Skeptics, Solyndra and Setbacks, oh my: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

I sat down with Stewart Varney & Company this morning at Fox Business to talk about climate skeptics, Solyndra, and setbacks, oh my...

Here is the video:



And here is a link in case the viewer doesn't function in your browser: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

Trying to Change a Climate Skeptic's Mind? Don't Bother

[Artwork by SHEPARD FAIREY]

If I had a dollar for every time a self-proclaimed "climate hawk" or environmentalist said they had the key to convincing "climate skeptics," I'd create a pretty awesome adaptation and innovation fund that could invest in more worthwhile pursuits.

My good friends at The Nature Conservancy's Cool Green Science blog are usually pretty level-headed as far as environmentalists go. And today's post actually has some pretty good links and resources for information on the science of climate change.

Yet, the title sends the wrong message: "How to Change a Climate Skeptic's Mind."

Really?

I'm not convinced it's worth the effort. I also think there are three reasons the public doesn’t see eye-to-eye with scientists on climate change:

1.) People don't trust "Science," with a capital S.
2.) Environmentalists rely on fear as a motivator.
3.) The culture of NOW: climate change impacts are not immediate; concerns over health, safety, finances are immediate.

"Climate deniers" (I won't call them skeptics, for obvious reasons) are preying on all three points, just as good marketers will. They know how to hit home. The reaction from the so-called "climate hawks" is to promote the crisis with more panic.

And the climate scientists react with more...well, science.

What's wrong with this picture?

Fear is a good motivator when the danger is immediate. We've survived many encounters with predator species in our long evolution. Fear helps us respond to immediate threats – and quickly.

Over the long-term, however, fear breeds inertia. While the arguments continue, the climate changes, and we lose our share of the new economy. Nothing gets done.

As for the science, it needs to be simple, transparent, and backed up by real-life examples rather than datasets and models. People don’t respond to data and models, they respond to real, tangible things that touch their lives.

In his recent book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter opines that Americans mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before, believing that it's a political constituency that doesn't always have our best interests in mind.

We shouldn’t be talking about trying to "convince," but rather to trying to show. (Remember that old adage about showing not telling?)

Finally, the message must come from someone other than a liberal politician or member of the choir. It is too easy for people, the media, etc., to dismiss climate change and the environment as a "left issue."

It is a universal issue and will require a universal response.

I think Evan Girvetz, the blogger and a senior scientist with The Nature Conservancy’s Global Climate Change Program, was actually onto something with an earlier post called "Translating How Climate Change Will Impact Your Backyard."

At least that post brought the potential impacts closer to home.

Related articles

• Prince Charles blasts climate-change skeptics (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Climate "Skeptics" Respond to the Scientists' Letter to Congress | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Climate skeptics unpersuaded by extra-warm 2010 (reuters.com)
• Climate skeptic makes free speech appeal (blogs.nature.com)

Still Skeptical After All These (5) Years

Today marks the 5th Anniversary of "the green skeptic." The blog, if not the person.

People often ask me why I'm skeptical and what I'm skeptical about.

Well, the answer is, I believe that skepticism is a hallmark of human nature. Without it, we are sheep.

I think we need to constantly challenge our assumptions about the way the world works or how others tell us it works. We must question even what our leaders tell us, regardless of what side of the aisle their derriere rests upon or what side of the issue they claim to represent.

As the recent controversy around emails sent by and among climate scientists reveals: we are none of us -- left, right or center -- averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get our point across and win the minds of others.

So, I'll remain a skeptic and try to stop the bleating where I can.

Review: Early Spring: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World by Amy Seidl

It was late spring by the time I started reading Amy Seidl's book, Early Spring: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World, but it was hard to tell.

April showers had given way to, well, May showers; and some of the warmest days of the year had produce intense clouds of pollen that were producing equally intense allergy symptoms in every one I met.

Dramatic and even extreme changes in weather patterns are one of the expected changes of a warming world. Seidl offers several others, including some terrifying possibilities involving insects, disease vectors, and pathogens. Oh my.

Seidl has written a book that is equal parts nature memoir, climate witness journal (a new genre!), and environmental impact study. Ultimately, it is a book that is both scientific and personal without being either dry or cloying. A none too difficult feat.

Seidl is an accomplished ecologist and field scientist, and her book is informed and made informative by fact and research.

But Seidl is also a mother and her observations are infused with a mother's concern and love for her children and their world.

The two aspects are complementary and together make for an engaging mix. Seidl explains the science of climate change as well as the potential impacts. She does so by bringing the impacts home in a way that makes it accessible to her readers.

Early in the book, in fact, she identifies this as a concern of hers:

"From my window I see no glaciers. I don't live near the ocean nor has my family's trip to coastal Maine been put on hold. The forecast of the scale of change that the earth will experience in the next century is unfathomable, and yet we are asked to believe it now because the risk of not believing is too grave."

From her window, in her farm, in her hollow in rural Vermont, Amy Seidl witnesses changes to her local climate and asks us to bear witness, too, in ours. Not to stand idly by and let it happen but

"to look to the landscapes where we live and ask: how they are signaling what the future holds; how do they contain indicators of the oncoming flux? By seeing these signals and rediscovering life in the landscapes where we live, we will expand our relationship to life itself and wake to what it means to live in a warming world."

Amy Seidl has written a powerful and approachable book about our 21st Century dilemma and a call for "a new set of values" with which to deal with it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climate Change Is Biggest Health Threat Of 21st Century: Report (huffingtonpost.com)
• Dire warning: Climate change may displace up to 200 million (cnn.com)
• The gathering storm (boston.com)
• Climate adaptation is not enough (guardian.co.uk)
• EARTH MEANDERS: Radical Idealism: Come Home to Gaia (ecoearth.info)

The Climate is a Changin': According to New Fed Study

[This post was built from a press release by NOAA. My apologies, I'm traveling and wanted to make you aware of this new report.-GS]

Climate change is already having visible impacts in the United States, according to a new and authoritative federal study assessing the current and anticipated domestic impacts of climate change, and the choices we make now will determine the severity of its impacts in the future.

The report, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," compiles years of scientific research and takes into account new data not available during the preparation of previous large national and global assessments. It was produced by a consortium of experts from 13 U.S. government science agencies and from several major universities and research institutes. With its production and review spanning Republican and Democratic administrations, it offers a valuable, objective scientific consensus on how climate change is affecting -- and may further affect -- the United States, according to a press release.



"This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards," said Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "In keeping with our goals, the information in it is accessible and useful to everyone from city planners and national legislators to citizens who want to better understand what climate change means to them. This is an issue that clearly affects everyone."


The study finds that Americans are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather, drought and wildfire trends and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future. The study also finds that the current trend in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution is significantly above the worst-case scenario that this and other reports have considered.

The report is available for download online: http://www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts

Key findings can be found: here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Enough of the half-measures (greenmonk.net)
• Senate confirms top Obama science advisers Holdren, Lubchenco (sciam.com)
• China-U.S. climate talks started before Obama was elected, took office (dvorak.org)
• Scientists Urge Governments to Stem Ocean Acidification (takepart.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Nature: Magpies Recognize Themselves in Mirror

From New Scientist: "Self-recognition, once thought to be an ability enjoyed only by select primates, has now been demonstrated in a bird.

"The finding has raised questions about part of the brain called the neocortex, something the self-aware magpie does not even possess.

"In humans, the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror develops around the age of 18 months and coincides with the first signs of social behaviour.

"So-called 'mirror mark tests,' where a mark is placed on the animal in such a way that it can only be observed when it looks at its reflection, have been used to sort the self-aware beasts from the rest.

"Of hundreds tested, in addition to humans, only four apes, bottlenose dolphins and Asian elephants have passed muster.

"Helmut Prior at Goethe University in Frankfurt and his colleagues applied a red, yellow or black spot to a place on the necks of five magpies.

"The stickers could only be seen using a mirror. Then he gave the birds mirrors.Catch a glimpseThe feel of the mark on their necks did not seem to alarm them.

"But when the birds with coloured neck spots caught a glimpse of themselves, they scratched at their necks - a clear indication that they recognised the image in the mirror as their own.

"Those who received a black sticker, invisible against the black neck feathers, did not react.

"Self-recognition was thought to reside in the neocortex, but birds don't have one. Franz de Waal at Emory University in Atlanta points out that the magpie does nevertheless have a big brain. 'You need a large brain with a lot of connectivity,' he says. 'If it had been a sparrow, it would have been a problem.'

"The authors suggest that self-recognition in birds and mammals may be a case of convergent evolution, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviours or traits, although they arrive at them via different routes.

"De Waal agrees: 'Magpies are known for their ability to steal shiny objects and to hide away their loot. It's not too far-fetched that a master thief like a magpie has that perspective-taking ability,' he says, referring to the idea that the birds have a 'theory of mind.'"

But do they care what they look like in the morning?

(Blogging by BlackBerry; links to come.)

Clean Tech: Biomimicry May Unlock the Power of Solar

"In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine."

Read the full story by Anne Trafton from MIT and watch Dan Nocera's video description: http://tinyurl.com/5uu53h

Click To Play

(Composed on BlackBerry; UPDATED with embedded video content.)

Review: Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg

I remember the day when I was no longer at the top of the food chain.

I was flying into Lower Talarik Creek in southwestern Alaska with nothing but a fly rod, a note book, a sleeping bag, and hubris. As we circled the lagoon, the float plane pilot pointed out 10 or 12 brown bears that had already secured the fishing hole.

We landed anyway and the bears disappeared. The low brush was barely enough to hide them. They were gone, but they were out there.

Until you've experienced the fear, adrenaline rush, and deep respect you feel in close proximity with a large predator, you haven't really lived.

As a species we have a complex relationship with predators, whether large cats, bears, wolves, sharks, or killer whales. It's a mixture of deep-seated fear and loathing, along with time-honored respect and admiration. Some of it goes back so far in our DNA that it is no longer top-of-mind. Most of us don't have to worry about it, safely ensconced in our cities, towns, and bedroom communities.

But Will Stolzenburg worries about it plenty. So do the biologists, activists, ranchers and others he writes about in Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators, being published this month by Bloomsbury.

Stolzenburg, a former colleague at the Nature Conservancy and a writer for Science News, Conservation, and Nature Conservancy magazine, admits he is biased in favor of big predators. But he also understands the complexity of the psychology around their interaction with Homo sapiens.

"Over the thousands of millennia that our own lineage has spent in the company of killing beasts," Stolzenburg writes. "Competing with them for food and running from them as food -- the great meat-eaters have quite naturally etched themselves into the human persona."

Stolzenburg has written a compelling book, a short history of our relationship with predator species, which uses scientists and their stories to tell the story of that relationship and of the importance of predators on land and sea.

His story starts with an unlikely hero, the starfish (Pisaster ochraceous), which prevents mussels such as Myltilus californianus from crowding other species off rock habitats. Who amongst us would classify the sea star among the big charismatic megafauna? But they play an important role.

As do sea otters, which keep sea urchin populations down and minimizes their destruction of kelp forests. And then there are the usual suspects: wolves, coyotes and big cats that maintain a check on populations of smaller mammals and other species to avoid cascading, sometimes catastrophic changes.

Stolzenburg reviews the arguments surrounding the importance of predators to their habitats as well as the various attempts to extirpate them and to bring them back from the brink.

"The great predators are great barometers of our maturity as a species," he concludes. "If we can live with an animal that could just as soon eat us as an apple, if we can make room for an animal that traverses entire states looking for a mate, how better to define the art of compassion"

He follows the major thought leaders in conservation biology of the past 40 years on their journeys of discovery, enlightenment, and sometimes ridicule. The stories are fascinating and Stolzenburg makes the tales come to life in an almost Scott Turow novel way. (If you think scientist-researchers and field biologists lead boring lives in the academe, Stolzenburg will convince you otherwise.)

Equally fascinating are some of the depictions and explorations of the predators themselves, especially the chapters on killer whales and on "the loneliest predator," man. Fascinating, too, how recent some of the thinking is about species interaction and interdependency, until you realize that conservation biology as a field is relatively young.

Will Stolzenburg knows how to tell a story and his narrative is a good read. Part history, part mystery, part philosophical treatise, Where the Wild Things Were is an important book in the field of conservation, but also as a history of our species and our relationship with the others with which we share the planet.

Clean Tech: SciAm Solar Plan for US; 69 Percent by 2050

Scientific American has a feature piece by Ken Zweibel, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis on a potential future for solar energy in the United States.

Key concepts:

*A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S. electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

*A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

*Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.

*A new DC (direct-current) power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

*Unfortunately, this may require US$420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

Read the full article: SciAm Solar Plan

Clean Tech: Nanosolar Cells, or What the...?

A friend of mine invoked Warren Buffett in a comment on an earlier post about nanotechnology on this blog some time ago, and I'm straying out of my Warren Buffett territory with this one. In other words, I don't really understand this stuff enough to invest in it, but it's cool.

Now a new paper begins to explain nanotechnology's potential applications in the solar arena:

Researchers at Harvard University have made solar cells that are a small fraction of the width of a human hair. The cells, each made from a single nanowire just 300 nanometers wide, could be useful for powering tiny sensors or robots for environmental monitoring or military applications. What's more, the basic design of the solar cells could be useful in large-scale power production, potentially lowering the cost of generating electricity from the sun.

Each of the new solar cells is a nanowire with a core of crystalline silicon and several concentric layers of silicon with different electronic properties. These layers perform the same functions that the semiconductor layers in conventional solar cells do, absorbing light and capturing electrons to create electricity.

To make the cells, Charles Lieber, a professor of chemistry at Harvard University, modified methods he'd previously used to make nanowires that could serve as sensors or transistors. He then demonstrated that his solar cells can power two of his earlier nanowire devices, a pH sensor and a set of transistors.

"This paper provides the very first example of using a single silicon nanowire for harvesting solar energy," says Zhong Lin Wang, professor of materials science and engineering at Georgia Tech. He calls Lieber's work "breakthrough research in the field of nanotechnology."

This is wild stuff. And something to watch, even if we don't yet understand it.

See the story in Technology Review

Here's a link to Lieber's Paper

Photo credit: Charles Lieber, Harvard University, "a cross section of silicon nanowire that converts light into electricity. The image has been colored to highlight the functional layers of the device. Each layer is made of silicon modified with another material that gives it distinct electronic properties."

Social Entrepreneurs: Orri Vigfússon Saves Atlantic Salmon

Orri Vigfússon
Originally uploaded by greenskeptic

I just spent the morning with a group of folks at Ashoka meeting with Orri Vigfússon, the vodka tycoon (ICY), Ashoka and Goldman fellow, and flyfisherman who is single-handely rescuing Atlantic salmon from the brink.

His idea is a simple one: buy the netting rights from commercial fishers across the North Atlantic, essentially paying commercial fishermen not to fish salmon in the North Atlantic.

His organization North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF) has also brokered moratorium agreements with several national governments. These efforts have dramatically improved salmon fish stocks in numerous countries.

According to NASF estimates, commercial open-sea fishing in the Atlantic has dropped by more than 75 percent in the last 15 years, and river anglers in several countries in areas where nets have been closed have reported substantial increases in salmon catches.

NASF estimates that in excess of five million North Atlantic salmon have been saved to date.

Orri told us that he needs 2-3 years to complete his work of purchasing and retiring the netting rights, then he wants NASF to turn its attention to restoring the historic salmon rivers of Central Europe, which he says is possible.

See: Goldman Prize

And Salmon

(P.S. Orri is not telling us how big was his last salmon in the photo...)

Posted via Flickr

Global Climate Change: Can Gore-UN Panel Nobel Prize Tip New Green Economy?

Arguably, no one has done more over the past few years to elevate the issue of global climate change than Al Gore. Except perhaps the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now Mr. Gore and the UN panel are sharing the Nobel Peace Prize. Does this mean climate change, the issue, has reached the big time?

A larger question on my mind is: Will this recognition help us get our act together to do something about it?

Let's hope that someday the winner of the Nobel in Economics is the person who figures out how to address climate change action by transforming the global economy into something sustainable, profitable, and green.

A new green economy.

We need to make this moment the tipping point to turn green into gold.

Global Climate Change: Polar Bears Could Be Gone by 2050?

This news just in: Two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population could be gone by midcentury if predictions of melting sea ice hold true, the U.S. Geological Survey reported on Friday.

The fate of polar bears might be even more imperiled than that estimate, because sea ice in the Arctic might be vanishing faster than the available computer models predict, the geological survey said in a report aimed at determining whether the arctic bear should be classified as a threatened species.

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century," the report's executive summary said.

"Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative."

In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, noting polar bears depended on sea ice as a platform to hunt seals. Projected sea ice loss due to global climate change was believed to jeopardize the bears' range. (Reuters)

Here's my son on the situation (he'll be 54 then; I won't say how old I'll be...yikes): "People aren't doing enough to stop this. This is not good." I agree. I can't imagine a world without polar bears.

Global Climate Change: Coral Reefs Dying Faster Than Rainforests

New Scientist reports on a new study that show coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific are dying at a more rapid pace than rainforests. This isn't good news for us divers...

Coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific are disappearing twice as fast as tropical rainforests, say researchers. They have completed the first comprehensive survey of coral reefs in this region, which is home to 75% of the world's reefs.

John Bruno and Elizabeth Selig of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the US compiled data from 6000 studies that between them tracked the fate of 2600 reefs in the Indo-Pacific between 1968 and 2004. They used the extent to which reefs were covered by live coral as an indication of their health.

"The corals themselves build their limestone foundation, so if the surface of the reef is not covered with live tissue that is continually secreting it, the reef can erode fairly quickly," explains Selig.

She and Bruno found that coral cover declined by 1% per year on average between 1968 and 2004. For comparison, tropical rainforests declined by 0.4% per year between 1990 and 1997 (Science, vol 297 p 999).

Read the full story: Reefs on the Brink

Innovation: Worldmapper Ecological Footprint Map

Worldmapper, a collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest, has developed an "ecological footprint" map showing the area needed to support a population’s lifestyle.

Variables include consumption of food, fuel, wood, and fibers. Pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions, is also counted as part of the footprint.

No surprises here: The U.S., China, and India have the largest ecological footprints.

Worldmapper offers a caveat: "Without knowing population size we cannot understand what this means about individuals’ ecological demands. Large populations live in China and India. In both territories resource use is below the world average. The per person footprint in the United States is almost five times the world average, and almost ten times what would be sustainable."

Check it out: Worldmapper Ecological Footprint

Also, there are 366 maps to choose from...have fun, poke around...check out the Botanical Gardens map or the map of Population or Access to Electricity.

The world as you've never seen it before, indeed.

Global Climate Change: TNC's Bill Stanley in "Plenty"

My Nature Conservancy buddy Bill Stanley is one of the smartest climate guys I know. Now he's been featured in Plenty magazine (love their tag line: "It's Easy Being Green") in an interview following on his recent bicycle trip across Montana, a kind of working vacation that allowed Bill to take the climate change pulse of real people.

Along the way, he explains why the Conservancy is focused on climate change and what they are doing about it.

And, while you're at it, check out the Conservancy's Climate Change calculator, recently featured on NBC's Today Show.

Read the interview: Plenty of Bill

Global Climate Change: Fuzzy Math? Al Gore on "The Big Idea"

Al Gore appeared on Donnie Deutsch's "The Big Idea" last night to promote tomorrow's "Live Earth" concerts. He was passionate, funny, and direct. (Where was that conviction 7 years ago?)

Does anyone know whether Al's answer to Donnie's question about the human costs was accurate? He said "A one meter rise in sea level will create 100 million climate refugees."

I'm not in a place where I can confirm or check his math, but it seems worth checking...can anyone confirm?

Global Climate Change: Flannery's 10 True Climate Predictions

Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, stirred up some controversy earlier this week when he created a list of "ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true)" in The Times (of London):

1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893).

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists).

3) That sea-level would start rising.

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson).

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900).

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists).

8) That tropical diseases would increase.

9) That food crops would be adversely affected.

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean.

See the complete article, including links to original source material, more lists, and rebuttals: Flannery in Times Online

Global Climate Change: A Vacation Odyssey, Will NC Beaches Be Gone?

Vacationing on the barrier islands off the coast of North Carolina, I'm always struck by the fragility of the landscape here and, indeed, the perseverance of the human communities along this chain of islands.

Now a new study called "Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources," analyzes the impact of rising sea levels on property values, recreation and quality of life in coastal North Carolina.

The study was conducted by researchers from Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, University of North Carolina Wilmington and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Their conclusion?

* North Carolina's coastal topography makes it especially vulnerable to sea level rise and hurricanes -- both economically and ecologically.

*The value of property at risk to sea-level rise in just four NC counties is US$6.9 million.

* A one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses over the next 75 years.

* Recreational fishing and beach trips also are vulnerable to increased erosion from sea level rise and hurricanes, resulting in potential loss of recreational and tourism benefits totalling US$3.9 billion.

* Business losses from hurricanes could increase by as much as US$157 million per storm event by 2080, potentially reaching US$1 bn per category 3 storm event.

All of this is sobering news for communities that derive their livelihoods in large part from an annual influx island visitors and second-home owners.

According to the study, by the year 2080, 14 of the 17 recreational swimming beaches in southern North Carolina could, without adaptation, erode all the way to the road, eliminating the possibility for beach recreation in those areas.

As the beach diminishes, lead author John Whitehead, a professor of economics at Appalachian State University, people will spend less time and money at the coast as a result of the lost recreational opportunities. Using economic models, Whitehead estimated the lost economic value for southern North Carolina beaches would total $3.9 billion over the next 75 years.

Meanwhile, coastal developers and private home communities are springing up in very unlikely places. Condos, golf courses, and resorts are popping up along the edges of coastal spits and dunes, and at least one development advertised its "deep water homes."

Deep water homes? Now there's a concept whose time may be coming. Scuba gear included.

In another curious development in a recent Coastal Living magazine: the state of Colorado advertized its charms to CL readers. Do they know something we don't know?

Read the full or summary reports: Measuring Impact NC

Global Climate Change: Nature.com Featuring Climate Change Forum

In May 2007, nature.com is launching a news website dedicated to providing thorough investigative reporting on global climate change. Nature Reports: Climate Change will be a one stop-shop for in-depth news, features, opinions, commentary and analysis.

As the latest addition to the Nature Reports series (which includes Avian Flu and Stem Cells), Nature Reports: Climate Change will explore 'the news behind the science and the science behind the news' of important areas of scientific research. This resource hub on global warming will cover the science of climate change through reviews, research highlights and features, as well as casting a wider net to cover the larger implications of climate change for policy, society, and the economy.

A key feature will be its interaction with the wider community, initiating dialogue, debate and discussion through regular blogs and podcasts.

Here, are links to nature.com's existing resources on climate change: news@nature.com's climate change in focus, Nature's web focuses on climate change topics, and news@nature.com's special on regional climate change.