That was the year that was

I don’t really know where 2010 went. I do know that I spent an inordinate amount of time lurking and informing myself on an issue that prior to approximately 10 days BC [Before Climategate] didn’t even register on my radar!

The traffic on this blog has been a very pleasant surprise to me – it certainly won’t break any records, but it has exceeded my expectations. FWIW, since I started this blog (Dec. 6/09) I’ve made 84 posts. Most visitors seem to have landed on or clicked the home page; but beyond this, the top three posts viewed were:

3. Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES

2. Soon … and sounds of silence from the InterAcademy Council

1. The climate change game … Monopoly: the IPCC version

There are two related projects that I was very proud to have worked on during the year: the first was Donna Laframboise’s Citizen Audit, a project which revealed that Rajendra Pachauri’s claim to the effect that the IPCC assessment reports are “all peer-reviewed” is completely unsupportable by the facts. It was rather amusing to watch Pachauri backtracking from this claim during approximately six months.

Pachauri was also the source of one of my favourite quotes of the year:

“let’s face it, that the whole subject of climate change having become so important is largely driven by the work of the IPCC. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?” [emphasis added -hro]

Which brings me to the second project in which I was involved. Through the work I did on Citizen Audit, I was fortunate to “meet” Peter B., an Australian programming wizard who has developed AccessIPCC. It is still very much a “work in progress”, but here is a sample of the feedback we’ve received from some who’ve checked it out since we launched the site (and its companion blog) last month:

This is a fine asset, well worth bookmarking. Thanks for the effort in producing it.”

Wow, Hilary, wow!!! This is amazing […]”

AccessIPCC represents an enormous leap forward. We now have a more user-friendly – and immeasurably richer – way of evaluating the IPCC’s Nobel-winning report.”

I’m sure some people will take issue with some of the tags applied to papers, but this shouldn’t detract from the overall effect, which is to illuminate our understanding of the AR4 process.”

What a splen[d]id idea this was. Hyperlinks are so useful and the annotations are so revealing. Now I wonder why the IPCC never thought of it!”

My big disappointment for the year that was … Had to take my trusty ’92 Tercel through AirCare in order to renew my auto insurance, a few days ago. Oh, the car passed on all the indicators, which is good news. But … at the bottom of the report, they show my “CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Calculation”.

If I had a scanner, I’d show you the pretty picture of the three bars, each of which (Fuel Consumption x Distance Driven = CO2 [Tonnes per year]) shows my car’s place in a spectrum (which of course goes from green to red). Bottom line: my vehicle’s carbon footprint is only 0.8 CO2 tonnes per year – which makes it very green on the spectrum. Since no one is likely to give me any carbon credits for this accomplishment, and I can’t do much about the fuel consumption rate, my only option for 2011 is to resolve to increase the distance I drive ;-)

Happy new year to all!

2 thoughts on “That was the year that was

  1. Bah! You’ve been slacking off in the world-wide effort to end the CO2 famine. Pedal to the metal! You’ve got lost time and tonnage to make up for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s