The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic. Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office …
clarify and offer to all the data
If Hansen is correct, let him offer the raw data to the world so that other models can put the numbers through their paces. From my reading, I think the warming has a big man-made component to it. I also think a dependence on fossil fuel is madness, as it leads to wars and economic dependence on many unpleasant regimes, and also is risky, given the finite supply. We further know that it is dangerous (smog, oil spills, etc). So it makes sense for many reasons to cut down the foosil fuel use, and if it even *might* be adding to global warming, why not be sensible and cut it out of our lives?
Scientists can never be definite about anything when they can't control all the variables. It's weight of probabilities. But that is good enough to run huge technical industries on, and good enough to presume on when planning a response to global warming. But science itself is not served if some scientists become too in love with their own data. It has been seen before that unconscious bias easily creeps into selection of data and interpretation. Let's have NASA put all the raw logs online.
And no doubt...
Hansen will be calling for the jailing of Theon as well now.
At last, an outbreak of common sense! As for jailing people, perhaps Hansen should be first in the queue...
Won't be too long now until the pro-MMCC charade comes tumbling down. Maybe we can jail the proponents for trying to force us to spend millions (billions?) on their crackpot schemes.
A lot of good points
First, Senator Inhofe is not the most objective person out there. So be careful of what he says.
However, Dr. John Theon hit on a lot of good points:
"Some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists."
That is the first good point. What happens is the sheep take this manipulated or massaged data and run with it like it was Gospel. They neither question it nor allow you to question it either. In short, climate change is a religion. People like Al Gore and James Hansen are the clergy. People believe what the clergy says blindly never bothering to question and want to burn you at the stake if you do. The Spanish Inquisition is alive and well. There is just one problem: true science welcomes questioning.
"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting."
There is a reason for that. James Hansen was a big time John Kerry supporter and donor. During the 2004 presidential campaign, James Hansen came out publicly and said the Bush administration was trying to silence him; it was a lie. James Hansen was making public Armageddon speeches on company time and the Bush administration told him to stop. A reasonable request, because for most other people doing such an act will make you unemployed. Ever since that lie, the Bush administration was afraid to ask him to stop again. So here we have it today, James Hansen is still employed by NASA and still massaging data to fit his viewpoint and the laity are still blindly believing him without ever questioning why the past became colder several years later.
And of course, there is a reason why the clergy is not transparent with their data. Facts are a climate change advocate's worst nightmare. They know this, so it is not in their interest to show proof.
I suspect Dr John will be wheeled in for more observation than he expected!
Lets see what turns up under the microscope.
So he's not against the idea
of anthropogenic climate change as such, just against the utterly unscientific crap that's bounded about to scare people and try to push the green agenda.
Are there any wholly scientific, properly recreateable (to nab a useful term "open source") climate models that predict anthropogenic Climate Change?
Also, are there any long-term graphs that suggest it could actually be a real effect?
How much was he paid to change his mind?
(As someone who has lived through over 40 seasons, I can vouch for the fact it is getting warmer here in the UK. I have photos of deep snow at our home in the 1970s. Where is it today almost 25 years later? We get a sprinkling, some sleet, and that's winter! And what about the effect on the natural world, with animals, plants, fish, birds and more showing signs of distress or confusion.)
Follow the money. Because the people who have a lot of it thanks to oil and coal are the sort who don't really give a damn about nature and will be quite happy in their manmade solitude sitting at their terminals managing their stock portfolios. If they actually cared, they would use their immense wealth to fast track in a Manhatten Project like manner the development of practical alternative energy production and distribution methods. Google 'Better Place' for a good example.
I blame the elves
If it's not man made then who made it? I blame elves, little pointed eared elves, dancing around and cooling themselves off with cold drinks. Each year chip off ever more of the glaciers for their drinks.
Yes, the increase in CO2 is coincidental, it's because the elves dancing see, as they dance they breath out more CO2.
I repeat what I said to the earlier story, runaway global warming is impossible, because all the CO2 we're creating is from burning fossil fuels, which was just plant matter which grey from CO2 in the atmosphere... Regardless of the scientists opinion, the earth's CO2 must have been insufficient to cause runaway global warming to get where we are today.
Now how do we fix the damn elves?
I'm sure that Theon is correct that Hanson "was never muzzled" when Theon was his boss. But that's 20 years ago, under the first Bush administration, not 4 years ago under the second Bush administration, which was the one that Hanson claimed was muzzling him.
Yet another case of the Inhofe blog writers massaging the facts to attack their political opponents.
Change you can Believe in ...... ur Wishes Our Command.
"At last, an outbreak of common sense! As for jailing people, perhaps Hansen should be first in the queue..." ... By James Pickett Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 14:59 GMT
That is obviously his valid worry/concern/realisation.
"If they actually cared, they would use their immense wealth to fast track in a Manhatten Project like manner the development of practical alternative energy production and distribution methods" ..... By Wonderkid Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 15:24 GMT
Seconded, Wonderkid. You wouldn't happen to have Barack's HEROMale/Email Address, would you?
There is a Cunning Plan AIField and Afoot in CyberSpace Commands. Commendable Comments ... via Registered Post for Secured Transparent dDelivery.
climate change/climate skepticism is a religion
@Wade Burchett: opposition to climate change is also a religion. I'm not going to debate how much of either religion is based in truth, how much pure ignorant BS - it doesn't much matter because the consequences of picking the wrong one are highly asymetric.
If the climate skeptics are wrong picking their side means global disaster.
If the climate changers are wrong we spend money now on things that needed doing before the fossil fuel runs outs in any case. Get it right and there's no downside to anyone but the oil industry. I'd quite like a world where desperate politicians have less excuse to start wars to grab the oil.
The people we should all be pillorying are the sharks proposing bizarre schemes that siphon money from technology we need to whatever makes them the fastest buck regardless of whether its effective.
"some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results."
Hmmm, scientists watching too many politicians and government ministers, I suspect.
If we can't trust the scientists, no wonder the politicians are all starting to think they are gods.
You have to modify data, it is simply not practicle not to do so and as a NASA climate person he should know that.
If you get datasets from human observation, weather stations, seaborne observation and various satellites, they will all have differently observed values, modelers then use these datasets to make the most likely values for their modells. Some areas have lots of datapoints others have many missing data points, others have totally out of range results which are clearly crap, this has to be dealt with as part of the modelling process.
RE: RE: How much was he paid to change his mind?
Ooooooh, is it getting hotter? Must be teh Carbonz!!!!!!!!!1!!11!11!1!
I suggest you learn what Anthropogenic Climate Change means and what the opposing theories are -- you never know, you might learn something. ;~)
The major problem with the debate on Anthropomorphic Climate Change is it is rife with ad hominem attacks, from both sides. Theon attacks Hansen, Wonderkid attacks Theon, any minute now this board will be full of US-sounding posters attacking you and Hansen and anyone else who thinks that CO2 can be in any way related to warming.
Question is, how did this field become so obsessed with personal attacks as an MO? What other scientific field is full of people shouting about how so-and-so is a liar and is only in it for the money (e.g. big oil on one side or continued funding on the other)? I don't know of one, but my guess is that if there is one the science in question will also impinge on the ability of somebody to make large wodges of cash...
...idiotic braying from the "mankind is so tiny and inconsequential" rabble who probably privately advocate, for example, the dumping of all sorts of pollutants into the oceans "because they're big enough and it'll all mix in". Anything to keep the dimwitted status quo, of course.
Yes it has got warmer in the UK over the past 40 years. Now is that because of the solar cycle, greenhouse gases, or giant invisible squid in the upper atmosphere holding hands?
There's a gap between your observation and what causes the phenomenon that you are unable to explain. All you seem to have is hunches and intuitions.
Maybe that's good enough and all the scientists in the world can retire - science is not necessary when we have Wonderkid's feelings!
Funny that. A lot of snow here in Europe this year. The locals are all saying it's the first decent lot seen since, er, the 1970s. I take it the winter news footage from England was all faked?
But then one year does not a climate trend make. Then again, neither do 30......
"The UK is warmer than it was"
The problem is that local weather does not necessarily reflect global climate
Especially with the UK being abnormally warm for its latitude, thanks to the Gulf Stream and hot air from the continent, it's possible that global cooling could cause the UK to be hotter, or global warming to cause it to be cooler, or anything at all really, because while you can guess what will happen to the weather patterns, you can't really _know_ unless it happens (prediction is only part of science, experimentation is required to verify, and you can't really do that)
My personal view is that mankind has certainly pumped out enough stuff to possibly have an effect on the climate, but I'm not sure what, and the evidence isn't conclusive, and by the nature of things nothing can be proved anyway, but not being able to predict how we might screw things up isn't an excuse for not trying to prevent it, when there's at least circumstantial evidence that said screw-up might be happening. Also, with fossil fuels being strictly limited (even if we don't know what that limit is) then we'd better work out the most efficient way of making use of them and working out where we can do without, because we're going to have to some day or other.
Oh, and people who equate "biofuel" with "green" should be whacked upside the head with a clue hammer. It still results in the burning of hydrocarbons, and it also requires lots of land to grow (which implies either deforestation and water use, or a reduction in land for food). "A possible solution to fossil fuels", yes. "Green", no.
Doesn't necessarily mean the weather will get warmer. If we accept that increased atmospheric CO₂ levels lead to increased absorption of solar energy, instead of warming things up, that may just stir the atmosphere up so we get more storms and more violent storms than in the past.
Sadly, we have two opposing groups neither of which is dedicated to uncovering the truth: the True Believers (the earth mother brigade who seize on any bit of cockamamie environmental nonsense without any real understanding) and the Let's Make Money While We Can group, who don't give a damn that they may be fouling their nest, or anyone else's, as long as they're making money doing so.
Where is Diogenes when we need him?
PS: Let me add a third anti-truth group to piss on: the Attention Whores. Self-explanatory, I believe. Or, if you prefer, you may call them the Publicity Twats.
He is just saying the science done is bad ...
Just because the science work is sloppy doesn't mean the hypothesis is false .. just that there is no truth that it is true.
It doesn't help that the people trying to address the problem have a tendency to ... fudge the data ... make hysterical claims and provably false statements.
Most scientists feel strongly its humanity is going to have a devastating impact on the climate, they just can't prove it.
It doesn't matter much ... all the stuff we need to do to reduce carbon emissions ... is stuff we are going to have to do eventually to be competitive a post fossil fuel economy.
how dare he disagree, he must have been paid by someone to disagree! Watch the smear machine kick into gear.
40 seasons ?
"As someone who has lived through over 40 seasons".
I didn't know 10-year-olds could post comments. Welcome aboard, sonny !
Best not to confuse weather with climate, though.
No offence, but unfortunately personal memories aren't always good indicator of short term climate. The 70's actually saw a run of very mild winters (apart from 78/79) - the 80's did see some cold seasons though. True, the 90's saw some extremely mild years and winters, but we've recently seen two below average summers on the trot and there has been a clear cooling trend since May 2007. This winter will likely see three below average months in a row, which is noteworthy after the last decade.
Perhaps he didn't 'change' his mind, rather now that he is no longer employeed by NASA he doesn't have have to follow the prescribed NASA line. Perhaps it is an opinion that he himself holds. Perhaps.
As for the recent past I can rememberlate '50s Granny saying that the wheather wasn't as warm as it used to be before the war, and mother agreeing with her. '63 huge snow drifts, didn't prevent me from being sent to schoold though. '76 blistering hot summer, my car (an Anglia 1200) users to get a vapour lock in the petrol line if I drove it during the day. Freezing winter (a friends car radiator froze up. As he was driving it!) '80s much cooler, '90s warmer. 2006 hot again.
Over all the temperatures that we are getting now have been reached and exceeded in _my_ living memory.
Theon makes a significant non-sequitur here.
How can he state:
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
And go on to say:
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system [...] Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
What the second quote appears to say is no stronger than "there is no evidence". Why stand up and disagree with a standpoint simply because it has no evidence? Disregarding an invalid argument does not, as a consequence, imply accepting the converse.
So fine, say these reports are useless and worthless, but if you immediately take an unproven stance you become every bit as unscientific as the number fiddlers.
Please no not again...
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew...it saddens me to see you abandon your razor sharp analytical skills and instinct for critical detail among all the chaff when dealing with the matter of athropogenic global warming (AGW).
What does this news amount to? Ex-NASA climate boss says "Ummm...I'm not sure, careful now!" Hardly surprising when even those of us who see that the AGW thesis is almost certainly correct in it's important analyses are happy to accept that Hansen, for whatever reason, is a tad on the zealous side and as a result may on occasion have unnecessarily over-egged the pudding for political effect.
Hansen is not AGW, there is plenty of good science out there that does not rely upon him (even if this alleged taint were *scientifically* significant). Dr Theon is not presenting any new *science* here, just his thoughts about the practices of Hansen. This begs the question: "Why another article/"news" item on this matter?" Surely not another attempt to try to muddy the waters on AGW? Frankly I think this beneath you and El Reg.
So where are we on this ludicrous connection between smoking and lung cancer? What a joke, eh!
One eminent scientist, Freeman Dyson, criticized the used models a while ago.
(Yes look him up, he is very famous and no, he is not the brother of the vacuumcleaner overlord).
Even the Reg reported: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/
Why do scientists massage or manipulate the data? Well they need money too.
Only it's called research grants. Money is their lifeline too, and if you can scare a few governments into believing your data, the money will flow.
Their evangelists, the Greens, will spread the word for you, and scare the population into submission.
We have to be careful with what we do with the world, but it's time the pseudo-scientist are publicly shamed for their scaremongering.
I don't think anyone is doubting the planet has been getting warmer. Heck, I came over to UK from Western Australia (39c) xmas 1976 to major snow blizzards. Haven't many of those since. Aaah yes., there was one in 1985. I put my Capri 3.0s in a ditch because of the snow ( and my muppetry) that year.
What is in doubt is whether mankind has been a major contributor.
I'm all for cleaner air and a better environment. But quit the bullshit and call it for what it is.
Is that really too much to ask.
Wait... This is politics... Of course the truth is too much to ask.
Flame icon coz I'm cold.
More reasons to procrastinate.....
Man made climate change or not, man is digging up stuff and burning it, we are betting our economies, lives and future on the ability to continue digging stuff up and burning it.
If we happen to be lucky enough, that once it is all burnt the planet is still habitable and able to produce food in sufficient quantities, then we have to face the prospect of massive upheaval, wars and famine as we try to find new energy sources.
I haven't looked at any studies or done any research, but it doesn't take an eejut to realise that you cannot keep digging stuff up and burning it forever. Its a double edged sword really, either there is enough stuff in the ground to allow us to kill ourselves burning it, or there is not enough stuff in the ground and we get to kill each other for the right to burn whatever is left. I don't like either of those options really, so whether the Greenies have a misplaced concern or not, their solution is infinitely more appealing than the two options that will be forced on us if we do nothing.
Mines the leather one with the Wind Powered iPod in the pocket.
Don't forget - Al Gore has made $100M over the last eight years while shilling global warming.
Re: How much was he paid to change his mind?
Perhaps you're right that he changed his mind based upon bribery, though I doubt it very much... However, the skeptics are not saying that global warming does not exist, they are saying that human caused global warming does not exist. You anecdotal evidence does not, therefore, conclude anything.
The fact is that the Armageddon evangelists (Gore and Hansen) are making tons of money on the ignorance of the public and real scientists are afraid of being shouted down for not agreeing. First we were told that "of course man caused global warming exists" because " the majority of the scientists agree it does." Now that scientists are popping up everywhere stating that they doubt man caused global warming, we are told that these scientists are bribed. What a joke.
Skull and crossbones 'cuz we're all being robbed by this junk science. Al Gore should be humiliated and the buffoons that support him should be disgraced.
Garbage from Reagan-Bush administration
First off, the Reg is really going downhill; it used to be about IT but now it seems to have been taken over by right-wing nut cases who shill for the coal and oil industries. What's next -- Baby Jesus will save us? That's how it works here in the states -- the peasants are largely swayed by nutty fundixian preachers who think that the world will end soon anyway, and the only path to salvation is to bend over and hold ankles on behalf of the energy-mining industries who finance them and their politician allies.
So Theon, who served under Reagan (trees cause pollution) and Bush 41 (oil, oil, and more oil), is denying the obvious. Sure... there's a mountain of data out there, a host of studies, and among them, there's lots of data to quibble with. Consensus isn't unanimity. And the risk of global warming is huge, so it needs to be dealt with, not denied. People go apes#!+ over tiny risks (eek, cell tower radiation! vaccines!) all the time. Here the only question is whether the risk of major disaster is say 20% or 95%. So the deniers, who seem to have The Reg's ear, pretend that it'll happen anyway so dump away, burn lots of coal, drive that Hummer, and put that quad SLI graphics card into your overclocked game rig, drill baby drill. It's convenient -- it preaches a more fun lifestyle -- but so is accepting every credit card offer that comes in the mail and running them all up to the limit.
Congratulations for falling into the biggest,and most obvious trap when it comes to forecasting climate change: you've taken your short timescale reference and weather patterns in a small area as symbolic of how the entire planet's climate is changing over a long time.
Let's get one thing straight: Weather is not climate.
In the 60s Loch Lomond froze over completely for two winters; in 1994 Scotland had an incredible amount of snow; in 2006 the whole country had a scorching summer and lost most of its water. Then it rained for 18 months solid....
The point is these events cannot be taken as symbolic of the climate going one way or another; the frame of reference is far too short to extrapolate out. I really wish scientists would be more honest and just say "I dont know what's happening".
One last thought which relates to animals and weather/climate: has there ever been a single documented case of something in nature staying constant? I dont believe so. Animal populations ebb and flow due to all sorts of reasons (take any British bird species for example) and so does the climate. We should try not to panic so much and instead aim to clean up our act as a race because our current resources will run out rather than something that is impossible to prove.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Although there is a possibility that man-made emissions / deforestation / etc has had an affect on the planet's atmosphere and climate, they are absolutely NOT the reason for all the media hype - that's down to the planet running out of oil and is being used to frighten the masses into cutting down our energy consumption until another form of power production can be found.
Of course people are wary of this nuclear fusion technology as there's not enough profit to be made from "unlimited" power.
If only Aunty cared
The "unbiased" BBC whom we are forced to fund under the threat of legal action because we buy a television to watch other channels on won't report this news so therefore it doesn't count. Instead the BBC's Science page leads with an article about the EU urging the US to sign up to cap and trade systems that will enrich bankers and stock traders while raising the cost of living for the rest of us.
"(As someone who has lived through over 40 seasons, I can vouch for the fact it is getting warmer here in the UK. I have photos of deep snow at our home in the 1970s. Where is it today almost 25 years later? We get a sprinkling, some sleet, and that's winter! And what about the effect on the natural world, with animals, plants, fish, birds and more showing signs of distress or confusion.)"
One of the problems with global warming/MMCC/ACC is that the earths climate is naturally variable and so 'readings' taken over 30 years should not be used to infer trends on their own.
If anyone can put a definitive scientific paper, properly peer reviewed, with transparent data sets in front of the scientific community then I believe you would achieve a concensus within weeks. but as we stand, the models are regularly updated with past results and yet still fail to predict 6 months into the future never mind 100's of years.
Also, there is little doubt that using fossil fuels is a bad idea and the oil could be more beneficially used to make all manner of shiney plastic products which we are told will never degrade, making them a form of obtuse carbon capture. However, the current renewables systems are far from perfect and heavily subsidised by UK.gov. making FF power generation a necessity at least for the next few decades.
Scepticism is Normal
I think most intelligent mature people are rightly sceptics. Only enthusiastic brainwashed youngsters and a few beardy-weirdies believe unconditionally in man-made climate change. 'Wonderkid' is right, it does seem that in our lifetimes UK winters have got milder. But so far as can be determined from untainted evidence the average world temperature has fallen over the last ten years. CO2 concentration is about 300-350 parts per MILLION - it is hard to understand the process by which a 10-20% or even 100% increase in this tiny amount could have macro-climatic effects. And there is clearly a whole lot of people for whom climate change is a very convenient 'truth' - govt funded scientific and pressure groups, greens, old hippies and 'friends of the earth' who are basically just anti-technology and mostly communists, govts using it as an excuse to tax more, control more, and invent and control a new form of wealth (carbon credits).
None of this means it is true or not true. My advice is to remain open minded and sceptical. Challenge 'facts', most of them will be anything but. Question the motives of all parties, not just one side. Try reading articles by people you disagree with as well as those you agree with. Mistrust those who suppress criticism and free speech, whatever their apparent motives.
Make your own mind up. There will be plenty of people trying to do it for you; you should resist!
why is it important?
Why should we be concerned about whether or not we are the cause? I know this is nothing that hasn't been said before, but I've never seen anyone reply to a post like this. We can't avoid having an effect on our world, so why worry about whether we did this, or if its "natural". Why not simply decide on what climate we wish we could have and then decide what reasonably safe courses of action we could undertake to trend towards that climate over time? The idea that a climate untouched by man is obviously the one we should have, and the idea that as long as we didn't cause it, its ok if the world turns into a desert, are both irrational ones.
Well, i would be more than happy to send you some of the more than a foot of snow in my driveway right now. we are ahead of last year on snow and season is not close to done yet.
I, for one, will be happy when the whole mess gets out of politics and back into the realm of rational scientific investigation.
We currently don't have a good alternative to oil or coal and there isn't likely to be one in the near future. I'm not interested in having my pockets picked by the "carbon credit" folks. it's just another transfer or weath where the government scrapes a big hunk off the top of the pile.
Just to clarify
It is well established that if you add enough CO2 to the atmosphere, it will eventually heat the surface via the greenhouse effect. Or rather it is difficult to imagine anything else.
The question is how much C02 is required to heat the atmosphere by any particular amount? Precisely how much warming do our emissions cause? Is a runaway greenhouse effect possible on Earth, like it is on Venus?
Models attempt to guess at the answers to these questions. As far as I know there isn't a single climate model that is able to definitively answer them, in fact building one that does is a holy grail of climate science. The best IPCC model guess seems to be a warming of 2 to 4 degrees, with an uncertainty in predicting the true atmosphere ranging from 0 to about 100 degrees.
Good point. Given that the good Doctor has reversed himself and now is a denier, how much credence can we give him? Will he change his mind again in a few months? The sheeple who welcome him into their midst now that he becomes a "true disbeliever" may be embarrased by him.
No-one's disputing climate change. It's as natural as sunrise, and it's recurrence is equally as natural.
What is being disputed now is whether human activity is quite as responsible as has previously been claimed.
And as for vested interests, Fatty Brown & around a zillion other inadequates throughout the entire world have thought "Whoopeee! A cool-sounding reason to screw even more out of the plebs!"
They won't give that up without a fight...
BA, MA & PHD in Applied Cynicsm
re: Deep Joy
Hang on, this is a *scientist*.
You all know that scientists only ever lie about the results so that they can get more funding, so this man is obviously lying here to get funding from elsewhere.
You're looking short term (from a global perspective).
10000 years ago, there was an ice age.
At one point, most of the world was warm enough to support dinosaurs.
So taking a range so small isn't a good way to determine if the sky is falling.
Right now, we have snow on the ground (sustained) - first time I can recall in 7 years here - should I assume that it is getting colder on a 7 year window?
If there is so much evidence to support MMCC, why hasn't the movement "opened the books," so to speak?
What's wrong with this picture...
When the anti-climate-change crowd goes citing a scandal, rather than new evidence, they have more in common with holocaust deniers than scientists. The way you disprove Hansen's conclusion is you call him on the evidence, true, but that should then leave you in the "I don't know" column, having disproved the conclusion, rather than the "see, climate change is not man-made" column, presuming the opposite case on similarly nonexistent evidence.
Change of weather over a few decades isn't a measure of climate change. Here in France we've had doom and gloom about the end of the skiing season, and yet the last two winters have brought the best low snow for 10 years. My local (low-level) station has skiing like it used to have in 1995.
Climate change? Sunspot cycle? Sun variability? Bored Deity? There isn't enough evidence to be sure which, if any, are true.
Which, of course, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do our best to conserve limited resources. It does mean that we should stop this chicken-little-like panic, and the headline grabbing nonsense like banning 100W ligtbulbs.
Misread the headline
I thought it said "septic"