You’re kidding me, right? Have you studied the statistics of the last ten years of climate data? The mathematical representation of how well the linear trend fits the data over the last 10 years is about 0.37, while 0.99 or higher (measured in “nines” – 0.99 is “two nines”, 0.999 is three, and so on) is usually deemed a good statistical fit. It takes at least 15 years of trend to get even close to something that a statistician would think was statistically valid.

I’ve got a post in the works on this, but everyone who thinks that we’ve trended flat over the last 10 years is either a) attempting to manipulate the debate by selecting a statistically invalid time period that happens to support their frame, b) doesn’t the statistics involved in linear regressions of measured data, or c) is echoing the words of others because those words happen to reinforce their own opinions.

Whining and nonsense to the contrary can be summarized as anecdotal evidence and the incorrect assumption that correlation = causation.

I just returned from the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas where Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, T. Boone Pickens, Mayor Bloomberg and others were crafting clean energy agendas to take to both conventions to inform party platforms on these issues.

Any word of that?

While it’s encouraging to hear Bill Clinton talk about finding “economically beneficial ways to fight global warming,” and Joe Biden saying an Obama administration will rebuild the economy by “making alternative energy a national priority, creating 5 million jobs and finally, finally freeing us from the grip of foreign oil,” it seems highly ironic that the main sponsor appears to be the “Clean” Coal coalition.

Does freeing ourselves from foreign oil mean putting us at the mercy of the domestic coal industry?

And while it’s great to see Democrats rallying behind their candidates, the conventions represent a significant source of emissions if one considers the carbon footprint of all those signs, placards, parties, lights, travel, and round-the-clock coverage devoted to them.

Is anybody calculating those emissions? If so, is anybody offsetting them, and how?

Why is this important? Because the political campaigns will spend several billion dollars this year. If they offset their emissions at a rate of a half a percent of their spending, that would yield 10 – 20 million dollars which could be spent on clean and renewable energy.

Surely there’s a media angle in there somewhere?

Now offsetting is a last resort, not a first. But even if they printed all those placards on recycled paper with soy-based inks – there is still an enormous amount of material and energy going into these campaigns – with unavoidable emissions as a result.

Wouldn’t it help to lead by example? To demonstrate that all our actions have impact, and yet if we take responsibility for them, we can be powerful agents of change?

With the media distracted by name-calling and hyperbolizing, and “Clean Coal” footing the bill – is it any wonder we don’t hear these stories?

Great work here. Thank you for giving us the REAL news from the Convention!

(”$427 million. That’s what the oil and coal industries spent during the first half of 2008 on lobbying and advertising. They’re protecting their interests — and hurting ours.” Cathy Zoi, We Campaign)

Climate is supposedly a major issue at the greenest DNC in history. So why have the energy and global heating forums been so poorly attended by the press? We’re missing stories that desperately need to be told….

At least the one with the energy execs vs. the activists and present or former politicians had the seven reporters….