An Inconvenient Truth

[Scott Campbell]

Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto.

Are you talking about the old 2 cycle motors, or the new federally mandated 4 stroke motors?

[No Mo Moss]

4 stroke

SKIN:
First of all it was the US that walked away from Kyoto. Kind of hard to show the world what we're made of when it comes to clean energy when we walk away from the definitive summit on the reform towards it.

Second we are not the world leader of clean energy in the world. That is a completely ficticious statistic ala bill O'Reilly or some crap. You totally discredit yourself when you say stupid crap like that. The United States is THE biggest polluter in the entire world!

Perhaps you should check it out before you say things you don't know.

The United States makes up for 4.6% of the world population.
It represents 30% of the world economy.
It represent 24% of Global CO2 emmisions

European Union countries make up for 6.3% of the world population.
They represent 23% of the world economy.
They represent 14% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China makes up for 21% of the world population.
It represents 3.2% of the world economy.
It represents 13% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China and the EU, both lesser polluters than the US, have one thing in common: They are both committed to further reducing their rate of emissions. Despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. The odd one out is the USA. Immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, it emits more harmful chemicals than both of them. In addition, it has so far stubbornly refused to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions. The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No Mo,

I really applaud your efforts to spread the word on global warming!

I do agree with Clinton & Bush on Kyoto Treaty, however. That was a bad deal for U.S, exempting India & China was unreasonable. Hopefully a new protocol will be brought forward.

I would be happy if Al Gore was elected president in 2008, just because of environmental issues.

[Deputy Nutz]

Did someone say tree humper???


See Murphy below going to town on a young sapling.

[Patler]

So far I have lived through:

1. The coming of the next ice age, caused by
2. An increasing thickness of the ozone layer, due to
3. Ozone propellants in spray aerosol cans.

So, everyone went to pump applicators and alternative propellants, refrigerants etc..
Now we have:

4. An expanding hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica (bring back those propellants)
5. Global warming, caused by
6. CO2 emissions.

Am I going to freeze to death, roast to death or be incinerated by the sun due to the lack of a protective ozone layer?

Its safe to say that while the scientific community can measure with great accuracy what we do and what certain atmospheric conditions are, they by no means agree on any causal relationship between the two. Some long range meteorologists (the ones who study a 1000 years like we consider yesterday or tomorrow) will tell you all we are experiencing are normal swings. Others will disagree.

Basically, we don't have a clue.

[SkinBasket]

SKIN:
First of all it was the US that walked away from Kyoto. Kind of hard to show the world what we're made of when it comes to clean energy when we walk away from the definitive summit on the reform towards it.

KYOTO?! Are you fucking serious? The "definitive summit" on reform? Ha! Becuase the UN has so many great, non-biased, scientifically based ideas for making the world better? LOL!

Whew... Good one!

Second we are not the world leader of clean energy in the world. That is a completely ficticious statistic ala bill O'Reilly or some crap. You totally discredit yourself when you say stupid crap like that. The United States is THE biggest polluter in the entire world!

Perhaps you should check it out before you say things you don't know.

The United States makes up for 4.6% of the world population.
It represents 30% of the world economy.
It represent 24% of Global CO2 emmisions

European Union countries make up for 6.3% of the world population.
They represent 23% of the world economy.
They represent 14% of Global CO2 emmisions.

China makes up for 21% of the world population.
It represents 3.2% of the world economy.
It represents 13% of Global CO2 emmisions.

So maybe if I google some numbers that say something different and make them REAL BIG then I wouldn't sound so "stupid" right? BTW, I said the US is a leader in clean air technology, not in pollution. You may want to get the argument straight before launching such a large-lettered offensive next time.

China and the EU, both lesser polluters than the US, have one thing in common: They are both committed to further reducing their rate of emissions. Despite economic growth China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s. The odd one out is the USA. Immensely richer than China, but with less population than Europe, it emits more harmful chemicals than both of them. In addition, it has so far stubbornly refused to endorse international protocols designed to reduce such emissions. The world looks on flabbergasted as the world's greatest polluter cares not to take care or responsibility in the face of international pressure.

NoMo, if you really think that the US is doing less than China (not to mention India and Africa) to curb pollution, then you certainly haven't taken a look at what's been happening in this country the past 20 years. Wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, cleaner burning gasoline, clean coal tech, to name a few. The world is not coming to an end. You can go dig up your life savings from under the tree in the back yard.

If a worse than average hurricane season is the best imperical evidence of impending doom and signing the Kyoto "treaty" is the only solution you have to offer, then well, may the spirits of the earth bless your goofy little green soul.

[SkinBasket]

Did someone say tree humper???


See Murphy below going to town on a young sapling.

I still think that's my uncle, not Murphy. He wasn't a tree humper though, just a self-styled communist. But he does like Al Gore a lot.

[MJZiggy]

What is there to lose by living life a little greener? Damn, that's right. We might be able to eat fish without a side of mercury straight from the stream in our town and let the kids play around in that stream without worry. That would be horrible. We might be able to breathe our air without wondering where all this asthma is coming from or worry that the air pollution is increasing our kids' risk of cancer. I read that people who live in polluted areas are more likely to drop dead of heart attacks. Paying attention to that and stopping it must have a horrible cost. Wait, it's happening all over Europe--they're driving SmartCars while we're lumbering around in SUV's. They have Eurorail and better public transportation to our busses that smell like urine. Hmmm.

[SkinBasket]

They have Eurorail and better public transportation to our busses that smell like urine. Hmmm.

From all accounts I've heard, their buses smell like urine too.

[jack's smirking revenge]

A short article from the New Zealand Press. We can debate the impact to the US of global warming, but it is having profound effects elsewhere in the world. Global Warming is doing more than just melting icecaps. Its making land "unuseable". The second article is from the BBC. We're facing a difficult time ahead. While we debate over global warming and whether or not it is really affecting us, overpopulation by 2050 is a guarantee (unless we encounter a massive natural correction). And it has been shown that global warming IS affecting certain areas of the global where, coincidentally, populations are supposed to greatly increase in the coming decades. Think this doesn't affect you? This is America. We're the saviors of the world. We're already spending a billion dollars a month to colonize a nation. We'll have to spend even more to fix other problems around the world....

Global Population Too High..
A New Zealand scientist from the Central Institute of Technology says the present global population of six billion people is about 30% more than the earth's biological capacity to sustain present standards of living, but growth may not even stabilize at the projected 10 billion by the year 2050. There are 51 billion hectares on the earth's surface, but only 1.3 billion hectares are available as arable land, 3.3 billion hectares available as pasture land.

The world needs to immediately reduce by 1/2 its carbon dioxide emissions, yet United Nations' member countries have only agreed to reduce it by 5% by 2012. The United States puts out 20 tonnes of CO2 per capita, in comparison with New Zealand, which produces about four tonnes per capita. January 27, 2000 The New Zealand Press

Widespread Decline in the World's Ecosystems.
The human impact on natural ecosystems has reached dangerous levels, even significantly altering the Earth's basic chemical cycles, says a new report, World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems, The Fraying Web of Life. The report paints a dismal picture of over-fished oceans, over-pumping of water for farming, destruction of coral reefs and forests, even too much tourism, with human population growth and increasing consumption as the two principal drivers of the decline. The report was released by the the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNEP, the World Bank and the Washington DC-based World Resources Institute (WRI). Over 175 scientists contributed to this global research effort, which took more than two years to complete. The report grades the health of coastal, forest, grassland, and freshwater and agricultural ecosystems on the basis of their ability to produce the goods and services that the world currently relies on. "For too long we have focused on how much we can take from our ecosystems, with little attention to the services that they provide," said Thomas Johansson, Director of UNDP's Energy and Atmosphere Programme. "Ecosystems provide essential services like climate control and nutrient recycling that we cannot replace at any reasonable price." The world's population has tripled since 1980, to the current 6 billion people, and is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. By then, economists predict that the global economy may expand by a factor of five. Consumption of everything from rice to paper to refrigerators to oil has risen in tandem with the population -- all at a cost to ecosystems. Demand for rice, wheat, and maize is expected to grow 40% by 2020, pushing water demand for irrigation up 50% or more. By 2050, demand for wood could double. The sponsors of the report said that the study faced limitations and called for a larger, more comprehensive effort to monitor and compile information on current ecosystem conditions, and to analyze the effects of future changes in ecosystems. This larger effort is called the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and hopes to bring the best available information and knowledge on ecosystem goods and services to bear on policy and management decisions. September 15, 2000 BBC/World Resources Institute

[mraynrand]

The global warming issue is highly problematic due to a constellation of obfuscating issues, such as how knowledge is acquired, how predictive models are made and verified, how and why scientists conduct research, how scientists remain funded, scientific bias, agendas, and political and social constructs.

The global warming hypothesis, as it stands, suggests that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are the major source of a current warming trend across the globe. Furthermore, this warming trend is predicted to continue for at least 100 years, resulting in increases of up to 2 degrees F, resulting in the melting of polar cap ice and increases in ocean levels and severe weather. OK. So how do we know this and how certain are we? As a short aside, I will briefly point our that there are two general ways of acquiring ‘trueââ� �€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ information – through personal experience or through the confident belief in the acquisition by another (second-hand knowledge). Thus, for most information, we rely in the credibility of authority figures on a particular subject to determine whether or not we believe a piece of information to be true. For those of us (which means virtually everyone) we have to acquire knowledge about global warming second-hand, even if we read the primary research articles in Science Magazine or Nature (as I have done, BTW) Through scientific authority figures we know that carbon dioxide levels contributed by humans have increased and that some models predict dire future consequences. Essentially, to believe this, you have to believe that the method of the scientists is sound and that their motives and behavior are ethical. In other words, you must have faith, either in the scientific method in general or in particular scientists with credibility acquired by consistent accurate findings.

But what about these models the scientists create? How can we be CERTAIN that the future will bring what they claim? How accurate are the models? How can we know that conditions won’t be altered due to changes in technology or behavior by the worlds peoples? The ability to predict the future is confounded by our inability to anticipate such major changes. Karl Popper referred to future predictions of this type as ‘the poverty of historicism.’ To find a more accessible pop culture reference, you could look at Asimov’s “FoundationÃ� �¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ science fiction series. In this series, future scientists called ‘psychohistorians� �ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ used mathematics to describe the behavior of large human populations. They used this mathematics to model human behavior, and thereby predict with great accuracy human future history. The wrench in the works was that they could not predict the effects of mutation or as Popper would say, they could not predict the unpredictable changes that might come at any time.

So we are left with models, that if run without any perturbation whatever, predict a warmer planet, rising seas, and bad weather. But are these models any good? In the biological sciences, scientists have been able to dissect the machinery that allows cells and microscopic free-living animals to move. Video microscopy, together with biochemical analysis of the ‘skeletonâ� �¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ of cells has helped scientists understand exactly how these cells can crawl. Using this information, scientist can model the movement using computer programs and the movement matches the observed at high fidelity. The best biological models are those FOR WHICH THE OUTCOME IS ALREADY KNOWN. In other words, because scientists understand so much, and can actually watch and record the movement itself, and they can model the movement. In the case of the weather models, the final outcome is of course unknown. Furthermore, the ‘skeletonâ� �¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ of the weather, that is, the critical parameters that contribute to the final outcome are incompletely defined. Until just recently, the temperatures in the upper atmosphere had not been measured accurately. Also, some scientists are wondering what other physical factors (and to what degree) will affect global temperature (such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, etc.) Also unknown is how accurate the models will be in the long term given the incomplete input in the short term. Already, many iterations of long term warming models have been dispensed with due wild inaccuracies in the short term.

But what if the models are true? Strict materialists, who believe that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago and evolved into what we see now, have expounded on the virtues and survival capabilities of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. The earth that changed around evolving species saw incredible upheavals, and life survived and adapted. Are we to believe now that humans will be incapable of adapting to a maximum predicted rise of 2 degrees over the next 100 years? It’s depressing to think that scientists and politicians have less confidence in the adaptability of modern man over say the Neanderthal.

And what about the scientists? Are they honest? Are they agenda free? Will they get funded if they model the future weather patterns and claim that things will be largely the same as now? In the health sciences, funding flows to those who are trying to find the causes of disease and the cures for such diseases – in fact, most governmental grants require some justification that research will have implications for some human disease. Thus, scientists are trained, or more accurately, forced, to study topics that in some way negatively affect humans. If you don’t, you’re much less likely to get funding. Look at the scientists studying educational techniques. Do they continue to get funded if they publish papers with titles like ‘Current methods for teaching math to fourth graders are perfectly adequate’ or do they get funding if they produce a new method with ‘betterâ� �‚¬â„¢ results? Is it in their interest to find new and ‘betterâ� �‚¬â„¢ methods or to say things are just fine? Scientists are human beings, and they have to put dinner on the table, etc. They are subject to all the pressures to produce and uncover something novel and unique. Many are honest and have high integrity; some are not.

And that brings us to the political side. Ever since ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson, science has been infused with a dramatic spirit of activism. Mercury, lead, cholesterol levels, trans-fats, other chemicals naturally occurring in the environment (like radon) or from chemical plants, nuclear plants (tritium, warmed water released into streams), to stuff in our drinks (caffeine, etc. etc.) have all been treated with the same general approach: Something is killing us and something must be done. In many cases, the scientists were right and in many other cases they were horribly wrong (as in the case of DDT). The popularized image took hold of the caring activist exposing the cloistered huddling diabolical industrial company CEO who was deliberately poisoning the rest of us and cackling about it on his yacht (with heliport). There were battles to be fought and won, but activism itself took hold as an end in and of itself, with almost a religious fervor. Al Gore is celebrated because he is trying to right a wrong, and anyone opposed must be on the side of that stereotypical fat cat CEO. There seems to be no middle ground where people can say “There is an issue that needs to be addressed and handled rationally.” I cite as a very recent example the column from Nicholas Kristof in the NYT where he says we have more to fear from Girl Scouts wielding peanut butter cookies with trans-fats that we have to fear from al Quaeda wielding box cutters and machetes. Without some return to rationality from scientists, politicians, activists and even the fat cat CEOs, there’s no hope that the global warming issue itself will be anything more than a televised, agenda driven shouting match.

[jack's smirking revenge]

It’s depressing to think that scientists and politicians have less confidence in the adaptability of modern man over say the Neanderthal.

Great post mraynrand! Reality: it's depressing to realize that human greed guides both scientists and politicians and it will play a very big role in our adapability to global climate and population change.

Models are predictions, just like sports betting, weather forecasting, and birth due dates. Guesstimations are all they are. But that's what has kept us alive and evolving. Models are what allows us to be prepared for virus outbreaks. Models are what gets us prepared for tornado and hurricane season, both of which are inevitable. Models are what prepares us for fire season, earthquakes and tsunamis. I guess the bottom line is that models are subjective, but they hold kernels of truth.

tyler

[MJZiggy]

So you're saying that since we can't prove indisputably that the models are true, then we should say that the logic is all wrong and do nothing to clean up our planet? No one has answered my previous question. What would it really cost us to change our actions to more sustainable behaviors.

Human stubbornness is already costing millions of lives. If you want proof, read the article on Samkon Gado wanting to be a doctor (NFL FRONT PAGE--GO SAM!). In that artice he talks about rampant AIDS. It is widely known in most parts of the world that the absolute most effective method of stopping this disease is to have monogamous sex only with an uninfected partner and barring that, using condoms religiously. People are dropping dead at an alarming rate, but refuse to change their behavior because they either don't trust the US to tell them the truth about it or some other reason but they are willing to risk their lives as there is inadequate medical care to diagnose and treat the disease on the African continent. A good percentage of their children are being born infected as well. You can't say this is a poverty issue either because monogamy doesn't cost anything.

So again I ask, are we this stubborn that we will fault the research and not do things that could greatly benefit us and our children in the future?

[Guiness]

I don't know how much I believe any of the pollution numbers I see about any countries. China is in the middle of an industrial revolution, and I have trouble believing they're being any cleaner about it than the western world was. AFAIK they don't have the environmental watchdog groups over there, so where are these pollution #'s coming from? Government and big business?

[Patler]

mraynrand; you have of course identified the problems in believing too strongly in any of the predictive models used, we have no way of knowing which, if any, are accurate. That is what I was glibly referring to in my earlier post. Some 35 years ago, the science community had their models that predicted the world was entering a new ice age, now its global warming. As a whole we did little or nothing to correct the first problem, let alone reverse it by 180 degrees.

The problem with any of the predictive models used in the environmental analysis is that we have a very poor understanding of the natural phenomena that are occuring. In simple terms, would the earth be experiencing the same level of "global warming" even without the influence of man? Some but less? None at all? These are questions no one knows the answers to. Models developed by different groups come up with quite different answers.

[mraynrand]

So you're saying that since we can't prove indisputably that the models are true, then we should say that the logic is all wrong and do nothing to clean up our planet? No one has answered my previous question. What would it really cost us to change our actions to more sustainable behaviors.

The point is that some of the models are highly speculative, and are based on highly biased and/or incomplete inputs. With that starting point, how are we to determine what are more sustainable behaviors? In the case of Africa, the science and the corrections that will be effective are not disputed. Whether people choose to believe them or not, or change their behaviour or not, is what is killing them, not the accurracy of any models.

Sometimes, the science is wrong, and people die because of it. That is certainly the case with DDT, where fear of thinning eggshells and the possibility of thousands of cancer deaths resulted in the actual millions of malaria deaths.

[jack's smirking revenge]

So again I ask, are we this stubborn that we will fault the research and not do things that could greatly benefit us and our children in the future?

As you can see, even the research is politicized. For every nugget of research that identifies a problem, research is funded to dispute or deny the existence of a problem. Mostly, I think this comes back around to human greed. Take overpopulation: without the bird flu pandemic or some other massive natural correction, all signs point to an large increase in the population of the planet in the next 40 years. Historical trends have increased the population of the planet by billions throughout the 1900s. There's no reason to think that won't continue. The pattern of a potential problem is there, but people choose to bicker as to whether or not its an actual problem, whether or not historical trends and patterns will lead to an unfavorable result.

But, truly, isn't that WHY we do research? Don't we do research to be proactive, to try to address problems before they hit us? If a pattern or a trend or a model suggests an unfavorable result, as weather researchers and government officials predicted for New Orleans, then why are we adverse to addressing a potential problem?

Apathy? Complacency? Or does the color of money guide all of our decisions?

tyler

[Patler]

Don't forget, "environmental correction" is itself a big business. There are financial interests on both sides of the issue. There is money to be made and money to be lost no matter which path is chosen.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Don't forget, "environmental correction" is itself a big business. There are financial interests on both sides of the issue. There is money to be made and money to be lost no matter which path is chosen.

Very true. Hence, what's right or wrong is pointless. Decisions and gambles will be made by those with enough money to make the rules, make the decisions. Truth is virtually impossible when greed rules.

tyler

[Little Whiskey]

so is everyone walking to and from work, and these computers are all run on hampster power?? probably not.

zig, of course people who live in areas of high air polution are likely to die of heart attacks, because those areas are also cities. were the average person does not walk or excersise and eats at Micky D's four or five times a day. Just like the statistic that says you are most likely to be in a car accident close to home. well don't you drive close too home twice as much as you drive away from home? since every long journey usually starts close to home.

i used to sell to a tissue converting facility. a bumper sticker on one of their lift trucks said. "if you think we should stop cutting down trees for paper, try wiping your ass on a piece of shrink wrap!"