difference is one little scrap of paper going to make in the garbage can? When 7 billion people do it, quite a bit is the answer.

Second, let’s take a look at a solution.

I’ve got to tip my hat to Google and other massive companies that put up solar panels and invest millions of dollars to reduce their impact on the world. Unfortunately Beanstalk is not as blessed as the fine folks at Google and we just don’t have those kinds of resources to “go green”. So what can we do?

Here are some steps that Internet companies can take to help further reduce and/or offset their impact on the world around them. Before I get into that I’d like to extend a big thanks to Erik Blachford over at TerraPass for answering some questions for me and providing additional information for this article and how we can all help out.

1. Reduce paper consumption – One of the easiest things we did at Beanstalk was to reduce our paper consumption. We print double-sided when possible, we use the reverse side of paper for note paper when we can and we always make sure to reuse any paper possible.

2. Recycle whatever possible – There’s the recyclables that we all know about and can recycle conveniently on the curb. The papers and aluminum and plastics. There are recycling programs available however for a ton of other products that we often don’t think of. From soft plastics (all those plastic bags and even the plastic covers on the CD sleeves your hardware drivers come on) to Styrofoam – most everything can be recycled. Even your old computers and the batteries that power your wireless devices. It might cost a bit to drop off or have picked up but how much is your planet worth?

3. Offset your impact – Companies such as TerraPass enable others to offset the carbon emissions they produce through transportation, heating and electricity and create clean energy in an amount that will reduce future carbon dioxide emissions by an equal amount. Basically, this enables you to zero out your impact. Of course, producing less pollution and carbon dioxide is the best option but you’re running an Internet business – you need power (if for nothing else than for your web hosting). Now we can offset this impact in a positive way.

For years we at Beanstalk have sought to fulfill the first two items in this list. This year we have added in the third and would invite others to do the same. The more we do now, the better the world we leave for those coming after.

Rather than babble on further about all you can do, I’m going to simply put some of the better Q&A information I got from Erik at TerraPass and provide some resources to help those of you who would like to make their office (even if it’s a home office) a greener place.

Q&A With Erik Blachford:

Q – What can businesses do to help reduce their emissions?

A – The first step is to measure emissions, which most of our Carbon Balanced Business customers do using our website calculator (www.terrapass.com/business). For most businesses, the main sources of emissions are from things like office or manufacturing energy usage, employee travel and commuting, data centers, and the like. Once businesses have done the calculations, they are in a great position to understand where they make reductions. For example a company whose employees travel often can look for opportunities to combine multiple trips into one, saving on plane rides (saves the company money as well), or skip trips altogether. And a surprising number of companies can save energy in obvious ways such as turning the lights off at night (if the janitorial staff comes through at night, perhaps they can be rescheduled to come during the day). Another popular idea is to provide employees incentives, monetary or otherwise, to take public transportation, ride bikes or walk to work. Quite often companies are already providing subsidies for employee parking, so this again can be a way for businesses to save both the environment and some money.

Q – Internet businesses tend to produce far less waste than most other industries in the form of paper and other waste products. Is electricity really that big a source of pollution?

A – Yes it is, especially for companies that run data centers, though it depends on where the companies and data centers are located. Companies in Quebec, Canada for example are likely getting virtually all of their power from Hydro Quebec, so would have a very low carbon footprint, whereas those in a US state like West Virginia get virtually all of their power from coal-fired power plants, so have very high carbon footprints for their energy use. Electricity is about 79.5% of carbon emissions from commercial energy consumption. Author’s Note: This is not to say that people in Quebec should waste energy. That which they don’t use can be used elsewhere thus reducing the footprint of other areas. In fact, this is one of the fundamentals of carbon offsets. That which can be created cleanly should be used to offset that which cannot.

Q – What is a carbon offset?

A – I would say “a carbon offset represents an independently verified permanent registered reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in an amount equal to the emissions that are being offset.

Other Important Resources For A Green Office

Tip For A Greener Office – An article by the Environmental Defense Fund with some great tips for a more environmental office. We try to follow as many of these tips as possible ourselves. I recommend that you do the same (and it’s pretty easy – they’re all common sense).

Going Green At Work – Discovery Channel’s Planet Green offers these ten tips for going green in the office. Again, common sense but then – the right thing usually is.
 

Heather Hopkins serves as Hitwise UK’s vice president of research, and found that Wikipedia is “receiving one quarter of visits from searches for ‘global warming.’”  The runners-up – Global Warming, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and The Royal Society – received just 16.96, 5.45, and 3.63 percent, respectively.

“Google, which accounts for 79% of UK searches, largely dictates the flow of UK web traffic,” notes Hopkins, and Wikipedia ranks first for “global warming” on Google’s UK and US sites.  It also ranks first on Yahoo’s UK & Ireland site.

Wikipedia gives a poorer performance on Yahoo’s US site (third place), and only ranks tenth on Ask’s sites in both countries, but as Hitwise’s latest numbers show, not many UK users care about those engines.

Yet for UK users who care about global warming, Hopkins’s report does highlight a problem.  “The increased interest in global warming raises interesting challenges for policy makers and those seeking to influence public opinion within the UK, as traffic is largely being directed to US websites,” she writes.  As for how big a problem this is, you’ll have to decide for yourself – opinions about global warming vary widely, and it is, after all, a worldwide issue.

As part of the promotional effort for the campaign, Yahoo has several activities planned. One of them builds on the wildly popular Yahoo Answers, and features a question from Speaker Pelosi: ‘Congress is working on legislation to address global warming – what would you like to see included?’

At press time, 15,231 answers had been posted by Yahoo users in response. Participants who have their answer picked as a

There. That was journalistic. Objective, too.

The joint effort of Google and the Global SchoolNet Foundation, the Speakout was facilitated by the use of Google Docs & Spreadsheets. Students in over 80 classes and science clubs in 20 countries brainstormed ideas and published them on the Web so others could build on them.

Here are the top ten student ideas:

1. Include global warming/climate change in school curricula (as part of National Science Standards), so when the students are in charge they can make educated decisions.

2. Increase availability of low-interest Energy Efficient Mortgages to support homeowners who increase the energy efficiency of their homes.

3. Put light sensors in all office and school buildings so all lights go off when the rooms are empty.

4. Require that all products contributing to global warming be marked with a specific color (e.g., chemical pesticides could be marked with a red sticker for being extremely dangerous to the environment).

5. Use less paper; use the back of the paper to print on or write on; use recycled paper.

6. Plant more trees to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

7. Teach recycling techniques in classes and school-wide programs.

8. Make recycling mandatory in all public facilities, such as schools, parks and beaches.

9. Do public service announcements on TV featuring celebrities promoting carpooling, walking, riding bikes, using public transportation, conserving electricity and recycling.

10. Give grants and tax credits to companies that invest in alternative, sustainable, emission-free fuel technologies while ending such subsidies for fosssil fuel production.

Of course, that all assumes global warming exists – an assumption which a few, vastly ignored scientists have refuted. Though the dissenting view is more in line with Occam’s guidance by noting we may be experiencing normal climate fluctuations over longer periods of time and this is the first time we’ve been able to measure it, you’re not really allowed to say that anymore.

The high-falutin’ skeptic, one that doesn’t mind the reverse skepticism of his conspiracy theories, remembers the close ties Google has with former Vice President, FUD campaigner, and Inconvenient Truth peddler, Al Gore. He also remembers the sharp-tongued climatologists calling Global Warming “junk science” providing convenient truths for Gore’s inconvenient argument.

But then again, those citing that particular article the most, namely Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla), have the biggest political axes to grind. Inhofe has dropped a slew of press releases aimed at Al Gore and global warming believers, based mostly on that one, very convincing article.

And then you learn that Inhofe’s campaign finances come primarily from the Oil & Gas, Utilities, Airline, Automotive, Mining, and Chemical Manufacturing sectors. Chicken or egg? asks Joe Lewis. Do they contribute because he’s anti-global warming or is he anti-global warming because they contribute?

The world may never know and neither will I. But fishy’s fishy anyway you smell it.

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

• “Require companies to limit the amount of packaging an item can have and it must be recyclable.”
• “Teach recycling techniques in classes and school-wide programs.”
• “Put light sensors in all office and school buildings so all lights go off when the rooms are empty.”
• “Unplug all electronics from the wall when they’re not in use.”
• “Use solar panels in the construction of new homes and office buildings.”
• “Use less electricity, turn off the TV, read books, walk, run, bike, surf, play tennis.”
• “Enforce laws about littering.”

On a related note, An Inconvenient Truth has been released on DVD.

*I’m counting the days till they rename this product.

Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Philipp Lenssen from Germany, author of 55 Ways to Have Fun With Google, shares his views & news on the search industry in the daily Google Blogoscoped.