An Inconvenient Truth

[No Mo Moss]

I've heard nothing but great things about the quality of this film on global warning. Yes it stars AL Gore, but I really hope it doesn't become a political thing. I mean both parties inhabit this planet last time I checked. Here's the trailer:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true

[jack's smirking revenge]

I've read about it and can't wait to see it. And, of course it'll be treated as a political statement first. Bush has already gone on record to say that he won't see it.

tyler

[FavreChild]

This is a country where it was a crime for Moussaoui to do nothing and let 9/11 happen, but it is OK for our government to do nothing about global warming.

No chance that this won't be politicized to death.

I liked your framing of the issue, No Mo, as "an inconvenient truth." Denial has gone on for too long; let's just hope that in addition to all the political finger-pointing, some action will emerge.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

[Little Whiskey]

i could have used a little global warming last weekend. Its may and shouldn't be 40 degrees. :mrgreen:

[Deputy Nutz]

First illegal immigrants, now global warming, does it ever stop!!!! Really one is a solution for the other. With global warming, all the grass will dry up, hince no need for it to be cut.

[Scott Campbell]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

I think "doom & gloom" is the only way to get anyone to pay attention anymore. We're a desensitized nation. War and murder and violence and death are our typical top stories (the primary reason why I ditched journalism in college--death sells). Environmental stories are buried if they aren't threatening.

I don't want to turn this into an environmental debate, because there are truly strong arguments on both sides. Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming. Both of those could cause millions of deaths in the nation over the next decade. The weather patterns changed by global warming may not mean much in America, but they are having an effect at other places across the globe.

tyler

[Little Whiskey]

Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming.
tyler

damn, there goes my safari hunt i had planned

[No Mo Moss]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

I think "doom & gloom" is the only way to get anyone to pay attention anymore. We're a desensitized nation. War and murder and violence and death are our typical top stories (the primary reason why I ditched journalism in college--death sells). Environmental stories are buried if they aren't threatening.

I don't want to turn this into an environmental debate, because there are truly strong arguments on both sides. Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming. Both of those could cause millions of deaths in the nation over the next decade. The weather patterns changed by global warming may not mean much in America, but they are having an effect at other places across the globe.

tyler

Tyler, they do mean a lot to us in America. We are coming off the worst storm season in the History of our country.
Not to disrespect anyone on here, but the scientific community is now almost in complete agreement on global warming. Probably less than 10% still resist it. I get worried when even the republicans are starting to embrace the notion. The thing is, yes cars are getting cleaner, but there are also more people on the planet now and the manufacturing processes used today allow automobiles to be accessable to nearly everyone. Even stil the average house contributes more greenhouse gases than the average car because coal is still the #1 way we generate energy in this country and the world. Yard maintenance contributes significantly to greenhouse emissions. Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
Some interesting facts:
In The United States the use of SUVS (Suburban Utility Vehicles) is the latest fad and passion. SUVS on average releases 5,600 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, double the amount of the average car driven the same distance.
Air travel has become commonplace for vacationers, but not with out it's unseen costs to the environment. A round trip flight from New York to Los Angeles release as much as one automobile does in an entire year. On a yearly basis all air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Despite the evidence either way I think it is irresponsible to think of our atmosphere as a toxic waste dumping ground and expect that any talk of global environmental impact is nonsense. Its like we don't have facts to support it?

*The parts per million of CO2 in 1870 was 290 ppm
*The parts per million of CO2 in 2000 was 370 ppm

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/killoran25/eartcapol2.jpg

[jack's smirking revenge]

I'm with you No Mo. I think there's enough evidence to show that human activities are affecting the environment in adverse ways, yet our government finds ways to convince us that it isn't really a problem. Bush didn't jump onto the Kyoto Protocol for financial reasons--he was protecting the industries that support his presidency.

Is it irresponsiblity or greed that we create machines that pollute our planet when, cumulatively, we have the intelligence and the technology to create tech for the masses which is far more green than what we use today?

The current answer:

"The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you."

tyler

[SkinBasket]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/killoran25/eartcapol2.jpg

LOL!

Nice effen graph! I especially like where the line goes from declining to a steep incline right at the point where the "projected" portion of your graph starts. Who the fuck drew this? Mike Moore?

BTW, it's incincere and idiotic to play up your "I hope this doesn't get politicized" line. It's a "film" on an issue that's more of a political issue than a scientific one, and it stars Al fucking Gore! But I guess in your mind Al Gore is a politically neutral figure. Give me a freakin break.

My apologies to the PGness of the Romper Room.

[No Mo Moss]

Well I thought the graph was a nice illustration for people. Before you go on spouting the illegitamacy of the material why don't you do a little research. I apologize as the graph is from 1998. Here is something straight from the horses mouth to further my point.





Exxon rep: CO2 output to rise 50 percent by 2020
Thursday, November 20, 2003 Posted: 10:53 AM EST (1553 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide, considered a culprit in global warming, are expected to increase by 3.5 billion tons, or 50 percent, by the year 2020, an executive for ExxonMobil Corp said.

At the same time, global demand for energy will rise by 40 percent as the world population increases and economies grow, said Randy Broiles, global planning manager for Exxon's oil and gas production unit.

"Between now and 2020 we estimate increases of some 3.5 billion tons per year of additional carbon emissions, so it's definitely increasing," Broiles said Wednesday at an energy conference sponsored by accounting and consulting firm Deloitte.

He said about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, go into the earth's atmosphere each year from power plants, cars and other sources.

Experts say the United States, which has the world's largest economy and 4 percent of its population, is responsible for about 25 percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases now produced, but Broiles said most future growth in output will come from developing countries.

"Eighty percent of that number, 80 percent of 3.5 billion tons, is going to be driven by those developing countries, those economies that are growing at the 4 to 5 percent range, so that's where it's coming from," he said.

A huge increase in the number of cars will cause part of the pollution growth.

Broiles said there are now 15 cars for every 1,000 people in the world, but ExxonMobil expects that number to rise to 50 cars per 1,000 by 2020.

He said ExxonMobil foresees a 40 percent increase in energy demand even though humans are boosting their energy efficiency by about 1 percent a year. Despite advances in technology most energy will still come from fossil fuels, and in particular oil and gas, of which there remain very large reserves, he said.

"The oil resource base is huge -- it's huge -- and we expect it to satisfy world demand growth well beyond 2020," he said.

This is from 2003, but the information was covered on the news today from this so I think its relevant.

[No Mo Moss]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?

[No Mo Moss]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?

We're Lucky, that's what I'll say.

[SkinBasket]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?

Then all the tree humpers will claim that their efforts saved the world, that's what they'll say.

Didn't NYC get put underwater in one of those asteroid movies too? Maybe we can all blame Republicans, conservatives, GW, and Dick "Lick the nut sack" Cheney for the absolute scientific certainty that will happen too.

[No Mo Moss]

So let me get this straight. If we have a mild storm season this upcoming year, then the global warming problem is a myth.

That sounds like a bunch a crap.

Here's the thing I don't understand. The righties spend so much energy resisting global warming, but why. Why so subborn about it?

Are you afraid we might actually get up to speed with the present and begin structuring our culture around environmentally sound business and industry?

Perhaps the overall health of the planet just isn't important? It takes zero scientific data to see we live in a disposable culture that isn't viable for the future.

Maybe our water supplies are too clean for you?

With so much energy exhausted by righties to refute Global warming you just have to wonder of such things. I mean even if you are right and their is no global warming, what is the big scam or downfall or repurcussion of dealing with our environmentally irresponsible nature? Perhaps caring about cancer in your children or clean air in the future is just too "tree huggerish" for your taste. If you're right and I'm wrong, we still have everything to gain.

But if I'm right and we do nothing, we are so F*cking screwed with no way back. If destroying the planet is even a slight option wouldn't you think it makes sense to pro-proactive in averting it. All the wars and ADT home alarm systems and border security or WMD's won't make a bit of difference. Why wouldn't you want to be prepared? If we're right you might change things for the better, if we're wrong you still change things for the better.

It simply makes no sense at all.

Are you guys lobbiests?

[esoxx]

Whatever happened to the impending Ice Age that used to be the scare alert in the 1970's? I'm confused. Is the Ice Age advancing upon as science warned back then or was that just a rumor. Can't keep things straight here on my scorecard.

Scientists can make any prediction they want based on their "studies." How do you think they get funding, by saying everything is just honky dory? They'd be out of business in no time.

[SkinBasket]

So let me get this straight. If we have a mild storm season this upcoming year, then the global warming problem is a myth.

That sounds like a bunch a crap.

So we have one bad year of weather and global warming is absolute truth?



Here's the thing I don't understand. The righties spend so much energy resisting global warming, but why. Why so subborn about it?

I could ask you the same thing.



Are you afraid we might actually get up to speed with the present and begin structuring our culture around environmentally sound business and industry?

If you haven't noticed the US is a world leader in clean energy tech. Meanwhile, while our government and industry spend billions on R and D and implementation, China, India, Africa, and *gasp* Europe continue to "destroy the planet" with their own industialization.


Perhaps the overall health of the planet just isn't important? It takes zero scientific data to see we live in a disposable culture that isn't viable for the future.

Maybe our water supplies are too clean for you?

I like my water supplies just fine. Sometimes with a twist of lemon.



With so much energy exhausted by righties to refute Global warming you just have to wonder of such things.

Please. Do you really want to compare money and time spent trying to prove global warming, then every attempt to link it to any number of sources versus the time and money spent refuting it? Do you really think that "righties" will be on the heavier end of that scale?



I mean even if you are right and their is no global warming, what is the big scam or downfall or repurcussion of dealing with our environmentally irresponsible nature? Perhaps caring about cancer in your children or clean air in the future is just too "tree huggerish" for your taste. If you're right and I'm wrong, we still have everything to gain.

Gains like trillion of dollars spent on ineffective government programs? Or maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to less clean overseas industry? You think the defecit is big now?



But if I'm right and we do nothing, we are so F*cking screwed with no way back. If destroying the planet is even a slight option wouldn't you think it makes sense to pro-proactive in averting it. All the wars and ADT home alarm systems and border security or WMD's won't make a bit of difference. Why wouldn't you want to be prepared? If we're right you might change things for the better, if we're wrong you still change things for the better.

Your cute little graph showed that things are changing for the better (until the made up part anyway). Also, I doubt the planet is going to be destroyed by global warming. We may be, but certainly not the planet. I'm sure it will do just fine no matter what happens.



It simply makes no sense at all.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


Are you guys lobbiests?

If that means I'm not Chiken Little and I don't jump up and scream that the world is on the brink of disaster whenever Time magazine or Al Gore tells me to, then I guess I'm a lobbiest. Now if you had asked if I'm a lobbyist, then I would have to say no.

After all this I still have no idea what it is you even want to do about "global warming." Do you want to have our government hogtie American businesses until they are even less competetive globally? What are you going to do to stop foreign polluters? Are you willing to attack China or India in the name of cleaner air and a better world? If not, then all the clean world tech we implement here is worth about crap, maybe a little less.

But continue on with your Al Gore daisy chain. Demonize "righties," big business, GW, and whoever else it takes yo make you feel better about the fact that the "lefties" in government are just as active as the "righties" when it comes to global warming.[/i]

[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!"

[mraynrand]

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?

In a way, you reinforced one of my points. There actually is research ongoing that is done with no proactive or problem-based goal in mind. However, so much is geared to the proactive type, and the activist mentality has so permeated our culture that it's almost impossible for someone to think otherwise. You see it everywhere. The guys running the Mars rovers always say stuff like "Understanding how Mars dried out may help us prevent such a terrible fate here on Earth" Astronomers studying black holes or stars including our sun say "Understanding how solar flares are formed may help us divert a disaster here on Earth" or biological scientists "Understanding how mice store fat could help us understand Type II diabetes in humans" and on and on. You can just see a politician or activist following the scientists around waiting for an issue to grab hold of for their next campaign. In many cases, it's okay to have the research be focusedon humans and curing human disease, but the pervasive obsession over crisis and calamity is disconcerting.

[jack's smirking revenge]

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?

In a way, you reinforced one of my points. There actually is research ongoing that is done with no proactive or problem-based goal in mind. However, so much is geared to the proactive type, and the activist mentality has so permeated our culture that it's almost impossible for someone to think otherwise. You see it everywhere. The guys running the Mars rovers always say stuff like "Understanding how Mars dried out may help us prevent such a terrible fate here on Earth" Astronomers studying black holes or stars including our sun say "Understanding how solar flares are formed may help us divert a disaster here on Earth" or biological scientists "Understanding how mice store fat could help us understand Type II diabetes in humans" and on and on. You can just see a politician or activist following the scientists around waiting for an issue to grab hold of for their next campaign. In many cases, it's okay to have the research be focusedon humans and curing human disease, but the pervasive obsession over crisis and calamity is disconcerting.

But our world is filled with calamity and crisis, isn't it? In the last two years, we faced the virtual destruction of an American city by mother nature and the eradication of hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia by a tsunami. 80,000 people were killed by an earthquake in Pakistan. AIDS is rampant on the continent of Africa. We're destroying coral and fisheries at an alarming rate. When tragedies such as these are the regular headlines, you can understand why activism drives the bus.

I hate to refer to "V for Vendetta" again, but fear is an amazing motivator. Fear of terrorists. Fear of communists. Fear of disease. Fear of starvation. Fear of immigration. Fear of aliens. Fear of plagues and pandemics. Fear of war. Fear of peace. Fear of resource drain. Fear is everywhere we look. Fear is a tool used by the powerful to retain power.

So long as we're afraid, we're listening....

tyler

[mraynrand]

Can you spin it such that Fear is the reason we have skyscrapers or electricity or television? Did fear inspire scientists to study and understand orbital mechanics?

[Badgepack]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Can you spin it such that Fear is the reason we have skyscrapers or electricity or television? Did fear inspire scientists to study and understand orbital mechanics?

Obviously I can't and won't, but I guess I don't see the connection. I'm a firm believer in the advance of science and "have faith" in scientific discoveries. But a skyscraper, the harnessing of electricity or the creation of television are all human actions, essentially luxury items that have allowed our species to have a quicker and more comfortable evolution. Everything I've mentioned--and you, regarding black holes and global warming--are our scientists trying to understand our world and our universe. Yes, some people take that research and promote fear with the findings, but I think that's inevitable.

tyler

[mraynrand]

I see. We were talking apples and oranges. You were saying fear drives activism and I was saying that fear doesn't drive all research.

[MJZiggy]

While we're talking about research and killing ourselves and stuff, grab a Coke and read this:

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=65840-soft-drinks-fda-benzene

[SkinBasket]

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.

People are doing things to clean up the planet. Sure, others are doing more to create pollution than those who are trying to constrain it, but it seems people like to forget the progress being made on several fronts, from improving existing energy forms to creating new, cleaner ones on the production side and making better use of energy and conserving more on the consumption side.

Obviously it costs us nothing to be personally smarter about using energy on an individual level, but thats not a real solution when talking about global problems.

But who do you mean by "us?" Americans? Surely there are many in the US who are already doing what they can to use less energy for a variety of reasons, from wanting to save the world to wanting to save a buck.

If by "us" you mean industry and transportation in the US, then the cost will be trillions of tax dollars, wider trade deficits, hundreds of thousands of jobs, higher costs for energy to cover higher production costs and R/D for cleaner fuels - which means higher costs for everything from milk to airplane tickets.

There's a reason we use forms of energy that pollute - they're cheap. Try convincing someone who needs public assistance as it is just to keep their apartment livable during the winter that higher energy prices will benefit their kids in 20 years when they've got them in 3 jackets and 2 blankets now. Try convincing someone who just lost their job in industry or transportation to a company in China or India or Africa and is living on the street that lowering our CO2 emmissions 40 ppm over 40 years is worth it. Try convincing the entire country that giving up their cars for more expensive, slower moving, "Smart Cars" is something that needs to be done to stop the ice caps from melting in 200 years. Try explaining to the masses of newly unemployed and homeless and healthcareless that their kids, if they survive, will live in a better, cleaner world.



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?

I'm not trying to be snide with this post, but one of the points I've been trying to make is that changes of the magnitude that many are suggesting to make the world cleaner cannot be implemented overnight. It's going to take a lot of money and change to the countries' industry, transportation, infrastructure, energy production, processing, and delivery systems - not to mention personal change on the individual level. Not to mention trying to balance this change with the need to stay somewhat competetive in the global market.

[No Mo Moss]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

[No Mo Moss]

Personally I think that the alternative types of energy could be a huge economic boost for this country. If good forms of alternative energy can be develped it would mean a lot larger gain for this country than staying on this same track. I mean who really benefits from the oil companies? My local BP isn't doing S*it for the community.

Here's an example.

If Hydrogen cell technologies were imployed at a local neighborhood level, say one per 10 city blocks, and handled in a sort of co-op manner it would boost the economy in many ways.

#1 Our winter heating bills are killing this country. I had months well over $400 this winter. Cutting that to $100 - $200 is the same as giving me $200-$300 dollars to use in the economy.
Many estimates report that such technology would be 80%-%90 less expensive.

#2 It would create jobs at a more local level, more of a community position.

#3 Mass producing this new technology would become a huge industry of its own. The more successful it became, the more demand there would be for the product worldwide.

Eventually the automotive industry will inevitably switch to a more fuel efficient form of energy such as hydrogen cell technology or something similar. It wil either happen in 5-10 years or 30-50. Why not lead the world in production of such things. Instead the Japanese hybrids have ruled the market thus far. If we could lead the world in the manufacturing of such things we would no doubt reap huge economic gains.

It isn't that people think this happens overnight, its that you have to actually start looking into it seriously before you are going to get any real solutions. The atomic bomb probably would have taken 30 more years to build had there not been some sense of urgency. Currently there is no sense of urgency.

[mraynrand]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

Mraynrand, can you tell me where to get flawless or unbiased research? Where do you go for your information with which to base your scientific opinion? Just curious. I understand that all research is somewhat flawed and biased, but if all research is flawed and biased, then I'm getting the impression from you that all research is somewhat useless.

tyler

[Little Whiskey]

can you tell me where to get flawless or unbiased research?

tyler

the internet or TV.

[No Mo Moss]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

We live an a disposable culture, you don't need research to tell you that is wasteful and depletes resources.

Women that are pregnant can no longer eat more than 12 oz of most wild caught fish here in MN because of the birth defects that the mercury will cause. Do you know anyone pregnant, maybe we could put this nonsense to the test?

[Badgepack]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

My faith tells me that oil, coal, natural gas, ect. is non-renewable.
My faith tells me that there are ponds I would not set foot in.
My faith tells me there are 60 million more people than last year.
My faith tells me that the ice caps are melting much faster than they should.

[No Mo Moss]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

Thanks to No Mo Moss who was thoughtful enough to post a link to a movie about a serious environmental matter. For that, the left-hating fringe responded with anger and ignorance right on cue. The plain (and inconvenient) truth is that they are such tools for a political party that their whole being has to exist in that tiny little ideological bubble. Horrors if a non-party approved idea should exist.

This is an environmental matter, whether you are a right winger, a left winger, a communist, an independent, a religious fundamentalist or an atheist. How collossally stupid does one have to be to trivialize this as some left wing conspiracy or hoax? Are we supposed to believe that scientists from all over the world have some secret coordinated plan to use their life's work and career interest to spend corporate and government funding in order to fabricate a giant hoax to destroy the U.S. because, doggone it, they hate the U.S. so BAD???

The scientists in the U.S., who live in our cities, were classmates and friends of ours, who shop in the same stores and eat at the same restaurants, secretly are dominated by a single-minded hatred of the Republican party so they make up global warming to waste a bunch of money to ruing American and bite off the hand that feeds them and financially ruin the rest of us too? All in a calculated, synchronized effort? Really, are people that stupid, or has political partisanship gone way over the cliff?

Someone said the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. Said it as if it were absolute fact. Based on what - science? Quote from studies from freerepublic, newsmax, or scientists from the energy industry when it conforms to your closed-minded viewpoint and reject all the rest?

Some said the earth is millions of years old. Better not tell that to the hardcore religious fundamentalists. They are convinced the earth is barely 6,000 years old and that carbon dating and ice core dating are hoaxes and fuzzy science. By their belief, there couldn't have been an ice age or else it would have been in the Bible.

I'm saying, be careful of what you think you're absolutely certain of, especially if you have no real knowledge in this area. Opinions are like you-know-what; everyone has one.

What if the global warming-is-a-myth crowd happen to be wrong and society didn't take action when we could have maybe made a difference? On the other hand, if the global warming-is-a-fact crowd is wrong, what did it really cost us in the long run? We made the earth a little cleaner?

Was the ecosystem X billion years ago the same ecosystem as today? Hardly. Human, animal, and plant life has all changed in number since then, plus the chemical artificial substances that science has created and the pollutants we put in the air. A mountain in Antarctica puts out more CFC's than air conditioners and that is supposed to mean global warming doesn't exist? Whaaaaa??? If these people don't worry about CO2 levels, perhaps they could experiment by sitting with their SUV's running in a closed garage and see if they notice any change in their personal environment.

I usually just read the forum topics and never post, but these topics have devolved to angry and stupid rants. And I'm the sucker that just got drug down to that level by posting. Sorry for all who are offended by this, but try harder next time to pause and use some reasoning before popping off with some approved spin point from a political party that neither knows you exist - unless you pay them money - nor gives a damn about anything but perpetuating power. There's no money to be made in environmental causes, so the environmental issues are dismissed as "inconvenient".

'night all. I'd stick around but hate the whole back-and-forth name calling. But since I threw some rocks at a few people, then I'll expect some thrown back at me as well.

Brilliant!

[mraynrand]

Interesting to see people try to phrase it as all-or-none or leftists versus the 6,000 year old earth creationists.

SOME science is junk science. SOME science is agenda-driven science. MOST science is pretty decent, well-executed, and appropriately peer reviewed. I was focusing primarily on the science behind the subject of this thread - that is the models that predict at worst case scenario, about a 2 degree planetary warming over the next 100 years. When someone says that they don't need evidence but can rely on faith to know that the earth is overpopulated and is becoming more polluted, I'll respond to that. Where on earth do you think the information about PCBs and Hg in the environment comes from - an act of god? It's absolutely pathetic to have someone harshly critique one side of the argument by claiming that they are ignorant creationists and then fall back on secularism/materialism (or nothing) as their faith-based source for truth.

In science you have to differentiate observation from interpretation. Observations include: Population is increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are rising. The planetary temperature is rising slightly (varies depending on your source and where in the atmosphere you measure). Mercury levels in some waterways are higher. In some they are lower. Fires on the Cuyahoga no longer take place and massive re-speciation has occurred. Smog levels in Los Angeles and San Bernadino are lower than 30 years ago.

Overpopulation and pollution are interpretations (In science journals they are called conclusions) and are subject to regional considerations (in the case of pollution) and other considerations (as the case for human-created global warming - that is, what EXACTLY is the contribution of humans relative to natural cycles of the Earth, solar changes, natural environmental changes, etc.). Yes there are areas that are polluted. Yes AIDS is rampant in Africa. But are these signs of overpopulation and uncontrollable waste, or are they issues that result from destructive behaviors that can be solved?
How do you know that Oil is a finite resource? Relative to what? I know I'll never collect on this debt, but I'll bet everything I own that oil never runs out - ever - until the Earth melts when the Sun expands. Eventually the cost will rise so high that other sources will be found to replace it and in the meantime it can be recovered (more expensively) from other sources such as shale and coal.

The bottom line here, as I have limited time, is that many of you just aren't thinking. You have a few facts and in many cases, some extreme interpretations. You know some things are worse off than they used to be - some areas ARE more polluted and there are less pristine open areas. But do you recognize that there are trade offs? Many of the diseases that are being researched today are being studied because they are the diseases of older people (cancer, typically) or are the diseases of wealth (obesity, type II diabetes), or are the maladies of corrupt behavior (orthopedic fixation for victims of drunk or drugged or cell-phone inattentive driving, or AIDS from promiscuity). We have these things because people are living longer and in many cases better and/or more carelessly than ever in history - despite some extra pollutants here and there - that as we find out about them, and CAREFULLY verify them as true threats (not fake threats like DDT), that can be eliminated.

[No Mo Moss]

Overpopulation is a real problem and any statement refuting that is irresponsible. Regardless of region it is a problem. If it doesn't exist then why have some countries had to limit the number of children allowed? It's called the carrying capacity, how many can be sustained with available resources. You can't have infinite amounts of people on the planet, is that what you're suggesting?

Its not a difficult concept and requires no scientific studies whatsoever. My grandparents had 3 kids. each of those kids had three kids. That's 14 people. When the grandparents die you're down to 12, but once the kids have offspring you're likely at 32. how's that not going to be a problem?

First the environment is in great shape and then overpopulation is just an interpretation, give me a break!

[SkinBasket]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

blah blah blah... more "non-partisan" cold hard facts which happens to include bashing conservatives because they're fucking idiots who just don't get it....

Brilliant!

Real convincing stuff. I really appreciate how you've now moved all your arguments into the "you don't need facts to see this..." and "you don't need science to tell you that..." after all your ranting about how science backs you up 90%.

You continue to ignore the progress being made on a real level and continue to shout out your ideals as fact and scientific certainty. You have yet to offer any plan of action outside of signing the Kyoto treaty and unrealistic models of how energy distribution will work in the future (your hydrogen cell yabberjabber about coops and local ownership).

Whoever develops the next large source of energy is not going to hand away the bazillions of dollars that will have been spent researching, developing, and building the delivery infastructure needed for said energy source. Guess what? They're going to sell it! Yes, crazy idea, but they're going to to sell it to you and make a profit! Just like gasoline!

And you know what else? After said energy source has been established, there's not going to be an "economic boon" in mass producing it because companies in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Mexico will simply do it cheaper - just like pharmacuticals. Especially if the US companies have been hogtied by your ideas about handicapping American businesses with things like the Kyoto chicken raping device.

[SkinBasket]

From the now infallible source of jstone of JSOnline:

"I'm saying, be careful of what you think you're absolutely certain of, especially if you have no real knowledge in this area. Opinions are like you-know-what; everyone has one."

Goddamn if it don't make me piss myself everytime I read a statement like this thrown in the middle of a post like the one above. Nomo, you really should listen to him on this one. Seriously. Especially while you're creaming your pants listening to Al Gore whip you into an environmental catastrophy frenzy.

[CyclonePackFan]

Come on people, every practicing Pastafarian knows that global warming is merely a result of the influence of His Noodly Appendage in response to the sharp decline in the number of His ideal form for humanity, the Pirate. I refer you to the following statistical proof:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

In all seriousness and in my humble opinion, part of the problem with doing research is that many of the solutions to our energy/global warming problem are tied to buzz words that freak out the general population. For example, if I stood in front of a room of "tree humpers" as it has been so eloquently put and was asked the solution to our energy problem, I would be booed off the stage the moment I said the word "Nuclear" and before I could finish my sentence with the word "fusion." (Now that I think of it, I haven't heard anything on fusion research recently, I might have to look into that after I'm done posting this) People want to utilize fuel cell technology, but if I told them that the first step is investing in genetic research, they'd freak. Personally, I can't wait for BMW to put out the first fuel cell cars in a couple of years, but I sincerely doubt it will catch on in the US in the near future since Exxon Mobil will simply block it's arrival or buy out the research. As for overpopulation, well, that's a problem that fixes itself, but not by means that most people approve. Eventually, there will be a famine, or drought, or disease (global warming induced or otherwise) which will help Mother Earth handle the problem herself.

[Patler]

I have been a "member of the science community" for over 35 years. One thing that all good scientists agree on is how little they know with certainty.

As a young pup I was deluged with reports about thickening of the ozone layer through the release of the then-common refrigerant gasses in air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. and the propellants in aerosol cans, etc. In those days, everything you can think of was dispensed from cans having gas propellants pre-loaded in the can. The atmospheric pumps commonly used today were not yet developed. When AC units were recharged, the overflow was simply released, not captured as today. The earth was measurably cooling. The polar ice caps would build and a new ice age would overtake us. That was the conclusion of widely accepted scientific models. It was obvious for everyone to see. The measurables were there. The ozone layer WAS thickening. The earth WAS cooling. Both were measured here, there and everywhere. Mankind WAS releasing the gases. One must be causing the others, right?

Suddenly, the earth was no longer cooling, it was warming. The ice caps were not growing, they were melting. The ozone layer was not thickening, it was thinning and a hole developed, which is growing. Science scrambled for an explanation. How about CO2? The chemistry works. That MUST be it!

But is it? Good science will look for explanations that are consistent with the phenomena of 35 years ago and the phenomena of today. I've not yet seen anything that does that, except naturally occuring ebs and flows, the alteration of which by man is minimal. Society has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have reversed global cooling and an oncoming ice age to global warming instead. If we were responsible for global cooling, how are we now responsible for global warming? If we are responsible for global warming, how could we have been responsible for global cooling just 35 years ago?

If carbon dioxide is the problem, what is the answer? Reduced carbon dioxide emissions, or increased carbon dioxide use, consumption and conversion by increased plant matter. Are we releasing too much carbon dioxide, or cutting too many trees?

One of the biggest problems science and mankind have consistently encountered is not adequately studying their "remedies". We are convinced we have the answer, we follow the solution only to discover we have developed still other, and sometimes more significant problems. Everything has repercussions, including the naturally occurring phenomena. No action is totally inert. For the most part, we just don't yet understand.

I'm not suggesting that these are not things that should be studied. Clearly they should be studied. However, running around shouting "the earth is dying, the earth is dying" is irresponsible in my opinion. Instilling panic is irresponsible. Yes, we should pursue efforts to pollute less, use less, be efficient. But we should not jump too quickly to conclusions or solutions neither of which we understand fully. After all, at one time nuclear power generation was perceived to be the answer. It was felt to be clean and non-polluting. We were sure we could control the reactors and the handling of the radioactive materials. Nuclear plants were being built everywhere. Less coal would be used, less pollution would result. Some might argue we gave up too quickly with nuclear power generation; however, clearly we were not prepared for some of the problems that occurred.


As an aside, we are not overpopulated, we are too inefficiently organized to support the population distribution.

[No Mo Moss]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

blah blah blah... more "non-partisan" cold hard facts which happens to include bashing conservatives because they're fucking idiots who just don't get it....

Brilliant!

Real convincing stuff. I really appreciate how you've now moved all your arguments into the "you don't need facts to see this..." and "you don't need science to tell you that..." after all your ranting about how science backs you up 90%.

You continue to ignore the progress being made on a real level and continue to shout out your ideals as fact and scientific certainty. You have yet to offer any plan of action outside of signing the Kyoto treaty and unrealistic models of how energy distribution will work in the future (your hydrogen cell yabberjabber about coops and local ownership).

Whoever develops the next large source of energy is not going to hand away the bazillions of dollars that will have been spent researching, developing, and building the delivery infastructure needed for said energy source. Guess what? They're going to sell it! Yes, crazy idea, but they're going to to sell it to you and make a profit! Just like gasoline!

And you know what else? After said energy source has been established, there's not going to be an "economic boon" in mass producing it because companies in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Mexico will simply do it cheaper - just like pharmacuticals. Especially if the US companies have been hogtied by your ideas about handicapping American businesses with things like the Kyoto chicken raping device.

SKin, I've moved my arguement because any scientific data presented on this thread is considered leftie crap and is probably not even read. I am simply refuting the ideas expressed on here stating that man has little or no impact on this planet because the science that says so is politically motivated. It is completely assinine to say that humans haven't impacted the earth in a negative way. I'm saying you don't need science to see that, just a pair of eyes and a garbage can.

As for the Kyoto arguement it doesn't hold water with me. I'm not so upset that we didn't sign it, but rather that when things weren't exactly what we wanted we simply had a childish breakdown and didn't even bother to exercise any continued diplomacy. Why does this country always have to operate in extremes.

The aforementioned power supply example is a very realistsic one. Of course the companies will sell it, why wouldn't they. Unfortunately the fuel will most likely be water, so selling it like gasoline won't work. You make it sound like I expect some kind of Utopia with lemonheads falling from the sky instead of money, because everything is free. That's not what I'm saying. Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

[mraynrand]

Overpopulation is a real problem and any statement refuting that is irresponsible. Regardless of region it is a problem. If it doesn't exist then why have some countries had to limit the number of children allowed?

Why do some countries have lower carrying capacity? Perhaps it's the political and social environment that prevents modernization. Without modernization, an agrarian country like China had to rely on more children per family to work the soil to raise crops etcetera. Also, Mao killed many more Chinese than 'overpopulation' and any statement refuting that is irresponsible.

You wrote:
"Its not a difficult concept and requires no scientific studies whatsoever. My grandparents had 3 kids. each of those kids had three kids. That's 14 people. When the grandparents die you're down to 12, but once the kids have offspring you're likely at 32. how's that not going to be a problem?"

Really, that's brilliant. Did you read what I wrote previously? What you are describing is a typical growth curve - a growth curve for a bacteria or yeast in an environment with excess substrate (nutrient). As I said, humans don't operate the same way. If you look closely, you may find that areas where you think there is 'overpopulation' are areas that have repressive governments and/or areas that have not yet modernized past a simple agrarian subsistence farming. Do you think NYC is overcrowded? again, based on what? Number of people per square inch? How much each eats per day? What? Is Colorado then 'underpopulated'? How do you know what the carrying capacity of the Earth is? Will it always be the same, or will it change when new food producing technologies come on line? Do people in modernized cultures have the same number of offspring as those in less modern regions?


You also wrote:

"First the environment is in great shape and then overpopulation is just an interpretation, give me a break!"

Note the all-or-none hysteria in response to my observation that pollution and man-made damage to the environment is not universal or consistent from region to region. Who is being rational and who is being hysterical?

[SkinBasket]

You make it sound like I expect some kind of Utopia with lemonheads falling from the sky instead of money, because everything is free. That's not what I'm saying. Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

Actually you do make it sound ilke you expect some utopia. Though I'm not sure how long we could sustain ourselves on lemonheads.

Where is this sympathy crud coming from? Who here has sympathy for oil companies? Not only that, but why the hell should they adapt when, as you put it, they are making record profits? This is still the remants of a somehat free economy afterall. They set a price for their goods. You pay it or you get a bike and start peddling.

Also, maybe you could explain how they're raping "middle america" and not "lower america" or "upper america." Is "middle america" paying more for gas than everyone else?

[Little Whiskey]

Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

what gets me is all the blame shifted to the oil companies, by the gov't and politicians. after the oil wars the gov't mandated that oil companies must mark up gasoline 9%. if the cost of Gas is $1.00 they oil company must charge at a minimum $1.09. they make 9 cents per gallon. now lets say the price of gas jumps to $2.00 per gallon. that same oil company must charge 2.18 per gallon. and in return double there earnings!!! but lets look at those numbers from a diffrent angle. sales tax in my area is 6%. in the first example the gov't made $.06 for every gallon and in the second example they made $.12 for every gallon. DOUBLING their earnings!!! and they didn't have to do anything. no pumping, no trasporting, no refining, no drilling, no research. nothing. and that is just the sales tax. by the time you add all the other taxes and fees we are paying for gas, it is the gov't that is making more money on gas than the terrible oil companies. how come in this time of crisis and high gas prices the gov't isn't repealing any of the taxes and fees they place on gas?? who is really raping middle america??

[mraynrand]

Just about the worst thing you could do at this point with gas prices would be to artifically lower the price. That would artificially spike demand and you would use more fuel and you would potentially have shortages. Plus, for the regions that would run out first, the artifically lower prices would reduce any incentive for someone to ship fuel from regions where excess existed. Basic economics. Also, for the conservationists, naturally high gas prices are the best thing we have - if high prices reflect real demand, then we actually have a chance that entrepeneurs will invest seriously in other fuels and vehicles (such as biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear energy to provide electricity to power hydrogen fuel cells etc. etc.), which is exactly what we need to reduce greenhouse emissions. Isn't that what Al Gore wants?

[No Mo Moss]

Articially lower the gas price? Yeah I'd hate to chip into their record profits they post when they "artificially" raise prices whenever they like.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wait! Don't you want the price of gas to rise, so we'd have to conserve and use less?

[No Mo Moss]

I don't want gas prices to break people anymore than they already are. Who the f*ck roots for higher gas prices?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who the f*ck roots for higher gas prices?

Many environmentalists. Gas prices, adjusted for inflation, are the same as they were 25 years ago. Unless prices get exorbinant, you likely won't see a big change in demand.

[No Mo Moss]

Harv, 25 years ago we were in the middle of a gas crisis.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harv, 25 years ago we were in the middle of a gas crisis.

No, that was 27 years ago and 33 years ago. Apparently, gas prices aren't too high since demand has not decreased one bit. Europeans seem willing to pay more than double what we do.

[No Mo Moss]

Well most europeans rely on their car less than Americans, atleast for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

[mraynrand]

Well most europeans rely on their car less than Americans, atleast for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

I ride the Coors Light Train every weekend.

[Tarlam!]

Well most Europeans rely on their car less than Americans, at least for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

This is simply incorrect. You need to see the Motorway system when school breaks. All forms of transport strongly used.

One problem is everything has become so inexpensive. 25 years ago, travelling was expensive. Today, I can book a flight to London for 40 USD. I can take my family to Portugal for 2 weeks, 3 star with breakfast for 1000 all up. That's just ridiculous.

What nobody has yet discussed in the distribution of wealth (natural resources). As it stands, the "western" societies account for 86% of consumption. This figure comes from a group of Greens called The Natural Step (TNS). Far from being militant, they realize completely turning the planet Green in, say, one year would mean the end of civilization as we know it, lead to war, world hunger etc.

It is not economically feasible to just stop polluting. TNS stated goal is to contribute to leading industry to become sustainable, but with a reasonable time frame. Great bunch of Greenies, actually.

But they pose a really scary question that is REAL, and it is far more threatening than the Global Warming discussion, or the next Ice Age. They ask the question "what happens when the rest of the world wants to consume as much as the current rich countries?".

Look at China. They have increased their contracts for crude and refined oil and they are directly responsible for the gas prices. Their industry has taken so much steel out of our pipelines that we have incurred unsurpassed price hikes and lead times. They are beginning to consume more and more. Look at India. Same thing and they recently signed new trade agreement with China.

The axis of consumption is shifting and this is the scariest threat to our societies. And we are all encouraging it by demanding consumer goods at cheaper and cheaper prices. We don't care that stuff is made by child laborers.

[mraynrand]

We don't care that stuff is made by child laborers.

That's just not true. I don't care, but you obviously do. 12 hours of work everyday keeps the kids off the streets, helps them get a good sound night of sleep, and keeps them from bugging me when I'm trying to enjoy my scotch. Plus, the cost of my nose hair trimmer went down from 15 to 12 bucks. How can you beat that?


But seriously, Tarlam, we care.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Tarlam,

Those are good points about third world consumption, and it is a problem to worry about. I think the rest of the stuff will take care of itself because of many factors. Just like we no longer pollute like we did in the industrial revolution --because of technological advancements, political pressure, etc. The big problem is that third world countries will be going through their own little industrial revolution very shortly. How will deal with that is a big concern.

[Tarlam!]

Harv, thanks. I think Ray missed my point a tad.

I am scared to death that my kids will be fighting the Chinese and the Indians for a gallon of gas.

Look, I am all for equal rights. Actually, that's bullshit. I am all for my kids being better situated that any body else's kids. Next, I want all their friends to be well situated, too.

I do not want Chinese kids well situated at the expense of my and your kids!

How fucked does that sound! I wish we could all be well situated, but I just see winners and losers. Fuck. What did I eat for brekfast this morning????

[jack's smirking revenge]

Tarlam,

Those are good points about third world consumption, and it is a problem to worry about. I think the rest of the stuff will take care of itself because of many factors. Just like we no longer pollute like we did in the industrial revolution --because of technological advancements, political pressure, etc. The big problem is that third world countries will be going through their own little industrial revolution very shortly. How will deal with that is a big concern.

I guess that's the point I've been trying to make with the posts about water consumption and population growth. Population growth will put a strain on the available resources on the planet. Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

tyler

[mraynrand]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

Then I will agree to disagree with you (though I don't believe in any sort of "apocalypse"--I just believe the United States will slip quickly from its perch as the "world power"). Great points though.

tyler

[Tarlam!]

Welcome to FYI, l & g.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

[No Mo Moss]

Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

what gets me is all the blame shifted to the oil companies, by the gov't and politicians. after the oil wars the gov't mandated that oil companies must mark up gasoline 9%. if the cost of Gas is $1.00 they oil company must charge at a minimum $1.09. they make 9 cents per gallon. now lets say the price of gas jumps to $2.00 per gallon. that same oil company must charge 2.18 per gallon. and in return double there earnings!!! but lets look at those numbers from a diffrent angle. sales tax in my area is 6%. in the first example the gov't made $.06 for every gallon and in the second example they made $.12 for every gallon. DOUBLING their earnings!!! and they didn't have to do anything. no pumping, no trasporting, no refining, no drilling, no research. nothing. and that is just the sales tax. by the time you add all the other taxes and fees we are paying for gas, it is the gov't that is making more money on gas than the terrible oil companies. how come in this time of crisis and high gas prices the gov't isn't repealing any of the taxes and fees they place on gas?? who is really raping middle america??

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

[mraynrand]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

Same to you.

[Little Whiskey]

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

thats awful nice of them since the taxes and fees on a gallon of gas is upwards of $0.50!! at least in my area.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Suddenly, the earth was no longer cooling, it was warming. The ice caps were not growing, they were melting. The ozone layer was not thickening, it was thinning and a hole developed, which is growing. Science scrambled for an explanation. How about CO2? The chemistry works. That MUST be it!

But is it? Good science will look for explanations that are consistent with the phenomena of 35 years ago and the phenomena of today. I've not yet seen anything that does that, except naturally occuring ebs and flows, the alteration of which by man is minimal. Society has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have reversed global cooling and an oncoming ice age to global warming instead. If we were responsible for global cooling, how are we now responsible for global warming? If we are responsible for global warming, how could we have been responsible for global cooling just 35 years ago?

Sorry for delayed response, but just listened to radio show about global warming which got me to thinking.

Well, the "global cooling" phenomena proclaimed prior to the 1970's is still held to be true. The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming. See The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

The National Academy of Sciences is clear and unambiguous on global warming. See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

[Scott Campbell]

All I have to say is, how can I profit from this?

Can I buy some cold oceanfront property in Newfoundland and set it up to be the next South Beach?

[SkinBasket]

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming.

With all due respect Blue... no shit?

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that. Cows fucking farting are "a" factor. A Chinaman lighting up a cigarette in Chengdu is "a" factor. That 10 second spray of AqauNet your mom used to lure your dad into the backseat where you were conceived was "a" factor. That dead bird in my back yard decaying is "a" factor.

The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)? and Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.

[Fosco33]

I'm only mildly concerned about the 'increases' in green house gases and global warming. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods of warming and cooling - plenty of this attributable to natural acts (volcanism being the main source, meteorite impacts, etc). Certainly, the use of fossil fuels and reductions of the rain forests have led to an undetermined effect on global warming.

I am concerned more about the human race's ability to reach the point where lack of clean water and resources needed to maintain the current style of living are used up (concrete, steel, etc.). Steven Hawking preached last week that humans should concentrate on space exploration and leaving Earth before a cataclysmic disaster kills us all (either natural or through MAD weapons -bio and nuclear threats).

Seeing Venice, Italy disappear will be a sad day for us all but IMO the US will be put in a precarious place unless we cut our love of oil and improve relations with enemy nations. There's not enough resources available (steel and concrete) to 'modernize' China and India to the state were in today. Our ability to continually innovate and improve technology while becoming a service economy will continue to separate the US from the rest. It's tough knowing we're outsourcing our manual labor force - but a necessary act for long-term sustainability.

The best part about all of this is that we have the ability and ingenuity to make all these things possible (using different materials, 'creating' materials, altering fuel source usage, etc.).

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that .... The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)?

I was paraphrasing a long article, your argument is with my shorthand. The consensus opinion was that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." None of the 928 papers contradicted this opinion. 75% argued it directly. You have to read the whole article, but the high degree of scientific consensus is undeniable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.

I don't know much about the consequences of global warming. But I suspect the worry-warts have some substance.

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

Sorry to see that you frame this issue in terms of politics. Rush Limbaugh is also at his worst on this issue. Remember, he has long claimed "global warming" to be a political conspiracy, and he looks increasingly foolish. Sounds like you part ways with him on the existence of (human caused) global warming, but you've moved the conspiracy over to the consequences part.

[Patler]

The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.


Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

You must have read the headlines, without reading the underlying articles and analysis. For example:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores. (Emphasis mine.)

[Patler]

"The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols."

Doesn't sound to me like even those who contributed to the report are convinced that natural forces are insignificant.

[Patler]

"What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate change?

"Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in projections of future climate will require addressing a number of fundamental scientific questions relating to the buildup of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system. Issues that need to be addressed include
...
(e) details of the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall level of global climate change, (f) the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes,"

[Patler]

More uncertainty from the report Harlan cites:

'Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability."

[HarveyWallbangers]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

[Scott Campbell]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

Don't forget the gated community tax.

[SkinBasket]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

And when you add them all up, more than half of what you make goes to your various forms of government. But I guess some people don't see a problem with that. I mean look at the wonderful education the kids of Milwaukee are getting for that price. And Mil county still can't find a way to bridge the 80 mil gap in spending this year. Great stuff. But raise another tax. I'm sure it'll be spent well. Maybe we can get another deep tunnel project. Or maybe we can work on resurfacing the streets downtown that no one uses because the city has taxed just about every business out of there. More taxes! Yeah!

On a practical note, HH, who is going to decide what "excessive" greenhouse gases are? Where's the cutoff? Who's exempt? Why only SUVs? Because they're a popular target? What about semis, buses, boats, trains, construction machinery, minivans, cars over 8 years old, and that excessive gas produced the the collective anus of millions of cows? Are you going to tax all of them if they produce as much greenhouse gas as an SUV? How are you going to define SUVs?

Just a few things that come to mind when you mention dropping another tax...

[SkinBasket]

Sorry to see that you frame this issue in terms of politics. Rush Limbaugh is also at his worst on this issue. Remember, he has long claimed "global warming" to be a political conspiracy, and he looks increasingly foolish. Sounds like you part ways with him on the existence of (human caused) global warming, but you've moved the conspiracy over to the consequences part.

Harlan, don't be a bitch and claim you, or anyone else, aren't approaching this discussion from a political perspective. That much is made clear by your immediate jump to Rush and conspiracy talk. This boils down to environmental policy. Policy is decided by political administrations. The environment is a political issue. The sooner you and others stop claiming some status as defenders of the earth as your moral high ground that is somehow above politics, the sooner we can actualy talk about the subject.

This thread started as a discussion of Al Gore's "movie." Are you going to take the same tack as NoMo and claim that Al Gore isn't a political figure? He was simply the best man for the job of talking over a bunch of selective statistics from junk science meant to scare the environmental circle jerk crowd into a greater hysteria? Have you listened to Al Gore? None of the things I said about him demonizing conservatives, big business, and republican administrations are off base.

Speaking of conspiracies, maybe you were also a subscriber of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy?"

Maybe you could clarify what you mean by claiming I've moved the conspiracy to the consequences part? What does that even mean?

There's no conspiracy here, only a bunch of democrats trying to make political hay out of demogoguery. Nothing new. It's how they seem to approach every issue these days. The world's going to end. Old people will be left without medication to die in the street. Blacks will be forced back into slavery by republicans wielding their "plantation mentality." Gays will be rounded up and held in detention centers. And the most recent addition: The US will be destroyed at the hands of terrorists because Republicans are soft on the war on terror.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales.....

Doesn't sound to me like even those who contributed to the report are convinced that natural forces are insignificant.


Sounds like a damn balanced and thoughtful report, ehh?

It is possible that 50 years or 100 years from now, with more data and study, the consensus opinion will change to "global warming is most significantly due to natural causes." Right now, very few scientists expect this, and the current consensus has been reached over a 25 year period of debate and testing.

The problem (obviously) is the harm in waiting 50 or 100 years to make changes, if the current consensus is largely correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, ...

Well, if you don't think that human-generated greenhouse gasses are any biggy for the future, then end of discussion. No need to do anything.

But just for sake of argument, lets say that it is critical (in your judgement) to reduce CO2 pollution, that the world will be a shithole for future generations if we keep on current path.

How does a conservative thinker solve the problem of heavy polluting models of cars? I think a tax on them would reduce demand, and still allow people who can afford them to buy um. You don't like this idea, fine, lets see some creativity on your part, offer an alternative.

(BTW, Do you think the government was wrong to force automaker to put catalytic converters and other pollution controls on cars in the 1970's? That made a HUGE difference, you have tried breathing in big cities before then!)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, don't be a bitch and claim you, or anyone else, aren't approaching this discussion from a political perspective. That much is made clear by your immediate jump to Rush and conspiracy talk. This boils down to environmental policy. Policy is decided by political

I mentioned Rush because he is the undisputed Champion of belittling GW as a political ploy only. He's been doing it for 15 years. Now that a consensus has emerged, he sounds foolish.

As far as me & politics, I HATE liberal vrs. conservative politics. I don't bash. I have a mixed bag of views, I am very conservative on foreign policy, liberal on most domestic issues, and I refuse to see environmental issue in liberal vrs conservative terms. I was againt Kyoto because it was unreasonable deal for U.S. for instance - does that make me a conservative? As soon as any discussion turns to Dems vrs. Repubs we enter the stupidity zone of prepackaged shallow thinking.

[Scott Campbell]

(BTW, Do you think the government was wrong to force automaker to put catalytic converters and other pollution controls on cars in the 1970's? That made a HUGE difference, you have tried breathing in big cities before then!)

If the government needs to meddle, let them stimulate progress on alternative sources of energy - solar for homes and electric for cars. Give outrageous tax breaks to those who develop the technology, and subsidize those end users who purchase the technology.

Don't penalize those who want bigger safer vehicles. I'd much rather use tax incentives to encourage more responsible behavior than tax penalties to gouge the evil gas guzzlers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, fine: eliminate all federal taxes on cars that are low polluters.

(this effectively does the same thing as adding tax to high polluters, but if it is easier to accept, good.)

[MJZiggy]

I thought they already offered subsidies for people who purchased solar heating and water. And as to safety, if everyone drove smaller cars then it would be safer to drive smaller cars. A Yugo v. Hummer crash would be a lot ugler than Yugo v. Yugo.

[Scott Campbell]

I thought they already offered subsidies for people who purchased solar heating and water. And as to safety, if everyone drove smaller cars then it would be safer to drive smaller cars. A Yugo v. Hummer crash would be a lot ugler than Yugo v. Yugo.

I think you can compress the R&D time on alternative clean technologies by enhancing the profit motive for companies capable of develping solutions.

You now have GPS navigation, anti-lock brakes, air-bags, VSC, in seat air conditioning and countless other truly amazing technological advances in automobiles over the last 15 years. Yet most cars/trucks still get between 15 and 30 miles per gallon. Yes, they run somewhat cleaner. But the bottom line is we are still consuming way too much fuel and the core of the internal combustion engine is much the same as it was decades ago.

Until there is a greater profit motive for companies to unseat the internal combustion engine, then much of your environmental progress will be incremental - not revolutionary.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html)

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=WIMAD&SECTION=HOME)

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
Jun 22, 7:06 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities.

The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

Their conclusions were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers - a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

It had compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures - a 1 degree rise in global average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the 20th century - and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

That research is "likely" true and is supported by more recent data, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, had asked the academy for the report last year after the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of the three climate scientists.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat from global warming is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change."

The academy panel said it had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600.

But it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations had the biggest effects on climate. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, the panel said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

[SkinBasket]

The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Good christ Harlan, I know you can do better than this. "reconstructed global average surface temperatures?" That sounds like a very solid and established line of science to me.

The words "much" and "recent" also don't really do much to improve my feelings toward this article. Is this science or a guessing game?

Skinbasket declares that a lot of things have happened that might have made things different around here lately, and he has lots of data extrapolated from biased goal-oriented studies based on estimates, conjecture, and really really strong feelings to back it up. (*edit: I forgot hockey sticks that are "likely" true models of climate change - according to the the poelpe who made the hockey stick model.)

This is the kind of crap that works against people trying to demonstrate that people are the main reason for a climate change and that that climate change will bring doom and gloom. Personaly, I don't give a fuck if we survive a global catastophy that may or may not happen as a result of climate changes that may or may not be directly attibutable to man-made pollution as the main source. The earth will survive even if we don't, so what's all the fuss about?

Have you seen the Miracle Planet show on Discovery dealing with their fireball and snowball "events?" They claim this shit has happened before (asteroid hitting earth and covering surface in gaseous flame, climate change that covers surface in 10,000 feet of show and ice) and will happen again. Microscopic organisms buried deep underground (the ocean will be evaporated after all) save the earth and lead to a renewal. With the snowball event, orgamisms can last billions of years frozen, then reanimate, so when the volcanoes (yes volcanoes) produce enough greenhouse gases to melt all that fucking snow, the earth is renewed. Yipee!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have seen some really ridiculous TV documentaries on environmental threats, especially the PBS one narrated by Alanis Morrisette. I know there is a TON of crap propoganda.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Until there is a greater profit motive for companies to unseat the internal combustion engine, then much of your environmental progress will be incremental - not revolutionary.

Sure, if everything is left strictly to market forces.

China has a justified reputation for producing a pollution nightmare. But guess what - they are now embarked on a MASSIVE undertaking to develop and convert to green technologies. My bro is a manufacturing big shit, goes to manufacturing trade shows in China, sez everything is GREEN GREEN GREEN. If your manufacturing material/tool isn't GREEN, they aren't buying.

Converting to environmentally sound society is not a burden, it is a business opportunity! It means developing products for future. If U.S. capitalists don't take the lead, through government incentives where necessary, China gonna KICK OUR ASS. Green is good business.

There is no reason why conservatives and the republican party shouldn't be equal partners in promoting cleaner environment. The Environmental Protection Agency was a creation of Richard Nixon. The majority of Republicans see what is at stake. Rush Limbaugh and the Tree Hugger talk is old school.

[No Mo Moss]

Before Tobacco was totally accepted as a cancer causing agent, the tobacco companies did there own fake science to show that smoking is safe. It seems that the big oil companies would have "slightly" more to gain then environmentalists by lying.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just saw the movie.

The scientific information presented was convincing. It is extremely unlikely that global warming is some sort of natural or cyclical phenomena.

The movie was far too much Al Gore. I think he is noble and sincere, but a film about how noble and sincere Al Gore is will only play to the converted.

[SkinBasket]

I just saw the movie.

The scientific information presented was convincing. It is extremely unlikely that global warming is some sort of natural or cyclical phenomena.

The movie was far too much Al Gore. I think he is noble and sincere, but a film about how noble and sincere Al Gore is will only play to the converted.

http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/dgilfoil/Chewy's%20puking%20still.JPG

Al Gore... "Noble and sincere?" Playing to the "converted?" Goddamn HH, give up the "I'm an independant" facade already. Calling Gore noble is like calling Boy George a saint.

[Patler]

Didn't Gore invent the internet?? :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

I tend to beleive people are sincere in their causes. I think Bush beleives tax cuts will improve life for all. I beleive the NeoCons are motivated primarily by spreading democracy. Nader & Gore have spent their lives on environmental issues, I have no reason to doubt their sincerity.

[Scott Campbell]

Didn't Gore invent the internet?? :lol:

Yes, I believe he did. And notice how environmentally friendly the internet is. No green house gasses in here.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Al Gore is fake. Global Warming is fake. All politics.

In 50 years we'll have plastic domes over gated communities, so no need to sweat environmental crap. You can't save the world, best to look out for your self.

[SkinBasket]

Al Gore is fake. Global Warming is fake. All politics.

In 50 years we'll have plastic domes over gated communities, so no need to sweat environmental crap. You can't save the world, best to look out for your self.

HH come on now. Statement 1: 99.2% true. Al Gore unscripted is about as lively as a fucking dead fish stuck in the toilet drain. I watched him on one of the Sunday morning circle jerk politics shows being interviewed by George Stepolopigus, and even with the custom made jizz filled cream puffs being served to him straight off George's tiny little cock, Al just kept stuttering and repeating the same fucking 10 second bit he had managed to memorize before the show. Classic Al Gore. "I met a woman in Tennessee this week. Mary Hartwig...."

Statement 2: 50% true. Take away all the political number bending by fuckjobs like Gore and Rush, and you're left with a slow, modertae increase in global temperatures. So what? You're going to kill yourself so you don't produce any greenhouse gases? Gases that 20 years from now someone will figure out weren't as harmful as first thought (See the aresol arguement). Even if they are, the world is continuously moving toward cleaner energy. What the fuck else do you want us to do?

Statement 3: 90% ture. This is and always will be a political issue. No amout of moral high grounding will change that.

In summary: You still haven't said what your ultimate harm is. Human kind and 99% of the species of the earth are erradicated when temperatures reach deadly levels in 4000 years? Who the fuck cares. As I've said before: The earth will survive. Humankind is not immortal. We will all die someday. It is no great trajedy. Something else will take our place. Which rasies the question: Is it the earth you are fighting for, or your own feelings of imperiousness for the human race?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know much about global warming, it has been an issue only vaguely on my radar screen. My bias is pro-environment, but like I said before, I was against the Kyoto agreement simply because it was so unfair.

I only started researching GW last week because I was specificly interested in the claim made by Shamler & others that there is a high degree of uncertainty among scientists about its cause. I found this claim to be baloney. The Climatologists may be wrong, there is ultimate uncertainty in this sense, but they are in close agreement.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Take away all the political number bending by fuckjobs like Gore and Rush, and you're left with a slow, modertae increase in global temperatures. So what? You're going to kill yourself so you don't produce any greenhouse gases? Gases that 20 years from now someone will figure out weren't as harmful as first thought (See the aresol arguement). Even if they are, the world is continuously moving toward cleaner energy. What the fuck else do you want us to do?


I'm not sure abut the threat and consequences.

I think the U.S. can and should move MUCH more rapidly towards cleaner energy.

I was for reviving nuclear power 10 years ago, before it was PC.

I think we need to be open minded. It may be necessary and possible to make dramatic changes. A big push towards electric or hybrid cars for cities, mandated or encouraged by the government. LOTS of changes.



You still haven't said what your ultimate harm is. Human kind and 99% of the species of the earth are erradicated when temperatures reach deadly levels in 4000 years? Who the fuck cares. As I've said before: The earth will survive. Humankind is not immortal. We will all die someday. It is no great trajedy. Something else will take our place. Which rasies the question: Is it the earth you are fighting for, or your own feelings of imperiousness for the human race?

I like nature. I'm for preserving as much natural beauty as possible. It seems selfish and immoral to fuck-up the earth.

I am beginning to suspect that the harm to the earth could be INTENSE in the next century.

[Scott Campbell]

I cranked up my air conditioning today to combat global warming.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think expecting people to make altruistic personal choices is very effective in combating pollution. People are just too selfish. I can't say as I make ANY personal choices based on environmental effects. I don't recycle out of laziness, and doubts about its effectiveness. I drive a lot, sometimes mindlessly cruising, stoned on meth. (last part is exaggeration)

Our country has been spectacularly successful in reducing air pollution since the 1970's. The success came from government regulation - forcing emission standards on automakers, for instance.

China is gonna clean up their pollution problem dramatically - watch and see! That's 'cause they ain't exactly shy about exherting government control.

U.S. will come around to policies to get us off hydrocarbon energy. Gonna take more time, and more trauma, before we get off the shnide.

[Patler]

I only started researching GW last week because I was specificly interested in the claim made by Shamler & others that there is a high degree of uncertainty among scientists about its cause. I found this claim to be baloney. The Climatologists may be wrong, there is ultimate uncertainty in this sense, but they are in close agreement.

Actually, HH you proved my argument to be correct. The very report you cited as an earthshaking breakthrough of solidarity among the scientific community states very clearly that there is still much uncertainty about the cause, and that the impact of natural factors is not well-understood and could be very significant.

But go ahead and ignore that part of the report HH if it makes you feel better.

Now, before you label me as one who isn't concerned about the environment, let me assure you that I am. I am probably more "green" than you imagine. My concern is that good scientists always maintain a degree of skepticism, and society should encourage that. When society is "sure" it knows the answer about a developing phenomenon, it is ususally proven wrong subsequently.

Yes, we should try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce all forms of pollution. It makes sense. After all, one of the common causes of die outs in over-populated ecosystems at any level is the overpopulated species own pollution and overconsumption.

My concern is that we can easily develop a false sense of security, expecting the problem to disappear if we only make a few changes in our uses of fossil fuels. THAT, would be dangerous. The minute we become complacent, we fail to realize when the solution is really no solution at all, or if it raises yet new and different problems.

We should act on the best analysis, but always be mindful that we really don't "know" as much as we might think we do about most things. There are always surprises ahead. Listen to the doubters, they are often an advance warning system thatall is still not well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually, HH you proved my argument to be correct. The very report you cited as an earthshaking breakthrough of solidarity among the scientific community states very clearly that there is still much uncertainty about the cause, and that the impact of natural factors is not well-understood and could be very significant.

But go ahead and ignore that part of the report HH if it makes you feel better.

No, no, I'm not ignoring that disclaimer in the report!!!! Just putting it in perspective.

It is true that the the solid consensus reached by Climatologists could someday prove wrong. That is the uncertainty that the report refers to. There might even be natural factors people haven't even imagined yet.

But not A SINGLE surveyed journal article presented data and argument that Global Warming is due to natural causes. The case for natural causes is weak. That is the big take-away! The implication by some popular press and blowhards that there is a significant segment arguing for natural causes is dishonest.



Now, before you label me as one who isn't concerned about the environment,

I don't doubt that you are as concerned about the environment as I am. I was just using you as a convienent foil on a specific issue. (And I'm not sure you exactly made the argument I am contradicting.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

One more point for you to chew on. Two years ago, the Republicans in the Senate were unhappy about scientific recommendations presented to congress regarding GW. So they commisioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the studies. The result came back last week, and it basicly says the scientific methods and conclusions are valid:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

I do not have good answers to some of Skinbasket's points: maybe the effects of slight temperature won't be so horrible. I just don't know that much about it, and maybe the consequences are hard to predict.

But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The suggestion that scientists are divided on the question is disinformation. (I know you didn't state this directly.)

[Patler]

One more point for you to chew on. Two years ago, the Republicans in the Senate were unhappy about scientific recommendations presented to congress regarding GW. So they commisioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the studies. The result came back last week, and it basicly says the scientific methods and conclusions are valid:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

I do not have good answers to some of Skinbasket's points: maybe the effects of slight temperature won't be so horrible. I just don't know that much about it, and maybe the consequences are hard to predict.

But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The suggestion that scientists are divided on the question is disinformation. (I know you didn't state this directly.)

Why do you always tie a bastardization of my name to arguments I did not make? I get a bit disinclined to even participate in a discussion when you incorrectly and inaccurately portray what I wrote and the points I made. It appears you carry a grudge against me, dear Harlan, and I do not understand why.

For example, you wrote:
"But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence."

Now I take that as a statement implying that I have suggested ignoring your beloved report. However, I have suggested just the contrary, writing:
"We should act on the best analysis, but always be mindful that we really don't "know" as much as we might think we do about most things. There are always surprises ahead. Listen to the doubters, they are often an advance warning system that all is still not well."

I have not suggested ignoring the report. I do suggest accepting what it says while being mindful the the authors of the report have themselves qualified it because of what the admittedly do not understand. Too often it is the not well understood that proves a previous conclusion wrong.

Perhaps you should read the report less as gospel and more as a scientific study which likely has both good and bad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Lets put aside the personal stuff, especially since no particular personal message was intended. You just happened to be the one speaking to uncertainty in the mainstream GW analysis. My calling you "Shamler" was not a put down, just one of my pleasures, sorry that it came-off that way.

And as far as my beloved report, I attempted to move beyond that important, but now 3-year-old study. I brought attention to the BRAND NEW analysis by the Academy of Sciences, because it validates once again the mainstream position.

Lets get back to the uncertainty in the theory that GW is caused by human behavior. Well, there is no uncertainty that the earth is heating up, along with a rise in CO2. It's either due to humans or natural causes.

You emphasize the uncertainty in the theory that GW is human-generated.
What is the uncertainty in the theory that GW is a natural phenomena?

Decision makers must weigh this comparison. There may be a steep price to pay in waiting 30 years to make decisions. Nobody (AFAIK) is able to publish a peer-reviewed article that argues that G.W. is a natural phenomena.

[Patler]

Who said anything about waiting to act????? Not anyone that I recall in this thread, and again, certainly not me:

"Yes, we should try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce all forms of pollution. It makes sense. After all, one of the common causes of die outs in over-populated ecosystems at any level is the overpopulated species own pollution and overconsumption. "

My biggest fear is that too many people will assume we have the answer to curb global warming (assuming that it is not inevitable), and will blindly go about their lives thinking their new engines, fuel sources and heating plants will solve the problem.

Even if the rise in CO2 concentration is the problem, what is the PRIMARY cause, and how close to the primary cause are secondary causes? Is it the emissions at current levels, or the eradication of all forest lands, including rain forests? I doubt the answer will be as simple as altering emissions by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. That will be part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure that humans will be able to organize an effective world-wide policy, partially because the system is so huge and complex. Kyoto was a bad joke, exempting China & India. Maybe in 20 years, the situation will be understood well enough to organize a response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html

This is a bizarre article on alternatives to controlling CO2 levels, in the event that it proves too difficult.

The most interesting proposal is to pump Sulfer Dioxide into the upper atmosphere! This artificially creates the "Global Cooling" phenomena that we talked about before. (Global Cooling is going on now, especially because of all the coal-burning in Asia.)

[Partial]

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[the_idle_threat]

Quoted from the article:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The forrmer vice president's movie ... mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly ... "


Hmmmm ... might there be a leap in logic here?

If only 19 of the 100 climate scientists had even bothered to read the book or see the film, do you suppose they were likely to be the ones who agree with Gore to begin with, or the ones who think it's a bunch of hooey?

And the reporter stretches this into "the nation's top climate scientists" as a group approve of the message in Gore's movie.

[Partial]

The fact that last year have been the hottest ever and the past 10 have been near the top speaks volumes. There's no denying theres a problem. Now we've got to figure out how to fix it. I say we start by planting more trees. I forgot the car company in europe, but they planted enough trees to neutralize the pollution their sold cars produced. That's what all car companies should do.

[SkinBasket]

I forgot the car company in europe, but they planted enough trees to neutralize the pollution their sold cars produced. That's what all car companies should do.

Yeah. Then they could hump them. How about the motherfuckers who buy the cars (yes, all of us) plant a fucking tree. I've planted three this week. Only one died.

What's this need to put the blame on the auto industry for making the car YOU drive and YOU pollute the world with while YOU are driving in circles on an ozone action day singing how great life is?

*note: "YOU" does not necessarily refer to you personally Partial. So don;t respond with some, "Well I bike to work" bullshit. :wink:

[the_idle_threat]

Ten years is a pretty small sample. For that matter, so is 200 years.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that this is all hooey, but there are dissenting opinions in the scientific community. I've read that there was actually a global cooling trend from about the 1940's to the mid 1970's, and at that time, the fearmongering types were clamoring about a new ice age.

I'm hedging my bets. Although I don't buy into the fearmongering from people like Al Gore (who also wrote breathlessly about global overpopulation, and yet he still had kids), I save energy when I can, by doing the simple things like driving a fuel-efficient car, using energy-efficient light bulbs and not wasting electricity. It's more than enough to satisfy what little liberal guilt I might have, and has a bonus effect of saving me money. [/i]

[Partial]

I do bike to work :lol: but because i'm a fatty and thats gotta stop, not because I am concerned about pollution.

I say the car company because you're already paying thousands of dollars for a car, they could take care of that for you, and do it more efficiently.

The reasons I think this are because:
1. You may not have a spot for another tree. The car company could easily purchase a huge plot of land and plant hundreds of trees on it.

2. good pr for auto company. They'll be looked at in a much better light by consumers for very little extra relative cost to the company.

3. by relying on the consumer to plant a tree, it may not grow up properly and accomplish what they want. If this is mandated and contracted by a giant car company, you have quality control and are assured what you want done will happen.

What they really should do is give you a tree with your car, and plant one for you. You plant yours and hope it takes off, they also plant one that is almost a sure thing to take off. Future proofing for a very small cost. Thats the way to go.

[the_idle_threat]

I cranked up my air conditioning today to combat global warming.

Although I must say, Scott's idea is pretty damned funny. I'm totally going to rip off this line without any permission whatsoever the next time the subject comes up in liberal company.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If only 19 of the 100 climate scientists had even bothered to read the book or see the film, do you suppose they were likely to be the ones who agree with Gore to begin with, or the ones who think it's a bunch of hooey?

The 19 respondants completed a survey! I have been involved with lots of research projects. If you send a survey to 100 people, and 19 complete it, that's good participation.

I don't know what the article said or implied, but I expect that 100% of all Climate Scientists will see this movie. How could they possibly resist? This is a dramatic event in their world, connecting their research with the public. Of course they are interested to see if the science is right! And to answer your question, I expect any pissed-off people would be most likely to respond to the survey.

[Harlan Huckleby]

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

It's gratifying to get positive feedback from scientific community. I'm not surprised, Gore has been intensely involved with this issue for 25 years, he knows the terrain from all angles.

The people who think Gore is opportunistic or insincere are pissing in the wind. Global Warming has been a tough sell politically, and Gore has stuck with it. The guy is a wealthy man. Trapsing around the world and giving 200 presentations a year for several years is not a pleasure, it's a labor of love.

OK, with that said, I think "An Inconvient Truth" is a tragedy. It is tragic because the scientific information is presented so well and completely, but the political/personal Al Gore stuff ruins its effectiveness. Why did Gore turn such an important project into a vanity piece?

I am thinking about starting a web site called, "A More Convient Truth.com".
It will just offer the most important video clips from the documentary. There are about 20 essential minutes in that 95 minute film that should be considered and discussed by people of all political stripes.

[Scott Campbell]

Today, on a very special episode of Oprah:

http://images.oprah.com/images/tows/200510/20051027/20051027_101_350x263.jpg

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio shares what he believes is the most pressing environmental issue of our time: global warming. And Leo's definitely not alone—many scientists have been warning the public for years that the Earth is getting hotter. Some say that if drastic measures aren't taken to stop it, global warming may cause catastrophic results for the billions of people living on our planet.

Leo says global warming is not only the number one issue affecting the environment—it's one of the most important issues facing all of humanity. "It's something that's going to affect not only us, but our children and our grandchildren…and generations to come," says Leo.

[MJZiggy]

And Leo would know...! He should have a PhD sitting next to him with a slide rule in his pocket (by the way, I've just recently learned that slide rules are for the most part obsolete).

[SkinBasket]

The 19 respondants completed a survey! I have been involved with lots of research projects. If you send a survey to 100 people, and 19 complete it, that's good participation.

And I've been invovled in a lot more scientifically based research projects than you can even dream of you slutty hound. It was my fucking job. Anything below 40%, and that is being extremely liberal, is considered a waste of money and time to even consider trying to use the data for anything, even wiping your ass to save a tree.

Anyone who wants their data to be taken seriously needs upward of 60%.

19% isn't even a bad joke.

[SkinBasket]

It's gratifying to get positive feedback from scientific community. I'm not surprised, Gore has been intensely involved with this issue for 25 years, he knows the terrain from all angles.

The people who think Gore is opportunistic or insincere are pissing in the wind. Global Warming has been a tough sell politically, and Gore has stuck with it. The guy is a wealthy man. Trapsing around the world and giving 200 presentations a year for several years is not a pleasure, it's a labor of love.

OK, with that said, I think "An Inconvient Truth" is a tragedy. It is tragic because the scientific information is presented so well and completely, but the political/personal Al Gore stuff ruins its effectiveness. Why did Gore turn such an important project into a vanity piece?

I am thinking about starting a web site called, "A More Convient Truth.com".
It will just offer the most important video clips from the documentary. There are about 20 essential minutes in that 95 minute film that should be considered and discussed by people of all political stripes.

You lying bitch. You are a fucking Al Gore groupie. You want him to stick it (the truth) in you and push, don't you? You'll slurp anything he says you slut. Now you try to justify your love with all this nonsense about 19% studies and articles that don't say shit in the end. Come clean.

This turns you on doesn't it?

http://asecular.com/ran/0011/algore.jpg

[SkinBasket]

3. by relying on the consumer to plant a tree, it may not grow up properly and accomplish what they want. If this is mandated and contracted by a giant car company, you have quality control and are assured what you want done will happen.

Want them to wipe your ass too since you might fuck that up?

[Partial]

No, but for average american that is naive and couldn't care less, then yes, I would like them to wipe my ass.

That is if and only if by wipe my ass you mean plant a tree for me.

[Scott Campbell]

You lying bitch. You are a fucking Al Gore groupie. You want him to stick it (the truth) in you and push, don't you? You'll slurp anything he says you slut.

Harlan could barely contain his excitement when he got to shake Mr. Gore's hand at the Greenpeace fundraiser:

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~ianwest/dog.jpg

[the_idle_threat]

I don't know what the article said or implied, but I expect that 100% of all Climate Scientists will see this movie. How could they possibly resist? This is a dramatic event in their world, connecting their research with the public. Of course they are interested to see if the science is right! And to answer your question, I expect any pissed-off people would be most likely to respond to the survey.

The article explicitly stated that *most* of the scientists had not seen the movie nor read the book. And why would they? They don't need Al Gore to tell them about their own field of expertise. And for those who don't support Al's fearmongering on the topic, why waste time reading his book or pay to see his movie? I'm sure they know which of their colleagues he's getting his facts from, so they know the story already.

The only scientists who would be running to the theater to see his movie are those whose views are being expressed in the movie, because they want to be sure they are being represented accurately. And if you read the quotes in the article, this is exactly what happened.

Of course he did get some facts wrong, but the reporter still gave him 5 out of 5 stars for accuracy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You lying bitch. You are a fucking Al Gore groupie. You want him to stick it (the truth) in you and push, don't you? You'll slurp anything he says you slut. Now you try to justify your love with all this nonsense about 19% studies and articles that don't say shit in the end. Come clean.


Well, the "study" in question was just a survey by CNN. And whether they have 19 or all 100 people respond, it still isn't a statistically significant sample to predict the opinion of all 10,000 (or whatever) climatologists in the world. So the writer is just summarizing 19 opinions of climatologists, take if for what it's worth. 19 climatologists that are all impressed with Gore's documentary is convincing to me.

BTW, marketing surveys can be returned at a 1%, 2% rate, and they still get useful info out of them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The article explicitly stated that *most* of the scientists had not seen the movie nor read the book. And why would they? .....
Of course he did get some facts wrong, but the reporter still gave him 5 out of 5 stars for accuracy.

Is the movie in wide distribution, or just playing at some art theaters? I would guess it is a movie that most will catch on DVD.

Your supposition that many climatologists disagree with his point of view is curious. The 19 respondants are in close agreement, so you suggest without evidence that this is unrepresentative, others are just boycotting. But climatologists have a high degree of consensus on global warming. You imagine some dramatic split that matches the political argument.

The facts that he got wrong were pretty minor points.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Al's fearmongering on the topic, why waste time reading his book or pay to see his movie? I'm sure they know which of their colleagues he's getting his facts from, so they know the story already.

The Republicans in the Senate commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the scientific methods used to construct the various models about Global Warming. The Republicans (via their committee chairman) did this because they were unhappy with the predictions and recommendations they were confronted with.

The National Academy of Sciences returned their report just last week.

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Al Gore's documentary matches closely with this non-partisian review.

[the_idle_threat]

Is the movie in wide distribution, or just playing at some art theaters? I would guess it is a movie that most will catch on DVD.


A quick look at marcustheatres.com reveals it's playing right now on 3 screens in the Milwaukee area and 2 screens in Madison. That's just the Marcus theater chain. If somebody wants to see this movie, I'm sure they can find it.



Your supposition that many climatologists disagree with his point of view is curious. The 19 respondants are in close agreement, so you suggest without evidence that this is unrepresentative, others are just boycotting. But climatologists have a high degree of consensus on global warming. You imagine some dramatic split that matches the political argument.


We don't really know how many agree with this movie, but you and I both know the support isn't unanimous.



The facts that he got wrong were pretty minor points.

It still seems odd that an article would hail a movie which bills itself as "the truth" as being 5-star accurate when it doesn't get its facts straight.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ahh hell, for what it's worth, look at these graphs, anyway:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

the_idle_threat,

I don't think there is much to be done about this issue right now. It will have to be a world-wide effort, and that ain't gonna happen soon.

Fewer and fewer people are dismissing GW as just politics. If you see it that way, OK, but I just urge you to keep your eyes open.

[the_idle_threat]

Funny thing is, I don't dismiss it as politics. I do believe there coiuld be some truth to it. But my bullshit alarm goes off when something is being rammed down my throat as "an inconvenient truth" the way this movie and its marketing purports to do. The message is that if you question its "truth," you must be a political hack.

The title of the movie, and all the talk you hear about it in the media, fails to acknowledge that this stuff is still all scientific theory---not absolute fact---and scientists don't understand all that is involved. I'm just urging some healthy skepticism.

For example, I looked at the report you linked at nationalacademies.org (which was released in 2001 btw), and the summary contains the following paragraphs:

"Is climate change occurring? If so, how?

Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature warmed between about 0.4 and 0.8°C (0.7 and 1.5°F) during the 20th century. Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence detailed in this report. The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s.

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 1900s and the 1940s and during the past few decades. The troposphere warmed much more during the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth's surface warmed more during the past two decades than during the 1970s. The causes of these irregularities and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood. One striking change of the past 35 years is the cooling of the stratosphere at altitudes of ~13 miles, which has tended to be concentrated in the wintertime polar cap region. "

There's some warming going on, but it stops and starts, and there's some cooling going on as well, and the reason for it all is not completely understood. The actual science is much less tidy than the smoothed-over sound bites you get from the press or from Al Gore's movie.

My bottom line is this: There may be some truth to this, but it's obscured by a lot of bullshit, and the shitpeddlers are doing a great disservice to thier own cause by selling doomsday scenarios and trying to scare people, because they're turning people off to what might be a problem.

[the_idle_threat]

All that being said, Harlan, I appreciate the debate. I've been told I have an aggressive tone, but don't be alarmed ... I'm just an idle threat. :smile:

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to up my post count ... I need a whole lot more before I can apply for admission to this new elitist trash can room or whatever it's called.

[SkinBasket]

Well, the "study" in question was just a survey by CNN. And whether they have 19 or all 100 people respond, it still isn't a statistically significant sample to predict the opinion of all 10,000 (or whatever) climatologists in the world. So the writer is just summarizing 19 opinions of climatologists, take if for what it's worth. 19 climatologists that are all impressed with Gore's documentary is convincing to me.

BTW, marketing surveys can be returned at a 1%, 2% rate, and they still get useful info out of them.

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you? It sounds like your statements about Gore. You go on about how he is NOBLE and SINCERE, then you trash him too. Are you just admitting that no matter how junky the "science" behind all this, you'll believe whatever is tossed your way by an angry politician in tight pants? Your thin smoke screen of supposed political neutrality isn't very convincing.

And as far as I can tell, there is a large difference between a "marketing survey" and a scientific study. I would HOPE that when talking about science and global climates that we would be talking scientific studies, not marketing surveys.

[Partial]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

[MJZiggy]

That's my take on it too, Partial. I don't really care whether gw is real or not, I'd just rather not live in a cesspool of a planet. Our air quality sucks, you used to be able to go out into the woods and drink from the streams and we didn't have to worry about the effects of disappearing rain forests. As consumers we have a lot more power than we think. Let that toy company know you won't buy their product until it comes without packaging that outweighs the kid it's intended for. Think about it. The music industry gave in to consumer demand. Think about how much packaging used to go onto a CD. Now you're starting to see them coming out with cardboard folders for cases. Brilliant. Even better is that they're offering electronic delivery of their product.

Also, think about this. There is no real need to plant trees if we just leave the ones that are growning alone. Nature has a great way of reforesting itself--we just have to quit cutting the things down (and I'm not referring to the renewable forests logged for the paper industry. IMO it's their responsibility to replace the trees they cut down.) I'm talking about people completely flattening acres on acres of forest to put in a subdivision instead of working around some of the trees that are already there, which would do the new homeowners a favor anyway in making it easier to cool their Mcmansions in the summer. I'm talking about the continued devastation of rainforests to get the products that come out of it or from its removal, etc.

[Partial]

Urban sprawl is always going to be a problem though. That is why it is much easier for a large scale corporation ala ford to purchase a large amount of land, much larger than your average man can afford, and use it strictly to plant and grow trees. If a company is going to put something bad into the environment, with all the garbage that is already up there, they should be willing and ready to spend a little more cash, and clean that up.

Problem is that companies are cheap, and that added cost will most definitely come back to the consumer. Lame.

[MJZiggy]

I know that they will always be building houses and subdivision. My point there was that to do it, it isn't necessary to bulldoze down every tree within a quarter mile of the place. If they plan it correctly, a lot of them can be saved to the benefit of both the environment and the new homeowner, but it's just easier to plow everything down so that's what they do without even thinking about it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny thing is, I don't dismiss it as politics. I do believe there coiuld be some truth to it. But my bullshit alarm goes off when something is being rammed down my throat as "an inconvenient truth" the way this movie and its marketing purports to do. The message is that if you question its "truth," you must be a political hack.

Ya, that is the message. Of course there are a LOT of people who have tried to portray GW as a strictly political issue, Gore has been fencing with these people for 25 years, so you might understand, if not excuse, his triumphantalism.

BTW, if you see the movie, there is also the message that the Republicans stole the 2000 election. And you get to hear again about Gore is a deep person because his family grew tobacco and his sister died of lung cancer. And you get to hear once again the story of his kid getting killed in a car accident, and how this contributed to Gore becoming a Great Man.

Look, I agree, this movie is a tragic lost opportunity. Although I admire Gore's work in the field over the past 25 years, he was exactly the wrong person to narrate this documentary.

[Deputy Nutz]

It seems the global warming issue pops up about every 10 to 15 years, all the politician get all excited about it, our lovely movie stars get all fired up about it, and then it goes away.

I remember the big Global Warming Scare of the 80s, I was a little kid living in Wisconsin and I thought the glaciers were going to melt and flood us all.

Blame me, I was the one that farted.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you?


Well, this was a decidely UNscientific canvasing by CNN for a article at their website. The 19 respondants all generallly supported the science behind the film. Yes, that impresses me. If you walked into a Climatology convention, and the first 19 people you met told you opinion A, I think you would be highly reassured that opinion A is widely shared by the larger group. Not a scientific study, but I certainly accept it as supporting evidence. Make your own judgement.




It sounds like your statements about Gore. You go on about how he is NOBLE and SINCERE, then you trash him too. Are you just admitting that no matter how junky the "science" behind all this, you'll believe whatever is tossed your way by an angry politician in tight pants? Your thin smoke screen of supposed political neutrality isn't very convincing.


Well, I'm very conflicted about Gore. I do believe he is noble and sincere. And I also am angry at him for turning his film into such a personal/political statement. VEry selfish. Yes it's an odd mix. Sometimes people have deeply conflicting qualities.

As far as my "political neutrality", I don't beleive I've voted for a Republican in my entire life! But that is because of our crappy two-party system.
I'm not a political person. I listen to Rush Limbaugh's show and agree with him about half the time. I am an unusually open-minded person, I take things I like from people of all political stripes, from commies to Dick Cheney.

[Partial]

I know that they will always be building houses and subdivision. My point there was that to do it, it isn't necessary to bulldoze down every tree within a quarter mile of the place. If they plan it correctly, a lot of them can be saved to the benefit of both the environment and the new homeowner, but it's just easier to plow everything down so that's what they do without even thinking about it.


very, very true.

[SkinBasket]

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you?


Well, this was a decidely UNscientific canvasing by CNN for a article at their website. The 19 respondants all generallly supported the science behind the film. Yes, that impresses me. If you walked into a Climatology convention, and the first 19 people you met told you opinion A, I think you would be highly reassured that opinion A is widely shared by the larger group.

Except your analogy fails miserably and I have to believe you are skirting, or ignoring altogether, the truth. You don't take into consideration that it would be like walking into a convention, asking 100 people (not the FIRST 19) if they saw a movie made to preach to the choir, and only 19 say yes, of course they've seen it, it's very important work, very important to furthering the cause of global warming in America. Meanwhile the other 81 scientists didn't think the show was worth their time or attention, which in my mind means they aren't particularly interested in what the movie is pushing, which says a lot considering it deals with their life's work.

Your leaps in logic are astounding, HH. Then again, it doesn't surprise me much considering that you are more than willing to accept as truth an UNscientific questioning of an UNrepresentative sample which could only return a 19% response rate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Except your analogy fails miserably and I have to believe you are skirting, or ignoring altogether, the truth. You don't take into consideration that it would be like walking into a convention, asking 100 people (not the FIRST 19) if they saw a movie made to preach to the choir, and only 19 say yes, of course they've seen it, it's very important work, very important to furthering the cause of global warming in America. Meanwhile the other 81 scientists didn't think the show was worth their time or attention, which in my mind means they aren't particularly interested in what the movie is pushing, which says a lot considering it deals with their life's work.


You're right. The 100 people are likely a random sample, but the 19 respondants are not.
You perceive that the 81 people don't think the show is worth their time and attention. I doubt that, I think they probably just gonna see it on DVD.

Your reasons for dismissing the CNN story are legit. I just judge it differently.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

Partial, I know it may not be an appealing prospect, but if you read this whole thread, you would know that isn't what I'm saying at all.

In case you're too busy to take a look through, here's the problems I have in a nutshell:

This movie is obviously a biased look at an unresolved scientific issue. Furthermore, the movie relies on one of the most politically charged politicians of our day for it's narrative. This in conjunction with the "witty" attempt at moral highgrounding that is its title, leads me to believe that the movie is crap.

As far as the actual issue of GW goes, the main problem I have is that changes are underway to make our air "better" and "healthier." It makes political, economic, and moral sense to do so. The questions I have posed to those who are going hysterical about GW are these:

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

That's it... in a nutshell. For even wordier and even less eloquently stated versions of these points, with conterpoints by our beloved PR friends, see the previous nine pages.

[Harlan Huckleby]

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs


Too big of a question to argue, and I certainly don't have the knowlege to do so very well, but I will stab a little. You present a false choice!!
You talk about a country dealing with poverty? How about China!? Most of their population is marginally fed. China has decided it is worth the investment to retool their industries with green technologies, and the communist central committee has no reputation for being do-gooders.
We could switch to hybrid cars in 15 years without massive economic dislocation.
Why do you suppose car manufacturers who offer fuel-efficient autos are kicking ass?

And green industries could be the source of economic OPPORTUNITY.



2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees?

I think the most immediate and doable move is to push our country and the world to fission nuclear power. Yes, fission sucks, but is sucks a lot less than coal burning power plants. I accept there will be some environmental catastrophes. But it is lesser evil than hydrocarbons.
I suspect nuclear plants designed in 2010 will be far safer than the 1970 editions.

Long term: Run electric cars and trains off of that nuclear power grid. Trains should connect cities. Electric cars can operate within cities.

And pray to Jesus, Allah and Buddah that Fusion is perfected for the next century. One century at a time - baby stepping.

[Harlan Huckleby]

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what?


OK, your value judgement is what it is, and I respect you for stating it clearly.

Specifically, I'm concerned that the polar ice caps are going to melt faster than some predict. We talk about uncertainty in the GW models from the standpoint that they may be too pessimistic. But there is also reasonable possibility that they may be too optimisitic!!!

Scientists were surprised by the rate of decline of glaciers and mountain snow in last 10 years.

The polar caps might also melt faster than generally predicted. As the caps melt, the remaining ice melts at a faster rate, the melted liquid has a corrosive effect, it nonlinear process. Hell, I don't know how well they have that modeled.

Some people think New Orleans could be underwater within 75 years. I think that's within realm of the possible. (So far below sea level that they are not salvagable. NY City not far behind!)

That strange article from NY Times that I posted earlier, the one about pumping Sulphur Dioxide into upper atmosphere to stimulate global cooling, is not a completely unthinkable, drastic measure to save coastal cities around the world!

[jack's smirking revenge]

[quote=Partial]Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?


1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

Answer: Refocus the billions of dollars we're spending on "nation-building" and combatting a faceless enemy (terrorism is a concept, not a contact) in an area that has questionable relevance towards investing in the energy future in the United States. How about subsidies for wind-powered or solar-powered homes? I think both exist, but they're not enough to make any common person take advantage of green tech.


[2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

Again, its about money and where we put it. We all have a responsibility to the environment. I don't pity auto makers. They open and close auto plants to justify the bottom line to their shareholders. A major Ford plant in my area will most likely be closing in the next couple of years because the Ford bottom line doesn't look as good as it used to. Ford built the facility. Ford will abandon the facilty. Ford will also abandon the 3,000 people that get their livlihood from that facility.

Yes, I know the argument is more complex, but "big business" has more resources to deal with the problems than the common man and/or woman. My firm gives out $400,000 in Foundation money every year. It is mostly given towards the arts. The United Way is a major benefactor from most large corporations. If half of company charitable donations were refocused toward environmental concerns (in order for me to work downtown, I have to use transportation, which, in turn, pollutes the environment), instead of pet projects (mirroring political giving), then maybe this problem could be addressed in a different way and corporations with "risky financials" wouldn't take the hit that you're suggesting.


[3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.


Skin, I actually agree with you on this point. I think the fall of our race is as inevitable as its coincidental rise. Ironically, we'll probably be the cause of our own demise. Pretty doom and gloom talk, but I have no problem with it. I think that leads to a greater philosophical discussion though. Are we worth saving?

[Partial]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

Partial, I know it may not be an appealing prospect, but if you read this whole thread, you would know that isn't what I'm saying at all.

In case you're too busy to take a look through, here's the problems I have in a nutshell:

This movie is obviously a biased look at an unresolved scientific issue. Furthermore, the movie relies on one of the most politically charged politicians of our day for it's narrative. This in conjunction with the "witty" attempt at moral highgrounding that is its title, leads me to believe that the movie is crap.

As far as the actual issue of GW goes, the main problem I have is that changes are underway to make our air "better" and "healthier." It makes political, economic, and moral sense to do so. The questions I have posed to those who are going hysterical about GW are these:

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

That's it... in a nutshell. For even wordier and even less eloquently stated versions of these points, with conterpoints by our beloved PR friends, see the previous nine pages.

I didn't read your post, just the first line. Yeah, I didn't want to read all of that :D I'm going to read your post and add my comments through an edit


edit - i think between jack and harlan the point I would have attempted to make is made.

[SkinBasket]

Too big of a question to argue, and I certainly don't have the knowlege to do so very well, but I will stab a little. You present a false choice!!
You talk about a country dealing with poverty? How about China!? Most of their population is marginally fed. China has decided it is worth the investment to retool their industries with green technologies, and the communist central committee has no reputation for being do-gooders.
We could switch to hybrid cars in 15 years without massive economic dislocation.
Why do you suppose car manufacturers who offer fuel-efficient autos are kicking ass?

And green industries could be the source of economic OPPORTUNITY.


What's the false choice? Any move toward any new tech will cost money - and lots of it. That's why it's done the way it's done - slowly. That way you have time to spread the cost of R/D, implementation, infastructure, and consumer-end upgrading over time. You mention fuel-efficient cars? Excellent! Another simple idea that's been in the works for decades! That isn't a massive change, that's a change thats been ongoing and continues to evolve slowly.

WHat's this China yabber-jabber about besides helping to make my point. China is forgoing the wellfare of it's people to implement (supposedly) cleaner technology. I say supposedly because they are great at global PR on a few large projects while the old massive production lines continue to smoke away. Mainly they are trying to industrialize faster than the government can afford to make up for what they see as lost time. Their system of governance and the entire social system however, really isn't comparable to any other nation, so it's also hard to make a point of comparison even if you can prove that China is making sincere moves toward a greener tomorrow.




I think the most immediate and doable move is to push our country and the world to fission nuclear power. Yes, fission sucks, but is sucks a lot less than coal burning power plants. I accept there will be some environmental catastrophes. But it is lesser evil than hydrocarbons.
I suspect nuclear plants designed in 2010 will be far safer than the 1970 editions.

Long term: Run electric cars and trains off of that nuclear power grid. Trains should connect cities. Electric cars can operate within cities.


Once again, consider the R/D, implementation, construction, and infastrucre changes necessary even for a change to fission - if it's even possible to stabilize in a meanful and productive manner. Increased energy costs, increased taxes, more business moving to India and China and Mexico for cheaper production costs, increased unemployment... you get the idea.



One century at a time - baby stepping.

Exactly the point I'm making. Of course that would assume there is no immediate crisis of global proportions. Something your friend Al would be disappointed you don't believe.

[SkinBasket]

Answer: Refocus the billions of dollars we're spending on "nation-building" and combatting a faceless enemy (terrorism is a concept, not a contact) in an area that has questionable relevance towards investing in the energy future in the United States. How about subsidies for wind-powered or solar-powered homes? I think both exist, but they're not enough to make any common person take advantage of green tech.

Maybe people aren't taking advantage of those subsidies because the those technologies are not workable for a majority of people for a variety of reasons. On a large scale, they simply don't generate enough reliable energy to supply the demand. That and then all you greenies start crying over the poor fucking dead birds - killed at the hands of wind technology. Whole ecosystems threatened! Throwing money at outdated and inefficient technologies hardly seems like a national, much less global, solution.


Again, its about money and where we put it. We all have a responsibility to the environment. I don't pity auto makers. They open and close auto plants to justify the bottom line to their shareholders. A major Ford plant in my area will most likely be closing in the next couple of years because the Ford bottom line doesn't look as good as it used to. Ford built the facility. Ford will abandon the facilty. Ford will also abandon the 3,000 people that get their livlihood from that facility.

Well Ford ain't shutting down factories for the fun of it. Neither is GM or Dymler-Chrystler. They're shutting down factories to pay the pensions and benefits of the millions of workers current and retired. The unions are more interested in keeping their benefits as is than keeping the company they work for in business, which admittedly is their job. It becomes a problem however, when instead of having 3000 jobs with lesser benefits, they have zero jobs with zero benefits. My uncle worked as a janitor for GM, retired in his 40s, and hasn't worked a day since. How the fuck is that business model going to work for anyone?


Yes, I know the argument is more complex, but "big business" has more resources to deal with the problems than the common man and/or woman. My firm gives out $400,000 in Foundation money every year. It is mostly given towards the arts. The United Way is a major benefactor from most large corporations. If half of company charitable donations were refocused toward environmental concerns (in order for me to work downtown, I have to use transportation, which, in turn, pollutes the environment), instead of pet projects (mirroring political giving), then maybe this problem could be addressed in a different way and corporations with "risky financials" wouldn't take the hit that you're suggesting.

So now you want to cut charitable giving and force that money into environmental causes? How's that going to work? "Sorry NFL, you've given too much money to United Way, we are now forcible donating your money to Greenpeace. What? You don't believe in the work Greenpeace is doing? Too bad." I understand what you're saying Jack, but once again, what is the real-world solution to redirecting charity dollars? If it's not voluntary giving, then it's a tax. Just what we need to keep businesses in America competitive - another business tax.


[3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.


Skin, I actually agree with you on this point. I think the fall of our race is as inevitable as its coincidental rise. Ironically, we'll probably be the cause of our own demise. Pretty doom and gloom talk, but I have no problem with it. I think that leads to a greater philosophical discussion though. Are we worth saving?[/quote]

Its in our nature to struggle, so we will. Its not really gloomy. No one seems to cry about the dinosaurs after all. I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Concern that our planet could be tranformed into an ugly place in this century is not hysterical. Fact based. Observation based.

[MJZiggy]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

THEY DON'T WANNA DIE!!!!

[Deputy Nutz]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Concern that our planet could be tranformed into an ugly place in this century is not hysterical. Fact based. Observation based.

To bad they were saying the same thing 10 years ago, then it faded. Before that global warming was the hysteria of the 80s. Same thing some scientist were predicting the ice caps wrere going to melt before the turn of the century. Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

[jack's smirking revenge]

[quote=SkinBasket]I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

Who is full of shit? The ice caps or the scientists? :D

tyler

[Scott Campbell]

http://www.lilytomlin.com/char/lyn/cm/woodsyowl.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

These folks liked Al's new movie.


http://www.nawma.org/niwaw/NIWAW%20VI/Pictures/512-1277_IMG.JPG

[Scott Campbell]

This fella didn't seem to like Al's new movie.

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/texas_chainsaw.jpg


Poor Woodsy.

[Scott Campbell]

http://www.politicaldogs.org/uploaded_images/Indiancrying-731542.jpg


Keep America beautiful.

[SkinBasket]

http://www.politicaldogs.org/uploaded_images/Indiancrying-731542.jpg


Keep America beautiful.


You know that guy wasn't even a real fucking Indian? Typical.

[the_idle_threat]

http://www.politicaldogs.org/uploaded_images/Indiancrying-731542.jpg


Keep America beautiful.


You know that guy wasn't even a real fucking Indian? Typical.


Yeah, but he fucked an Indian once, and they called it close enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To bad they were saying the same thing 10 years ago, then it faded. Before that global warming was the hysteria of the 80s. Same thing some scientist were predicting the ice caps wrere going to melt before the turn of the century. Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg

Nutz, the red line traces the summer artic ice cap in 1979, super-imposed over a more current photograph. 20% reduction in surface area of artic cap, don't know about volume.

This is all too much for anyone to wrap their brain around. You mention the 80's: GW was hugely controversial among climatologists. Now, much more consensus. With every passing decade, better understanding.

I think it may take 10 or 20 more years before any significant changes are even attempted. By then, the science and dangers will be in clearer focus. I guess that is OK.

[Scott Campbell]

You gotta believe that Mrs. Claus can't wait to break out her flip flops and that bottle of Coppertone.

[Scott Campbell]

But in all seriousness folks, this global warming is seriously fucking up my hunting, it is simply to god damn warm in November. I ask you wher is the damn snow????

600" at Alta this year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

nutz, you rxxxxd. you just xxxx my post instead of rxxxxxx to it.


(don't feel too bad, I did xxxx constantly during my brief xxxxx stint)

[SkinBasket]

To bad they were saying the same thing 10 years ago, then it faded. Before that global warming was the hysteria of the 80s. Same thing some scientist were predicting the ice caps wrere going to melt before the turn of the century. Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg

Nutz, the red line traces the summer artic ice cap in 1979, super-imposed over a more current photograph. 20% reduction in surface area of artic cap, don't know about volume.



This is all too much for anyone to wrap their brain around. You mention the 80's: GW was hugely controversial among climatologists. Now, much more consensus. With every passing decade, better understanding.

I think it may take 10 or 20 more years before any significant changes are even attempted. By then, the science and dangers will be in clearer focus. I guess that is OK.

See they didn't melt, sure they did some melting but just a bit, if they keep melting at that rate we will be all right. You would only have to worry if the temp went up dramatically and they melted out in like 2 or 3 years, then we would have some real problems. Who cares, it's just ice anyways.

But in all seriousness folks, this global warming is seriously fucking up my hunting, it is simply to god damn warm in November. I ask you wher is the damn snow????


HH, who's to say the "North Pole" wasn't fucking too big when they took the first picture? Maybe the bitch lost the extra weight, and now you fuckers are telling her she's too fucking skinny?

[Deputy Nutz]

See they didn't melt, sure they did some melting but just a bit, if they keep melting at that rate we will be all right. You would only have to worry if the temp went up dramatically and they melted out in like 2 or 3 years, then we would have some real problems. Who cares, it's just ice anyways.

But in all seriousness folks, this global warming is seriously fucking up my hunting, it is simply to god damn warm in November. I ask you wher is the damn snow????



Ok, I fucked up, but edit your last post otherwise Mad is going to kick my ass. Please, I will side with you on your next 3 issues, I promise.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't mind a *little* global warming. So some animal species migrate a little bit north - not too big of a deal.

And Wisconsin is nicer with a bit more warmth.

I just don't want those cappers to melt down. And it is a process that builds on itself.

[SkinBasket]

Alr4ight, so Ididn;t actually go anywhere. Fucjkiong shoot me ok? HH, here's sopmethig from our old friend UNF:

What do professional meteorologists think about claims that the Earth is undergoing a greenhouse effect because of man's activities? Scientific opinion is growing that there is nothing to the idea that the Earth is either warming or in danger of warming under the proposed influence of the greenhouse effect. More in the scientific community are also becoming increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the false science used to support the idea that man's activities are causing the Earth to become warmer.

The Gallup poll recently interviewed a cross-section of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. Do these scientists, who should know better than anyone else, think that the greenhouse effect is something to fear? According to the poll, less than half- 41 percent - think that there is scientific evidence for global warming. However, 70 percent thought that the scientific work supporting greenhouse conclusions is "fair to poor."

So it is not true that all scientists accept the idea that greenhouse warming is going on. Less than half of the professional meteorologists believe it's happening. And most suspect the quality of the scientific work supporting ideas about greenhouse warming.


Source:Greenhouse Deconstructed. National Review, March 16, 1992. P. 17. Peter Samuel. 1992. Hard Science Ices Global Warming Hysteria. The Detroit News, Feb. 17. P. 11.



Retort?

[SkinBasket]

LOL. My retort would be that the article is from 1992! Ha! Beat you to it you old slut!

[Scott Campbell]

Remember when everyone thought you had to put out every little forest fire that started?

I wonder if all this concern about global warming will cause us to do something stupid that triggers the next ice age.

[the_idle_threat]

Another view:

Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


___________________________________________


I'm not saying this guy is right and his colleagues are wrong, but I think it's important to see there are two sides to this debate, and it's not all just politics.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

Hey, OK, he's an interesting gadfly. A 76-year-old professor emeritus of meteorology, not a climatology expert. Look at his website, all his academic articles are on tropical storms. He's been grinding axe against global warming for 20 years as a hobby. The existence of some intelligent people who take some unusual positions is no big deal.

Well, the "Science Magazine" survey found a grand total of ZERO (0) peer-reviewed articles on climate change that took issue with core thesis: humans are dominant factor in generating GW. Weigh this against a handful of skeptics in the popular press.

In another article on GW Skeptics, I found this interesting summary of their strategy (but note comment "they're winning" was prior to the report returned from National Academy of Sciences):

The skeptics don't have to win the argument, they just have to stay in the game, keep things stirred up and make sure the politicians don't pass any laws that have dangerous climate change as a premise. They're winning that battle. The Senate had hearings on climate change this spring but has put off action for now. The Bush administration is hoping for some kind of technological solution and won't commit itself to cuts in emissions.

The skeptics have a final trump in the argument: Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

LOL. My retort would be that the article is from 1992! Ha! Beat you to it you old slut!

I know that Global Warming was wildly contested in the 1980's, so ya, your 14-year-old survey might be reasonable reflection of that time.

But again: Surveying meteorologists is a little strange. climatology is a specialty.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

If you have interest in this topic, you really MUST read this article. It is a long, detailed look at the community of skeptics, and their arguments. VERY informative.

The skeptics are a small, ragtag group who disagree among themselves. But that said, they might be right! We'll know in about about 50 years.

[SkinBasket]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

If you have interest in this topic, you really MUST read this article. It is a long, detailed look at the community of skeptics, and their arguments. VERY informative.

The skeptics are a small, ragtag group who disagree among themselves. But that said, they might be right! We'll know in about about 50 years.

Well, some of us will know. You'll probably be dead. Then again, I'll probably be dead too. So we won't know.

[OKC PackerFan]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909


AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE?S MOVIE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled ?Scientists OK Gore?s Movie for Accuracy? by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP?s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore?s movie ?An Inconvenient Truth.?

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the ?more than 100 top climate researchers? they attempted to contact to review ?An Inconvenient Truth.? AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore ?five stars for accuracy.? AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore?s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific ?skeptics? they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll?s reported links as an ?affiliate? of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides ?expert testimony? in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore?s reliance on the now-discredited ?hockey stick? by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990?s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week?s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann?s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe?s statement on the broken ?Hockey Stick.? (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore?s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there?s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore?s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." ? Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

?A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.? - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore?s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

??A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.?- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

??Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too??- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore?s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,? ?Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.


# # # # #

[Harlan Huckleby]

Note: This article is at a federal government website. But it comes from the office of Jim Inhofe, the Republican in the Senate who is leading the charge against global warming legislation. See:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/majwelcome.cfm?party=rep

That's not to say that all the counter-arguments presented here are without merit. But put it in context.

Again, I urge everyone to read the article about the shape of this debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Some excerpts from that article:

LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.

Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It's bound to be not only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.

Human beings may be large of brain, but they are social animals, too, like wolves, and are prone to behave in packs. So when something like climate change comes up, the first thing people want to know is, whose side are you on? All those climatic variables and uncertainties and probabilities and "forcings" and "feedback loops," those cans of worms that Bill Gray talks about, get boiled down to their essence. Are you with us or against us?

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria. Someone like Myron Ebell, an analyst at CEI, freely admits that, as an advocate in a politicized battle, he tries to make "the best case against alarmism." Everyone, on both sides, is arguing like a lawyer these days, he says. "What is going on right now is a desperate last-ditch Battle of the Bulge type effort by the forces of darkness, which is relying heavily on the lockstep/groupthink scientific community."

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue. "There seems to be the general feeling that somehow the administration doesn't feel that climate change is happening," he says. "That's completely wrong." The administration just doesn't think the problem can be solved with the "magic wand" of regulation.

......

There's a certain kind of skeptic who has no patience for the official consensus, especially if it has the imprimatur of a government, or worse, the United Nations. They focus on ambiguities and mysteries and things that just don't add up. They say the Official Story can't possibly be true, because it doesn't explain the [insert inexplicable data point here]. They set a high standard for reality -- it must never be fuzzy around the edges.

"They argue not as scientists but as lawyers," says Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at NOAA in Boulder, Colo., where he examines bottles of air taken from monitoring stations all over the planet. "When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion . . . Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."

[OKC PackerFan]

Good read HH.

[the_idle_threat]

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria.

And the proponents of GW are not guilty of alarmism? What about polar ice caps gone if we don't take drastic action in the next decade? NY City underwater anyone? Perhaps it is not alarmism at all to wonder if these people are part of a mass hysteria.



There's a certain kind of skeptic who has no patience for the official consensus, especially if it has the imprimatur of a government, or worse, the United Nations. They focus on ambiguities and mysteries and things that just don't add up. They say the Official Story can't possibly be true, because it doesn't explain the [insert inexplicable data point here]. They set a high standard for reality -- it must never be fuzzy around the edges.

"They argue not as scientists but as lawyers," says Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at NOAA in Boulder, Colo., where he examines bottles of air taken from monitoring stations all over the planet. "When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion . . . Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."

If there's no scientific debate, then I guess the quotes from Drs. Bob Carter, Richard S Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Tim Ball in the article above are just made up or something.

I'm skeptical of an "official consensus" when it is alarmist, and the people claiming the consensus are ignoring their own peers' criticism and are urging us to do so as well. Those of us who understand the scientific method also understand that we should distrust any scientist who says "I'm right because I'm a scientist and you are not, and ignore the dissent from other scientists who disagree with me." This is the kind of "scientific" reasoning that brought us cold fusion.

[mraynrand]

Huck wrote:

"LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.

Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing."


Interesting. This is exactly what Robert Bork predicted in his 1996 book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" - specifically that all subject matters would become politicized. Certainly this has happend with global warming. It's embarrassing to see scientists who are experts in their field (Biology, Chemistry, etc.) sign letters endorsing the 'consensus' view that human generated CO2 is driving global warming, when they may know nothing about the experimental techniques and the stregth of the predictions. Ahh, the unbiased pursuit of the truth by our non-agenda driven scientists. What a breath of fresh air! (pun intended). Good luck figuring out what is real or unreal in this political science environment (puns intended).

[Harlan Huckleby]

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria.


And the proponents of GW are not guilty of alarmism? What about polar ice caps gone if we don't take drastic action in the next decade?

I beleive concern is justified. One person's prudence is another person's alarmism. It depends on how you see the range of possibilities and probabilities. duh.




Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."


If there's no scientific debate, then I guess the quotes from Drs. Bob Carter, Richard S Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Tim Ball in the article above are just made up or something.

You left off the adjective "raging". I think it is quite accurate to say there is no raging debate. The skeptics (with in Climate Science) are small in number. Yes, there are dissenters from the consensus, and the system being modeled is so mind-boggling complex, that we can't be certain which side is correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Good luck figuring out what is real or unreal in this political science environment (puns intended).

But the truth (or some approximation of it) IS going to come out. Only a question of time. Every year more data is collected, models are refined or discarded. "Climate Science" is a relatively new field of study, growing exponentially.

Any significant changes will have to await the Republicans independently deciding to make them. There is NO WAY this problem could be addressed by just half the country. It is much easier to block change than it is to make change.

I'm not that upset that nothing is happening now. I think what needs to happen is a MASSIVE switch from hydrocarbon to nuclear. Nobody is even thinking about it yet. Reducing emissions now would be just dent in problem, according to my intuition. I want to see complete conversion to hybrid cars, followed by electric cars. We aren't close to that political consensus.

[MJZiggy]

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/viewpoint/fueleconomyclaimsneedarealitycheck1005/index.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=1&searchTerm=mileage%20accuracy

The above link is an article by Consumer Reports done last August about accuracy in fuel economy listings in autos (including hybrids) that shows an inflation of the numbers of mpg ratings. Between this and the question of what to do with the spent batteries (which have a life of approxmately 100K miles before needing replacing), I question whether going to all-hybrid all the time is necessarily the correct answer. It's still likely a good choice for the SUV market as their abysmal mileage might make the expended battery worth it.

Did we discuss alternative crops for ethanol production? I read here and talk to hubby who's been doing research and don't want to be repetitive if it's been hashed out here already.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ziggy,

I miss the connection between fuel economy and desirability of hybrids. The idea (AFAIK) behind a hybrid is that you would be running electrically while city driving. I'm not trying to save money for consumers, I'm trying to get away from internal combustion engine.

Also, I don't know much about it, but I don't see ethanol as anything too exciting. I know it burns cleaner in many respects, but I imagine CO2 is similar problem, ethanol is just another hydrocarbon. Ethanol production is renewable, but it has it's own environmental costs.

Guess I look at energy as a simpleton: There's a billion times more energy in the nucleus of an atom than there is in the chemical bonds. So the right track is nuclear power, that's where you'll get a lot of energy from a small amount of fuel. Burning shit is for cavemen. We need electrical devices that can use nuclear-generated power.

[MJZiggy]

From an emissions standpoint, yes, hybrids do run cleaner, but the question still remains, what do you do with all those spent batteries?

[SkinBasket]

I actually agree with the little blue slut. These hybrids are not the way of the future and are a wate of time and energy that could be focused on moving in another direction, like H3.

Hybrids are like moving from screwing your sister to screwing your cousin. Is it better? Yes. Is it still a bad idea? Yes.

[MJZiggy]

You two have been arguing for 10 pages now. I've created peace and harmony. :cool:

[SkinBasket]

You two have been arguing for 10 pages now. I've created peace and harmony. :cool:

I don't see this discussion as arguing. It's the way people are supposed to talk about these things. Imagine this thread back at JSO.

[MJZiggy]

I know. I was just happy to see you agree. This discussion is on jso, but I'm afraid to look because I know that by the end of page one it disintegrated into "lefty" and "righty" and a whole lot of nasty name-calling and I must commend you guys on having an adult, intelligent discussion that I've been able to read through in it's entirety with good points made on both sides of the issue.

[mraynrand]

Good luck figuring out what is real or unreal in this political science environment (puns intended).

But the truth (or some approximation of it) IS going to come out. Only a question of time. Every year more data is collected, models are refined or discarded. "Climate Science" is a relatively new field of study, growing exponentially.

Interesting choice of words there huck. It will grow exponentially. A bunch of scientists sat around a table and decided by committee what the data meant and allocated 1.8 billion dollars to global warming research (Imagine if they had allocated the same 1.8 to fission research in 1970??). Hey, that's good science! From now on, instead of actually doing experiments in the lab, I'm just going to do them at a conference table. I really don't give a shit what side of the debate you're on huck, the way decisions are being made about global warming is the most shameless science I've seen since cold fusion or since the lies promulgated about the benefits of human embryonic stem cell research.


Any significant changes will have to await the Republicans independently deciding to make them. There is NO WAY this problem could be addressed by just half the country. It is much easier to block change than it is to make change.

I'm not that upset that nothing is happening now. I think what needs to happen is a MASSIVE switch from hydrocarbon to nuclear. Nobody is even thinking about it yet.

Actually, you're pretty much wrong on both points, Huck. I checked with a couple of LLC sources, and found that a number of companies have started in just the past two years to make biodeisel. Many other companies have sprung up recently to make next generation solar panels, wind turbines, etc. Also, the first nuclear plant license in 30 years was just issued to process more nuclear fuel (under the Bush administration, no less). The economic forces of higher fuel prices will drive innovation, just so long as the greenies don't try to interfere and protect us from all the horrible dangers of nuclear waste, etc. and the government doesn't try to stop them by doing research at a conference table. The Republican-led congress is your best bet to just get the hell out of the way and allow new companies to innovate, but as with any self-promoting, self-serving, and self-congratulatory politicians, you just never know - they might *uck it up, just to get free Red Sox tickets.

[mraynrand]

As an aside, I read an article about the new Hiawatha light rail line in Minneapolis. The rail line is a favorite of lefties, who want everyone to ride trains to work, but the cost was so extreme, that they could have leased a mercedes SUV to every rider and it would have cost the government fewer dollars. Imagine if they had leased hybrids. Lower cost AND lower fuel emissions. I brought it up as a simple illustration of how idealology trumps logic for the environmental crowd.

As a second point, I love how the greenies want to get everyone into hybrids, but don't realize that their second favorite group, "the poor" can't afford to go out and buy or lease one of these 16,000 dollar (or more) autos. "The poor" in Cleveland typically move from one beater to the next, paying a few hundred dollars a year to keep their car running, until the move to the next one. Maybe the next time someone wants to build light rail, they could just give some hybrids to "the poor" instead.

[MJZiggy]

This should solve everything. :wink:



By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 30, 7:58 AM ET

BRIDPORT, Vt. - The cows at the Audet family's Blue Spruce Farm make nearly 9,000 gallons of milk a day — and about 35,000 gallons of manure.
ADVERTISEMENT

It's long been the milk that pays, but now the Audets have figured out how to make the manure pay as well. They're using it — actually, the methane that comes from it — to generate electricity.

With the help of their power company, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., the Audets have devised a way to extract the methane from the manure and pipe it to a generator.

They make enough electricity to power 300 to 400 average Vermont homes. It's renewable energy, and they're not the only ones interested in it. Four other Vermont farms now have similar projects in the planning or early construction stages, power company officials said.

The Audets "deserve to be congratulated. They're the pioneers among Vermont farmers," said Dave Dunn, a senior energy consultant with CVPS who worked with them on the cow power project.

Elsewhere in the country, farmers are using similar technology to make energy, said Corey Brickl, project manager with Wisconsin-based GHD Inc., which built a device that the Audets use to harvest the methane.

One in Washington uses tomato waste from a salsa factory and waste from a fish stick plant as fuel, Brickl said.

For the Audets, the electricity has created an important new income stream at a time when low wholesale milk prices have squeezed their margin. The utility pays 95 percent of the going New England wholesale power price for electricity from the Audets' generator.

In addition, the utility charges customers willing to pay it a 4-cents-per-kilowatt-hour premium for renewable energy and then turns the money over to the Audets. So far, more than 3,000 CVPS customers have signed up to pay the premium to support the renewable energy effort.

The bottom line is more than $120,000 a year from electricity sales. When they add in other energy savings enabled by the project, the Audets expect their $1.2 million investment in project equipment to pay for itself in about seven years.

The program has piqued interest.

Marie Audet, who describes herself as wife, bookkeeper, and milker, has become a tour guide, showing people from the United States and a handful of other countries around the farm's cow power operation.

Managing the hundreds of milking Holsteins — as well as young stock — is a high-tech operation.

In their stalls, cows munch contentedly on a mix of hay and silage while they make an occasional contribution of fuel for the Audets' power plant. An "alley scraper," which looks like a big squeegee on wheels, comes by to push their manure down the row and through grates to a conveyor belt below.

From there, the manure goes to an anaerobic — meaning oxygen-free — digester, a 100-foot-by-70-foot structure similar to a covered swimming pool built by Brickl's company. The manure spends 20 or 21 days in the digester, being pushed slowly from one end to other as more is added.

Three products result: a liquid that contains enough nutrients that it can be used as fertilizer for the farm's feed crops; a dry, odor-free, fluffy brown substance that is used as bedding for the cows and some of which goes to a local firm that bags and sells it as fertilizer on the home-and-garden market; and methane.

The methane is piped into an adjacent shed that contains a big Caterpillar engine that powers the 200-kilowatt generator.

Audet said the farm was saving the $1,200 a week it formerly spent on sawdust bedding for the cows, as well as some of the cost of heating the milking barn. A study by agricultural scientists from the University of Vermont found that the bedding produced from the manure was better than the sawdust. "Wood harbors a lot of bacteria," she said.

With the success of the 200-kW unit, the Audets are expanding by adding a new, 75-kilowatt hour generator. And Audet said she's even grown to like giving the tours.

"It's bringing a lot of people to the farm who are normally very removed from food producers," she said.

___

On the Net:

Central Vermont Public Service: http://www.cvps.com

[Harlan Huckleby]

I actually agree with the little blue slut. These hybrids are not the way of the future and are a wate of time and energy that could be focused on moving in another direction, like H3.

Sorry to spoil our tender moment, but I wasn't criticizing hybrids. Altho of course you are right that they are at most a temporary solution. If they can be bypassed, fine.

Is Hydrogen fuel a promising option? My impression is that is so unlikely and unsafe, and so far off in the future (at best) , that it is just an excuse for postponing more practical choices.

I am for any energy source - nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal - that doesn't involving burning shit. Hydrogen fuel is exception to my burning jihad, natch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

From an emissions standpoint, yes, hybrids do run cleaner, but the question still remains, what do you do with all those spent batteries?

Can't they recycle the chemicals somehow? Then refill-um?

If not, I say pile them up inside gated communities.

No wait, that was my idea for storing spent nuclear fuel.

Ya, disposing of batteries could be a problem, but certainly simple compared to spent nuclear fuel! Stick-um wherever they put recycled computers.

[MJZiggy]

I actually agree with the little blue slut. These hybrids are not the way of the future and are a wate of time and energy that could be focused on moving in another direction, like H3.

Sorry to spoil our tender moment, but I wasn't criticizing hybrids. Altho of course you are right that they are at most a temporary solution. If they can be bypassed, fine.

Is Hydrogen fuel a promising option? My impression is that is so unlikely and unsafe, and so far off in the future (at best) , that it is just an excuse for postponing more practical choices.

I am for any energy source - nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal - that doesn't involving burning shit. Hydrogen fuel is exception to my burning jihad, natch.

No, they're not burning the shit, just extracting the methane. :mrgreen:

Hydrogen is a promising option but there are safety concerns, according to Peter Hoffmann's book Tomorrow's Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and the Prospects for a Cleaner Planet Geothermal energy is also listed and doesn't include burning anything. I haven't actually read this book yet, but Hubby's in the middle of it and sometimes likes to paraphrase for me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Interesting choice of words there huck. It will grow exponentially. A bunch of scientists sat around a table and decided by committee what the data meant and allocated 1.8 billion dollars to global warming research


Come on now. Climate Science is VERY difficult stuff. But these are not fools. They propose models, and those models are tested against emperical evidence, over time. And the fact that many thousands of people around the world are investigating the problem is a good thing.

I would compare Climate Science to study of the human brain. It is an attempt to model a system that is complex beyond comprehension. Understanding comes with trial & error & misfires, but it comes.

If you want to dismiss the world wide community of climate scientists as a bunch of pointy-headed bumblers, what do you propose we replace them with? Personal observation?


The economic forces of higher fuel prices will drive innovation, just so long as the greenies don't try to interfere and protect us

Notion that environment could be adequately protected by market forces is absurd. Look where air quality was at and heading in 1970, and how dramatically it improved as the result of EPA regulations. The EPA created by Richard Nixon, BTW.

[MJZiggy]

Is it my imagination or did I read that Bush was trying to get rid of the EPA?

[mraynrand]

Come on now. Climate Science is VERY difficult stuff.


Look where air quality was at and heading in 1970, and how dramatically it improved as the result of EPA regulations. The EPA created by Richard Nixon, BTW.

Somehow, although climate science is very difficult, you are able to understand that the conslusions made by a committee are correct. Maybe YOU could serve on the board that decides which science is right and wrong. Hell, with the new model of how to do climatology being the convening of a committee, you could probably just do the 'experiments' at home in your head and send the 'results' directly to 'Science' and 'Nature' magazines.

Some EPA regulations may have helped, but if you check, you'll actually find that most improvements in the environment were actually made as a result of engines and processes being made more efficient as a cost-cutting technique or just as a general improvement in the process. A lot of the cleaner burning fuels and engines are used today because they work better (it's called innovation), not because some governmental bureaucrat mandated it. I'm not against the EPA, monitoring pollution, etc. - but to give them sole credit for reducing pollution from factories and autos would be absurd.

And who cares whether the EPA was under Nixon? Nixon was more liberal in many ways than JFK. If JFK were around today, he's be a Republican and Nixon would be a Democrat. Dubya is more liberal by far with regard to governmental spending than JFK was. The only difference really, is that Dubya is more conservative with respect to social issues - but that should be obvious since he isn't using the Secret Service as pimps.

[mraynrand]

And the fact that many thousands of people around the world are investigating the problem is a good thing.

Really? How many thousands should study the problem? Is 1.8 billion enough to spend? Perhaps if Al Gore is elected pres in 2008, he'll dedicate several more billions to the study of specifically the global warming problem. I wonder who will determine how much is enough? Perhaps the climatologists? Of course, they are unbiased scientists and would only ask for the bare minimum to understand the problem, right?

[mraynrand]

I would compare Climate Science to study of the human brain. It is an attempt to model a system that is complex beyond comprehension. Understanding comes with trial & error & misfires, but it comes.


I'm confused here. If a system is 'complex beyond comprehension' then how can understanding come? And I would think that a 'trial and error' approach would be an especially wasteful and inefficient manner in which to understand a process that is 'complex beyond comprehension.' Perhaps we should just convene a committee of climate scientists to claim that global warming is a fact, that the debate is over, and that we still need 1.8 billion more to study a known fact.

[the_idle_threat]

This should solve everything. :wink:



By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 30, 7:58 AM ET

BRIDPORT, Vt. - The cows at the Audet family's Blue Spruce Farm make nearly 9,000 gallons of milk a day — and about 35,000 gallons of manure.
ADVERTISEMENT

It's long been the milk that pays, but now the Audets have figured out how to make the manure pay as well. They're using it — actually, the methane that comes from it — to generate electricity.

With the help of their power company, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., the Audets have devised a way to extract the methane from the manure and pipe it to a generator.

They make enough electricity to power 300 to 400 average Vermont homes. It's renewable energy, and they're not the only ones interested in it. Four other Vermont farms now have similar projects in the planning or early construction stages, power company officials said.

The Audets "deserve to be congratulated. They're the pioneers among Vermont farmers," said Dave Dunn, a senior energy consultant with CVPS who worked with them on the cow power project.

Elsewhere in the country, farmers are using similar technology to make energy, said Corey Brickl, project manager with Wisconsin-based GHD Inc., which built a device that the Audets use to harvest the methane.

One in Washington uses tomato waste from a salsa factory and waste from a fish stick plant as fuel, Brickl said.

For the Audets, the electricity has created an important new income stream at a time when low wholesale milk prices have squeezed their margin. The utility pays 95 percent of the going New England wholesale power price for electricity from the Audets' generator.

In addition, the utility charges customers willing to pay it a 4-cents-per-kilowatt-hour premium for renewable energy and then turns the money over to the Audets. So far, more than 3,000 CVPS customers have signed up to pay the premium to support the renewable energy effort.

The bottom line is more than $120,000 a year from electricity sales. When they add in other energy savings enabled by the project, the Audets expect their $1.2 million investment in project equipment to pay for itself in about seven years.

The program has piqued interest.

Marie Audet, who describes herself as wife, bookkeeper, and milker, has become a tour guide, showing people from the United States and a handful of other countries around the farm's cow power operation.

Managing the hundreds of milking Holsteins — as well as young stock — is a high-tech operation.

In their stalls, cows munch contentedly on a mix of hay and silage while they make an occasional contribution of fuel for the Audets' power plant. An "alley scraper," which looks like a big squeegee on wheels, comes by to push their manure down the row and through grates to a conveyor belt below.

From there, the manure goes to an anaerobic — meaning oxygen-free — digester, a 100-foot-by-70-foot structure similar to a covered swimming pool built by Brickl's company. The manure spends 20 or 21 days in the digester, being pushed slowly from one end to other as more is added.

Three products result: a liquid that contains enough nutrients that it can be used as fertilizer for the farm's feed crops; a dry, odor-free, fluffy brown substance that is used as bedding for the cows and some of which goes to a local firm that bags and sells it as fertilizer on the home-and-garden market; and methane.

The methane is piped into an adjacent shed that contains a big Caterpillar engine that powers the 200-kilowatt generator.

Audet said the farm was saving the $1,200 a week it formerly spent on sawdust bedding for the cows, as well as some of the cost of heating the milking barn. A study by agricultural scientists from the University of Vermont found that the bedding produced from the manure was better than the sawdust. "Wood harbors a lot of bacteria," she said.

With the success of the 200-kW unit, the Audets are expanding by adding a new, 75-kilowatt hour generator. And Audet said she's even grown to like giving the tours.

"It's bringing a lot of people to the farm who are normally very removed from food producers," she said.

___

On the Net:

Central Vermont Public Service: http://www.cvps.com


If burning bullshit can be made into a reliable energy source, then we've just discovered a use for the FYI thread! And all of Tank's posts!



























































... and all of my posts! :mrgreen:

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm confused here. If a system is 'complex beyond comprehension' then how can understanding come? And I would think that a 'trial and error' approach would be an especially wasteful and inefficient



Understanding comes from creating a description, or model, of the complex system. Then you collect data, perform experiments, and test/refine the model, keep learning.

Newtonian physics was a model that described the physical world, it held up for 300 years. On closer inspection, it was found to be wrong - replaced by quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics worked for a while, but then it too became inadequate to explain everything, replaced by quantum dynamics. Now, maybe string theory.

We'll never completely comprehend the brain, or the universe, or our planet. We just continuously refine or replace models, and use the models for practical purposes along the way.

Sorry for the "our friend science" lecture.

[Harlan Huckleby]

listen to excellent radio show on electric cars:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5524918

[mraynrand]

Newtonian physics was a model that described the physical world, it held up for 300 years. On closer inspection, it was found to be wrong - .

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

[mraynrand]

listen to excellent radio show on electric cars:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5524918

Huck, you gotta expand your horizons. Nothing wrong with a little NPR, but if that's your primary news source, you're in a lot of trouble. Listen to NPR and you will discover:

1) All cello players are lesbians
2) Socialism is an effective economic model
3) Atheism is a direct correlate of Darwinism
4) No single human outside the U.S. actually likes the U.S.
5) Most Americans hate the U.S.
6) WMDs were the only stated reason for the U.S. liberation of Iraq
7) Human embryonic stem cells hold the key for all human progress
8) Human created global warming is an undebateable certainty that will wipe out civilization as we know it
9) SUV drivers are demon spawn
10) Jazz is the most popular form of music in the USA, and all forms of ethnic and tribal music around the world are better than European symphonies

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

Actually Newton's laws only appear to be true at slow speeds (much slower than speed of light.)
For instance, your F=MA equation? The mass actually increases as it accelerates. At slow speeds, the mass increase is too small to notice. (The disortion of mass and space with speed is relativity.)

As far as your first law of motion, my glib answer is it depends on the frame of reference that you observe from.

But back to topic. The "Global Cooling" models back in the 70's weren't "wrong", they were just incomplete. Just like Newton's laws aren't entirely "wrong". The Global Cooling factors are still included in the new models that predict Global Warming. Both the types of pollution have changed, and understanding of earth has moved forward.

Anyway, enough. It is true that the models today are not "true", they will get changed again. But they get better, I believe that much. Guess I am believer in forward progress of science.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5524918

Huck, you gotta expand your horizons. Nothing wrong with a little NPR, but if that's your primary news source, you're in a lot of trouble.


I love the NPR discussion shows, especially On Point. Ya, sometimes the hosts bring a decidely liberal bias, but they do bring-in a nice cross-section of guests.
Check out the quality of discussion: http://www.onpointradio.org/

I also read the Wall Street Journal, watch Fox News, and listen to right-wing radio shows. So don't worry too much about my being brain-washed, I'll be OK.

[mraynrand]

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

Actually Newton's laws only appear to be true at slow speeds (much slower than speed of light.)
For instance, your F=MA equation? The mass actually increases as it accelerates. At slow speeds, the mass increase is too small to notice. (The disortion of mass and space with speed is relativity.)

As far as your first law of motion, my glib answer is it depends on the frame of reference that you observe from.

But back to topic. The "Global Cooling" models back in the 70's weren't "wrong", they were just incomplete. Just like Newton's laws aren't entirely "wrong". The Global Cooling factors are still included in the new models that predict Global Warming. Both the types of pollution have changed, and understanding of earth has moved forward.

Anyway, enough. It is true that the models today are not "true", they will get changed again. But they get better, I believe that much. Guess I am believer in forward progress of science.


No shit F=MA works at far below sublight speeds. That's where Newtonian mechanics are relevant. Maybe next you're going to derive Schroedinger's wave equation for me.

Both types of pollution have changed? What do you mean?

Huck have you read the primary papers on global warming? Go read the original articles from Science and Nature for the past four to five years. Look at the models. Even for a scientists untrained in climatology, I can tell bullshit science when I see it. Global cooling trends in equatorial regions are ignored, 'inexplicably' high CO2 levels over China and the Pacific ocean and far lower CO2 levels over the USA are dismissed with a hand wave. Projection models are confused with Predictive models. Measured and predicted temperatures are routinely ignored when they don't fit the paradigm. Changes in deserts and forests, known to be the result of changing wind patterns are attributed to global warming by ignoramuses. Scientific results are determined at conference tables over field research results. Who the *uck really knows given most of this crap? We could be headed for disaster and not know it because the science has been totally corrupted.


BTW, if you watch FOX news other than Brit Hume and a couple of other decent features, you're wasting your time. FOX has it's collection of idealogues and blowhards and an insufferable amount of trajedy du jour as well. 95% of 'cable news' could be put off the air and we'd never miss it. Greta van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman should be forced to watch Gilligan's Island reruns for the rest of their lives as punishment for the crap they put on the air.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No shit F=MA works at far below sublight speeds.


OK, but point is that F=MA was always imprecise model at any speed, and people didn't realize it. They thought they had discovered some fundamental truth. Same deal with quantum mechanics. I'm blowing hard about this only to make analogy to Global Warming model, fact that it will someday be revised does not mean it is bad science or useless.



Huck have you read the primary papers on global warming? Go read the original articles from Science and Nature for the past four to five years. Look at the models. Even for a scientists untrained in climatology, I can tell bullshit science when I see it. Global cooling trends in equatorial regions are ignored, 'inexplicably' high CO2 levels over China and the Pacific ocean and far lower CO2 levels over the USA are dismissed with a hand wave. Projection models are confused with Predictive models. Measured and predicted temperatures are routinely ignored when they don't fit the paradigm.


There are anomalies. A thickening of ice in parts of Antartic. The fact that temperatures cooled slightly from 1950-1970 during industrialization period. But it's untrue that the problems are ignored. I read explanations for these discrepencies, they sound plausible to me, but what do I know?

How are we to evaluate the quality of the science? Well, the Republicans in the Senate were suspicious/disgruntled with the science, so they ordered a non-partisian panel from the Academy of Sciences to do a year-long review of the scientific methods. The report came back two weeks ago, it described uncertainties in the predictions, but generally substantiated the science.

Who are we to believe? Your analysis may be impressive, could even be correct. But this is not an issue where individual scientists can weigh all factors. I'm not asking a rhetorical question, please propose who/how the scientific decision should be made.

BTW, you made a misleading statement a while back, suggesting that the GW advocates take surveys of generalists to prove consenus. On the contrary, this is from the playbook of the skeptics! The community of Climate Scientists have a strong consensus in favor of the Global Warming models; in fact, a more relevant criticism is that they are locked into a group think mode, with a self-interest in perpetuating GW concern. Check the surveys, when doubt is cast about GW, it is from "meteorologists" or "scientists."

Well, to answer my own question, I'm trusting the judgment of the majority of Climate Scientists, even if this is imperfect. They are taking stock of all the data. The GW theory has been tested and debated for 25 years, and grows in credibility and acceptance.

[Mr. T]

Hey everyone,

I love to debate about this subject. I really don't have time to organize my thoughts, so this is kind of a rant.

A few points. (keep in mind that I haven't read this entire thread, sorry for repeats)

First of all, as some have pointed out, recent global warming exists only depending on the time frame that is chosen. I think HH mentioned that between 1950's and 1970's, the earth experienced a cooling period.

Second, I didn't see any mention of the effects of WATER! I have never ever once heard the media mention water in their discussion of global warming.

Every time you burn gasoline, you not only create carbon dioxide, but you also create water vapor! That's why it looks like there's smoke coming out of the tailpipe of your car during the winter (the water condenses as it hits cold air). Observe the chemical equation below

[typical molecular
formula of gas] [oxygen] [carbon dioxide] [water vapor]
C8H15 + 15.5 (O2) =======> 8 (CO2) + 7.5 (H2O)

You can look this up in any chemistry book, it's a standard combustion reaction. The important thing here is that in all non-nuclear chemical reactions, matter must be conserved. As you can see, gasoline is a compound of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Carbon dioxide contains no hydrogen atoms, but they must be conserved in the reaction equation - they have to go somewhere!

So why is this important? As gasoline is burned, not only water vapor, but NOx and SOx are released into the atmosphere. All three of these compounds will tend to cause more clouds to form in the atmosphere. The more clouds that form, the sunlight that is reflected, and the less the earth is heated! Also, increasing the water content of the atmosphere increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere, meaning it takes more energy to heat the atmophere.

Now, from what I've heard, the current models skirt around the whole issue of water vapor. I haven't read any of the current global warming papers, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

IN ADDITION, it is my belief that global warming, true or not, is used as a scare tactic used by anti-fossil fuel pundits to encourage alternative energy sources. Why else would they emphasize scary sounding *CARBON DIOXIDE* (say it using one of those horror movie preview voices) and ignore water vapor?

Even if global warming is occurring, there is no proof that increased carbon dioxide emissions are the cause, direct or indirect. Rember, we're talking about something that makes up 0.03 - 0.05% of the earth's atmosphere. Wait, the percentage is actually smaller than that, because carbon dioxide is only 0.03% of the air on a DRY BASIS (ignoring water vapor).

There are other possible causes of global warming. Is it possible that the sun's sunspot cycle has an effect (check out this article from NASA's website: http://tinyurl.com/rytzu)? Are there geothermal contributions to the earth's surface temperature (the mass of the earth is increasing)? What about frictional tidal effects? I don't know the answer to these questions, but they're relevant and could all be affect the earth's climate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

IN ADDITION, it is my belief that global warming, true or not, is used as a scare tactic used by anti-fossil fuel pundits to encourage alternative energy sources.


A "scare tactic" implies dishonesty. The majority of Climate Scientists, along with the fossil fuel haters, would have to be united in a conspiracy of deception.


Why else would they emphasize scary sounding *CARBON DIOXIDE* (say it using one of those horror movie preview voices) and ignore water vapor?

Even if global warming is occurring, there is no proof that increased carbon dioxide emissions are the cause, direct or indirect. Rember, we're talking about something that makes up 0.03 - 0.05% of the earth's atmosphere.


There surely is an intelligent answer to the question that you raise.
It's not credible that the scientists on other side of debate are clueless.

(BTW, your water vapor argument was made to Supreme Court, to justify not including CO2 as a pollutant, controllable by EPA. The lawyer said if CO2 is pollutant, so is H2O).

Looking back 4 ice ages, the rise and fall of the earth's temperature tracks closely with CO2 levels. (data gathered from drilling into artic ice, I believe.) I don't know how a causal relationship is explained.

IT's impossible to debate GW on a technical level here. I wish we had an expert to respond to the excellent questions raised.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe someone could answer the question of why Office Depot sends me two boxes, each 4' x 2' x 8", in a 48 foot commercial semi. My boxes were the only contents of the trailer and the truck driver was just as confused as I was. I'm sure the 4 MPG that truck gets were a great way to get my shit to me.

[mraynrand]

Why rehash the same bullshit over and over. here's what I wrote in April of 2006

-----------------
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 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 Foundation science fiction series. In this series, future scientists called “psychohistorians" 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 'skeleton' (cytoskeleton) 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 “skeleton" 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 are 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 'better' results? Is it in their interest to find new and 'better' 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.

[bobblehead]

Well written rand, but its easier to point out that mars is experiencing global warming too....and as far as I know there is no human involvement.

Prior to that knowledge I was on the fence about this. I couldn't decide who to believe as I'm wary of both sides. But tell me that Mars is coincidently experiencing global warming at the same time as we humans are causing it on earth...well, that just stretches my imagination a bit.

[Kiwon]

How do you like this portion of Barack's new "Declaration of Independence?"

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to those patriots who founded our nation in Philadelphia or defended it in Baltimore, but to take up the cause for which they gave so much. The trials we face are very different now, but severe in their own right. Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil."

By the way, the "Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely" part clearly indicates that he has no depth of understanding of the global threat of Islamic terrorism. It's more just mindless campaign-like rhetoric.